Thought you guys might find this interesting, given the PS2.0/PS3.0 debate:
http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/6618
http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/6618
Devs Speak on PS3.0
- Thread starter Ardrid
- Start date
DW Fan!!!!!
Newcomer
It seems that the TWIMTBP devs seemed quick to say how good it is and if you look at there explanations they are all essentially the same just worded differently, yet the other dev's seemed not to have these fancy explanations and just worded it like we would expect to hear it (dont you just love laymans terms) that there is nothing which can be done in PS3.0 which cant be done in PS2.0 and that they dont expect anyone to take full advantage of it for a long time.
I would be more inclined to put more faith in this article if they had chosen NOT to use Nvidia's promotional dev's and I think without them this article would have been very different.
I think ATI's Get in the game and Nvidia's TWIMTBP should be scrapped or at least stopped as Devs are becoming marketting puppets on both sides and it is not something I would like to see spreading in the PC gaming community as it is essentially dividing them from there proper goal of creating games which work equally well on both IHV's.
I would be more inclined to put more faith in this article if they had chosen NOT to use Nvidia's promotional dev's and I think without them this article would have been very different.
I think ATI's Get in the game and Nvidia's TWIMTBP should be scrapped or at least stopped as Devs are becoming marketting puppets on both sides and it is not something I would like to see spreading in the PC gaming community as it is essentially dividing them from there proper goal of creating games which work equally well on both IHV's.
It could also be that the members of TWIMTBP have participated in events highlighting the use of these features, so they know more about them...
I dont think any of them would be fooled by the sort of propaganda NV would try to push on the avrage gamer about PS3.0 and such..
And also had samples of NV40 to try the SM3.0 out in reallife situations aswell..
Sweeny was pretty happy about it, but keep in mind the UE3.0 engine is prolly not out before R500&NV50, specially since he said things will be done in FP32 across the board..
Well unless ATI contrary to all rumours is actually putting out a SM3.0 and full FP32 part soon...
I cant say for sure ofcouce, but the devs that are in the TWIMTBP, or ATIs equivalent, are there cause of the events that lets them get the full scope and updates on what the hardware is capable of, that might have been more useful for Nvidia before, cause R3xx was more along the lines of DX9 then NV3x that seems to be "in need of special treatment" and now since Nvidia has a support for a new SM, and would want devs to get up to speed with that as fast as possible..
Now im sounding like a "Cheerleader" (the "other" word doesnt work anymore, yay hehe) here sticking up for Nvidia, but i like to think Im being rather impartial, and to counterweigh it all:
Sweeny was happy about it, but they are working on a next gen engine due 2006..
Most said while FP32 can in some cases be useful, its nothing like very important, and its more of a "future" thing
The general idea is that PS3.0 can be used to do some things that would cost extra performance in PS2.0, but the onesided hardwaresupport will prevent it from playing a larger roll then a few small "extras" in some title, and perhaps 1 bigger "SM3.0" showcasetype of game.. and some eventual performance boosts in some cases
I dont think any of them would be fooled by the sort of propaganda NV would try to push on the avrage gamer about PS3.0 and such..
And also had samples of NV40 to try the SM3.0 out in reallife situations aswell..
Sweeny was pretty happy about it, but keep in mind the UE3.0 engine is prolly not out before R500&NV50, specially since he said things will be done in FP32 across the board..
Well unless ATI contrary to all rumours is actually putting out a SM3.0 and full FP32 part soon...
I cant say for sure ofcouce, but the devs that are in the TWIMTBP, or ATIs equivalent, are there cause of the events that lets them get the full scope and updates on what the hardware is capable of, that might have been more useful for Nvidia before, cause R3xx was more along the lines of DX9 then NV3x that seems to be "in need of special treatment" and now since Nvidia has a support for a new SM, and would want devs to get up to speed with that as fast as possible..
Now im sounding like a "Cheerleader" (the "other" word doesnt work anymore, yay hehe) here sticking up for Nvidia, but i like to think Im being rather impartial, and to counterweigh it all:
Sweeny was happy about it, but they are working on a next gen engine due 2006..
Most said while FP32 can in some cases be useful, its nothing like very important, and its more of a "future" thing
The general idea is that PS3.0 can be used to do some things that would cost extra performance in PS2.0, but the onesided hardwaresupport will prevent it from playing a larger roll then a few small "extras" in some title, and perhaps 1 bigger "SM3.0" showcasetype of game.. and some eventual performance boosts in some cases
GraphixViolence
Newcomer
I particularly liked how Andrey from CryTek gave his little checklist of all the supposedly useful new features of SM3.0... including 16-bit FP render targets and MRT which the 9700 Pro has already had for the last year and a half 
DW Fan!!!!!
Newcomer
Thats your opinion and I understand your point, the problem is, its actually amazing what TWIMTBP members will do to protect Nvidia (do you remember TRAOD).
Also almost all Devs will have been at those same events including those which were interviewed, these are people who are'nt fooled by Nvidia's propaganda.
I personally think BOTH Get In The Game and TWIMTBP are BAD things and we do not need them, they are purely for marketing and that is what they are doing but you do not agree and that is fine as everyone has there own point of view and opinion of whats going on around them.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree
Also almost all Devs will have been at those same events including those which were interviewed, these are people who are'nt fooled by Nvidia's propaganda.
I personally think BOTH Get In The Game and TWIMTBP are BAD things and we do not need them, they are purely for marketing and that is what they are doing but you do not agree and that is fine as everyone has there own point of view and opinion of whats going on around them.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree
If NV4x doesn't support SM3.0 at the first place, this technology will delay for at a least a year.
Its really good to have flexibility and no limitation in coding. The DX9 lifespan seems long enough until DXnext or whatever come out.
It's a pity that ATI decided not to support SM3.0 at this time.
________
Toyota A-Bat Specifications
Its really good to have flexibility and no limitation in coding. The DX9 lifespan seems long enough until DXnext or whatever come out.
It's a pity that ATI decided not to support SM3.0 at this time.
________
Toyota A-Bat Specifications
Last edited by a moderator:
Hellbinder
Banned
LOL, Ati has been orffering FP24 Render targets... Even better FP24 *MULTIPLE* Render Targets since the R300's LaunchGraphixViolence said:I particularly liked how Andrey from CryTek gave his little checklist of all the supposedly useful new features of SM3.0... including 16-bit FP render targets and MRT which the 9700 Pro has already had for the last year and a half
The motivation of some of thee developers to say the things they say is a real enigma. Is money really so important that you basically poke your eyes out with a Stick and sell your soul to Nvidia
DW Fan!!!!! said:Thats your opinion and I understand your point, the problem is, its actually amazing what TWIMTBP members will do to protect Nvidia (do you remember TRAOD).
Also almost all Devs will have been at those same events including those which were interviewed, these are people who are'nt fooled by Nvidia's propaganda.
I personally think BOTH Get In The Game and TWIMTBP are BAD things and we do not need them, they are purely for marketing and that is what they are doing but you do not agree and that is fine as everyone has there own point of view and opinion of whats going on around them.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree
hehe, might have to do that.. (what about Tomb raider btw?)
TWIMTBP and ATIs thing could be removed as marketing campaigns, and stickers and logos ingame, that i agree on..
It spreads false belifs that the game does exclusivly run better on this or that hardware which might not always be true..
The activities where devs and hardware manufactureres interact and meet should be kept, specially since the complexity of graphics is increasing the devs have to keep up to date and reeducate themselves all the time to not fall behind...
The end result (discounting all the marketing stunts) is benefitial to end users.. id think anyhow.. not really well educated in the field of these affairs hehe..
While I can understand the mocking of those 2 particular aformentioned points that Andrey made, he did provide 7 fairly viable reasons as well.
However I am most interested in this quote:
Particularly, I'm wondering how much of a performance impact this will actually make.
However I am most interested in this quote:
Andrey said:
Particularly, I'm wondering how much of a performance impact this will actually make.
Last edited by a moderator:
GraphixViolence
Newcomer
My problem with the checklist is that it just reads like marketing documentation, rather than an real critical assessment of the new features. The two points I mentioned just reinforce that.
For example, he mentions "Increase quality of lighting calculations using 32 bit precision in pixel shaders on NV40". Does this mean using 32-bit precision actually makes a noticeable difference vs. 24-bit? What about the performance impact? What about those screenshots from Tom's Hardware that seem to indicate they're currently using reduced (16 bit?) lighting precision on NV40?
For example, he mentions "Increase quality of lighting calculations using 32 bit precision in pixel shaders on NV40". Does this mean using 32-bit precision actually makes a noticeable difference vs. 24-bit? What about the performance impact? What about those screenshots from Tom's Hardware that seem to indicate they're currently using reduced (16 bit?) lighting precision on NV40?
