DX 9.1 True?

This might be good actually. It might mean that one of them might have something up their sleeves. This will mean that the graphics war will continue and the next next gen cards might come out earlier.

My hunch.. ATI .. since they are(shoudl be) in bed with MS(XBox2) and might know what next gen hardware to make for the software.

At least I hope so.

US

 

That's just an impression you are getting from the NV40 leaks and the "unofficial" information that has been slipping out from the Nvidia camp. Heck, we've already seen "unofficial" NV40 benchmarks leaked, just like the ones a couple of months before the NV30, which also turned out to be horrendusly optimisitc and limited to strictly controled circumstances.

Given Nvidia's history of putting out (sometimes quite subtle) FUD as spoilers, I wouldn't rely on any impressions you have been given it until we see actual hardware being reviewed.

 

I don't think the XBox2 deal will help ATI any in developing future technologies. The original X-Box didn't seem to help nVidia any (if anything, it hurt nVidia's PC parts...and by help I'm not talking money...obviously nVidia made quite a bit of money out of the deal).

 

Considering the number of sites sitting around waiting to see if "nVidia takes back the crown" and the fact that it will likely be a battle of FP16 Vs. FP24, I think the way in which sites deal with this when doing head-to-head comparisons will be every bit as interesting as the final hardware itself.

Oh, and we really should have a sweepstake on how many sites will describe the nVidia method as "flexible"

 

No, they all describe the nVidia method as more "elegant" while ATI's method is "brute force".

 

You have some credible reason to believe those benchmarks came from NV? Looked like the work of some bored fanboi to me. Other than process size and transistor count (which we have from both sides), I don't know that we've seen much that I could point at and say comfortably ("Ah, that's NV leaking"). Been rumors of improved AA. I hope that one comes true *this time*. I haven't been willing to credit it, however, as I recall "improved AA" being near the top of every rumor list since GF4.

 

I think it will certainly help ATI in having the "edge" when it comes to DirectX API standards. You can be sure that DX10 (assuming XBNext is based on DX10) will be very similar to whatever capabilities that R500/XB2 Chips have.

Much like The "GeForce3" / XBox-1 chip was more or less the "referece" for DirectX 8.0, I see the same thing with R500/X-Box2 and DX10.

And as we know, from both the DX8 and DX9 "refernce" chips (GeForce3 and Radeon R300 respectively), the chip that more or less sets the standard seems to be the chip with the best advantage.

 

I wouldn't expect fan boys to have access to NV40 pre-production hardware. It also resemebles very closely the style and timing of similar pre-launch hyping this time last year before the aborted release of NV30.

I would have expected Nvidia to have scotched any fake benchmarks, even if just by feeding out "these are not real" statements through their mouthpiece fansites. It's in Nvidia's interest and is their standard operating procedure to leave such figures live on the web, unless it shows them in a bad light - in which case you can guarentee a letter from the lawyers). This way Nvidia keeps "plausible deniabilty", while still letting everyone get their misleading-but-makes-them-look-good statements out into the open.

They do this sort of thing all the time, the best example of which would be announcing via HardOCP that their briliner (when discovered) was just a mistake that would rectified in the next driver, only for Nvidia to backtrack and simply claim they never said that after it had all blown over.

 

For what it's worth, they didn't come from nVidia - although it wouldn't suprise me if the results were obtained under very specific and controlled conditions. They should definitely be taken with a grain of salt at this point, for various reasons.

As was said at the time, it's a talking point - not a reference point.

 

Well, before the NV30 was launched, like 2/3rds of the rumors were outright made up, so I don't place much faith in obscure website leaks.

 

That's what I think too. If MS is already looking in to DirectXNext(DX10) then ATI could be assisting/improving what MS might want for DX10. Since XBox2 should run DX10 and Longhorn should also run DX10 then ATI could have an advantage here as they've help MS with the BOX2.

Should be interesting anyways to see what happens.

US

 

Hardware IHV's have always been the primary driving force behind the features implemented in new versions of DirectX.

As an example, why do you think DirectX 8.1 was released?

 

In the case of the non-existing dx9.1 it's still IMHO due to the marketing yadda yadda to differentiate PS/VS3.0 from PS/VS2.0 or 2.0+ chips.

I don't seem to hear anything else but dx9.1 for PS/VS3.0 upcoming HW...

 

Agreed. My point is, certain hardware makers have had more or less "refernce" designs for the past few DX releases. (Their hardware more closely matched the DX8 specs / architecture than the competitors.)

[qupote]As an example, why do you think DirectX 8.1 was released?[/quote]

Why do you think DirectX 8 has two versions at all, 8.0 and 8.1...rather than just have DX 8 with the DX 8.1 specs?

 

Well that wasn't a marketing decision - there was a runtime update... witH the ps3/vs3 stuff no runtime update is needed so it isn't really a fair comparison

 

Having a DX9.1 for purely marketting reasons will never work. PS3.0 is already supported by DX9.0, so in effect a DX9.0 card (the next gen cards that is) will be called a DX9.1 card. And of course because of this, any PS2.0 card will probably be called a DX9.1 card too. Hell, why not!

 

It appears the issue has finally been answered:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=10150&forum=9

 

Was I the only person besides DigitalWanderer to say "Thank God someone cleared that one up once and for all"?