Egg on ATI's face?

[digitalwanderer]

Well, I'm puzzled about the title of this thread.

I did just read, however, a little tidbit written by the Inquirer (have temporarily misplaced the link, sorry) which tells a story of SirEric waking up this morning, walking over to his bedroom window and throwing it open, inhaling a lungful of clean, fresh air, and then bellowing out to the bustling street below, "Good morning world! What a great day it is to be alive! How marvelous, how wonderf--"

When he is hit in the face by a flying cheese omelet hurled from a passenger riding atop a passing double-decker bus.

Is that what you're talking about here?

ROFL~~~

"How much does that weigh?"

"Ham!"

 

[Doomtrooper]

Alot of those games are CPU limited, 6XFSAA is almost free on alot of titles. The 9700 Pro is at 380/350, XP 3200 @ 3400 and 1gig of PC 3200.

1024 x 768 is my native resoltion I play at normally. I just checked I average 70 fps on Dungeon Siege 6XAA, even took pictures

 

[991060]

Since we have no idea what features R4xx will support all this is premature.

True, but we already know some features are missed for fact, be it PS3.0.

Now what I really wanna see in the final R420 product: fp filtering/blending, VS3.0, better AA, improved AF. To be honest, I have no idea whether ATi will implement any of them. I do hope they will, but it's simply unknown to me.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I have my doubts 8x will be that important. Most people don't run in 6x right now. 8x would exceed the bandwidth of 1.2Ghz GDDR3 by a hefty margin.

It's common to run 4X on Radeon R300+ boards...which range from 270-350 Mhz DDR.

Stepping up to "only" 600 Mhz, and assuming *zero* efficiency gains, could certainly make 8x a possibility.

I think you keep forgetting how relatively "slow" R3xx's current memory speeds are...

 

[trinibwoy]

Alot of those games are CPU limited, 6XFSAA is almost free on alot of titles. The 9700 Pro is at 380/350, XP 3200 @ 3400 and 1gig of PC 3200.

1024 x 768 is my native resoltion I play at normally. I just checked I average 70 fps on Dungeon Siege 6XAA, even took pictures

OT:

I take it you're using an LCD cause I usually up res before I increase AA. How'd you find dungeon siege? I won it in a programming competition but never opened because of the so-so reviews.....

 

[trinibwoy]

I think you keep forgetting how relatively "slow" R3xx's current memory speeds are...

Tell me about it....my stupid 9800 can't do more than 340 mem

 

[Doomtrooper]

OT:

I take it you're using an LCD cause I usually up res before I increase AA. How'd you find dungeon siege? I won it in a programming competition but never opened because of the so-so reviews.....

Nope I prefer high AA vs high resolution as my 19" CRT Samsung supports only 60hz @ 1600 x 1200. 1024 x 768 6XAA there isn't a jaggy anywhere.

Dungeon Siege won game of the year so not sure what reviews you read ?? It is a Diablo 2 style game with a real 3D engine though. Alot of fun with a bunch of friends.

Screen shots:

Screen 1

Screen 2

Screen 3

 

[Malfunction]

OT:

I take it you're using an LCD cause I usually up res before I increase AA. How'd you find dungeon siege? I won it in a programming competition but never opened because of the so-so reviews.....

Nope I prefer high AA vs high resolution as my 19" CRT Samsung supports only 60hz @ 1600 x 1200. 1024 x 768 6XAA there isn't a jaggy anywhere.

Dungeon Siege won game of the year so not sure what reviews you read ?? It is a Diablo 2 style game with a real 3D engine though. Alot of fun with a bunch of friends.

Screen shots:

Screen 1

Screen 2

Screen 3

I wouldn't mind seeing fraps running in those screens.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Dungeon Siege has it own frame counter, and shown in the top left corner .
Edit: I see you thought I was playing at 10 fps, think again

 

[Malfunction]

Dungeon Siege has it own frame counter, and show in the top left corner .

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't know it had.. lol. I've only played it 3 times though... I think I might install it just to give it ago again. I was on a starcraft, warcraft, C&C Generals kick that just died out of boredom... lol.

 

[Doomtrooper]

That is the Legends of Arana expansion with a new world map.

 

[John Reynolds]

1024 x 768 6XAA there isn't a jaggy anywhere.

I'm currently playing Painkiller at 10x7 with 6x AA and while, yes, it looks damn nice, there's still noticeable aliasing in the game. I'd go to a higher resolution but the game only supports 12x10 and 16x12, neither of which I care for all that much.

 

[anaqer]

I'd go to a higher resolution but the game only supports 12x10 and 16x12, neither of which I care for all that much.

<OT>Anyone knows why 1280x1024 even exists whereas the far more reasonable 1280x960 has almost no support in games? </OT>

 

[joe emo]

1280x1024 is a very common resolution for LCD monitors in the 17 to 18" range. It's the native res on the Sony Professional Flat LCD I use.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I'd go to a higher resolution but the game only supports 12x10 and 16x12, neither of which I care for all that much.

<OT>Anyone knows why 1280x1024 even exists whereas the far more reasonable 1280x960 has almost no support in games? </OT>

Don't quote me on this, but I believe 1280x1024 is a fairly standard resolution for Flat Panel displays. Still, doesn't excuse 1280x960's absence...and it also begs the question...why is 1280x1024 a standard flat panel resolution, instead of the 4:3 1280x960?

 

[DemoCoder]

It's common to run 4X on Radeon R300+ boards...which range from 270-350 Mhz DDR.

Stepping up to "only" 600 Mhz, and assuming *zero* efficiency gains, could certainly make 8x a possibility.

You're talking about a 4x increase in bandwidth needed vs a 2x increase in memory.

I think you keep forgetting how relatively "slow" R3xx's current memory speeds are...

I think you're forgetting how quadratic growth outscales linear.

I have no doubt it will be possible in some games, but I think it will be the exception, not the rule.

 

[joe emo]

Don't quote me on this, but I believe 1280x1024 is a fairly standard resolution for Flat Panel displays. Still, doesn't excuse 1280x960's absence...and it also begs the question...why is 1280x1024 a standard flat panel resolution, instead of the 4:3 1280x960?

if you can use a good 17 or 18" flat panel for some time, you'll know exactly why its 1280x1024

 

[DemoCoder]

I'd go to a higher resolution but the game only supports 12x10 and 16x12, neither of which I care for all that much.

<OT>Anyone knows why 1280x1024 even exists whereas the far more reasonable 1280x960 has almost no support in games? </OT>

Don't quote me on this, but I believe 1280x1024 is a fairly standard resolution for Flat Panel displays. Still, doesn't excuse 1280x960's absence...and it also begs the question...why is 1280x1024 a standard flat panel resolution, instead of the 4:3 1280x960?

Correct, 1280x1024 is flat panel. I have gotten rid of all CRTs in my house. I only have LCDs and DLPs now. (I despise CRTs now ) I have no idea why 1280x1024 was chosen, but I will say that for LCDs, you want to run at native resolution and avoid magnification interpolation, so you either lock your resolution at the LCDs (e.g. 1280x1024 or 1600x1200) or you play in "letterboxed" mode.

 

[Frank]

I'd go to a higher resolution but the game only supports 12x10 and 16x12, neither of which I care for all that much.

<OT>Anyone knows why 1280x1024 even exists whereas the far more reasonable 1280x960 has almost no support in games? </OT>

Don't quote me on this, but I believe 1280x1024 is a fairly standard resolution for Flat Panel displays. Still, doesn't excuse 1280x960's absence...and it also begs the question...why is 1280x1024 a standard flat panel resolution, instead of the 4:3 1280x960?

Why did the 320x200 resolution exist, instead of the more reasonable 320x240? Because it is easier on the hardware. 320x200 = just a bit less than 64kB, 1024 = 10 bits row adres.

1280x1024 needed the same hardware to implement as 1280x960 when it was first used, while offering more pixels. More bang for your buck.

 

[anaqer]

if you can use a good 17 or 18" flat panel for some time, you'll know exactly why its 1280x1024

Care to elaborate for those unlucky bastards who can't? ( like... me )


I'm not all that happy about the more bang for the buck... eg. I'm on a 17" CRT ( don't kill me ) that can do 86kHz, just enough for 960 @ 85Hz, but not for 1024 @ 85Hz...