first r420 review leak

jimmyjames123 said:
It's an advantage for NVIDIA in the sense that there can be some trickle-down technology from the flagship model. The 3DCenter article briefly explains that with VS 3.0 I think. ATI would have the same advantage of using trickle-down technology, of course using a somewhat different feature set than the NV4x series.
Click to expand...

err but how is that an advantage , how would a 4 pipeline nv40 perform using that tech ? hell really how would a 4 pipeline r420 do with p.s 2.0 would anyone really care ? I doubt we will ever see a card from either company under an 8 pipeline card with these two techs .
 
jvd said:
seems to be a mixed bag don't u think . Some times its double the performance of a r360 and sometimes its less or equal . Like i asked , why is farcry (the big named p.s2 game) being only benched with p.s 1.1

I really just want to know as that is the game i'm playing the most right now and would like more framesper sec than my 9700pro but not by droping quality
Click to expand...

Crytek is the one that could answer that question, a example where TWIMTBP is BAD...forcing PS 1.1 is good for who, not me I have a PS 2.0 card ??
 
jvd said:
seems to be a mixed bag don't u think . Some times its double the performance of a r360 and sometimes its less or equal . Like i asked , why is farcry (the big named p.s2 game) being only benched with p.s 1.1
Click to expand...

Compared to R360 yes, it's not conclusive. I was just happy to see that Nvidia made a good effort this time and remedied some of the NV3x foul ups. How those efforts translate into competition with R420 we'll soon know.

I really just want to know as that is the game i'm playing the most right now and would like more framesper sec than my 9700pro but not by droping quality
Click to expand...

I actually put off playing Far Cry for a couple months since I know my machine 2.4Ghz Athlon/9800 PRO/512 RAM can't run it at max detail. You guys playing now....do you really plan on replaying the game when u get new hardware? I barely have time to play each game I have once....far less multiple times. KOTOR is like 70 hours all by itself!!! And the mandatory sessions of BF, UT and Warcraft don't help either :LOL:
 
Doomtrooper said:
jvd said:
seems to be a mixed bag don't u think . Some times its double the performance of a r360 and sometimes its less or equal . Like i asked , why is farcry (the big named p.s2 game) being only benched with p.s 1.1

I really just want to know as that is the game i'm playing the most right now and would like more framesper sec than my 9700pro but not by droping quality
Click to expand...

Crytek is the one that could answer that question, a example where TWIMTBP is BAD...forcing PS 1.1 is good for who, not me I have a PS 2.0 card ??
Click to expand...

sorry don't get what your trying to say .

Yes its bad for nv40 users having to run ps1.1 when they have a card that should do p.s2 at least as well as the r300 (much faster in reality) but that is my question . there must be a reason they are forcing it down
 
jvd said:
seems to be a mixed bag don't u think . Some times its double the performance of a r360 and sometimes its less or equal . Like i asked , why is farcry (the big named p.s2 game) being only benched with p.s 1.1

I really just want to know as that is the game i'm playing the most right now and would like more framesper sec than my 9700pro but not by droping quality
Click to expand...

Mixed Bag? :oops:

Anyway, why are you concerned about ps1.1 when the ps2.0/3.0 patch isn't far off, unless of course you are going to be picking a card up right away.
 
ninelven said:
jvd said:
seems to be a mixed bag don't u think . Some times its double the performance of a r360 and sometimes its less or equal . Like i asked , why is farcry (the big named p.s2 game) being only benched with p.s 1.1

I really just want to know as that is the game i'm playing the most right now and would like more framesper sec than my 9700pro but not by droping quality
Click to expand...

Mixed Bag? :oops:

Anyway, why are you concerned about ps1.1 when the ps2.0/3.0 patch isn't far off, unless of course you are going to be picking a card up right away.
Click to expand...
His concern is that PS 1.1 is being used (resulting in needlessly degraded image quality) when the video card is certainly capable of dishing out performance that is more than simply "playable" with PS 2.0.
 
ChrisW said:
rwolf said:
What is this?

card05.jpg
Click to expand...
I can't quite make out the text, so it could be anything. My guess is it is the primitive processor based on 3DFx's Rampage technology...just like the one that came on the NV30.
Click to expand...

man that would a perfect quote for me sig if it wasn't for the size of the pic.
 
Ostsol said:
ninelven said:
jvd said:
seems to be a mixed bag don't u think . Some times its double the performance of a r360 and sometimes its less or equal . Like i asked , why is farcry (the big named p.s2 game) being only benched with p.s 1.1

I really just want to know as that is the game i'm playing the most right now and would like more framesper sec than my 9700pro but not by droping quality
Click to expand...

Mixed Bag? :oops:

Anyway, why are you concerned about ps1.1 when the ps2.0/3.0 patch isn't far off, unless of course you are going to be picking a card up right away.
Click to expand...
His concern is that PS 1.1 is being used (resulting in needlessly degraded image quality) when the video card is certainly capable of dishing out performance that is more than simply "playable" with PS 2.0.
Click to expand...
thanks for listening to me

Yes it is a mixed bag , i would expect at least twice the performance of the r360 across the board . That is after all at least what the r420 will offer
 
jvd said:
sorry don't get what your trying to say .

Yes its bad for nv40 users having to run ps1.1 when they have a card that should do p.s2 at least as well as the r300 (much faster in reality) but that is my question . there must be a reason they are forcing it down
Click to expand...

The patch was released because of major complaints on Nv30 hardware, the developer did something to improve performance by:

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=170106891&m=181103073

Now the only way to put the old PS 2.0 shaders back is to follow the instructions in that thread.
 
Doomtrooper said:
jvd said:
sorry don't get what your trying to say .

Yes its bad for nv40 users having to run ps1.1 when they have a card that should do p.s2 at least as well as the r300 (much faster in reality) but that is my question . there must be a reason they are forcing it down
Click to expand...

The patch was released because of major complaints on Nv30 hardware, the developer did something to improve performance by:

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=170106891&m=181103073

Now the only way to put the old PS 2.0 shaders back is to follow the instructions in that thread.
Click to expand...

yes that is on the nv30 . why is the nv40 running the nv30 path . Why are the tests being run on normal quality further more ? is anyone going to spend 500 on a card not to run it at max .
 
The game detects a DeviceID, NV40 has a Nvidia device ID...thats the way I think it is happening :D

Graph wars might be the other...who knows :devilish:
 
DemoCoder said:
Oh, no,...wait, I get it. The last generation was about features. This generation (when ATI has no new features), it's about performance. I see.
Click to expand...

Just curious why do you keep going on about everything that doesn't matter. Do you grow up on the debate team loosing every debate or something or do you just like to argue?

It's just getting really old.
 
jvd said:
yes that is on the nv30 . why is the nv40 running the nv30 path . Why are the tests being run on normal quality further more ? is anyone going to spend 500 on a card not to run it at max .
Click to expand...
Maybe it's actually the Nv40 path. It sure helped the launch benchmarks, judging by how it barely beats a 9800xt using the ati device id.
 
Ostol said:
His concern is that PS 1.1 is being used (resulting in needlessly degraded image quality) when the video card is certainly capable of dishing out performance that is more than simply "playable" with PS 2.0.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate this in the terms of the present, but haven't the developers made it clear that a ps2.0/3.0 patch is soon to be released. If this is how the owners of the Geforce 6series cards are ultimately going to end up experiencing the game, then I would think that is what they would be interested in.

As for the motives behind it, I would think benchmark scores have something to do with it. If there actually are performance benefits from sm3.0 in the patch, then Nvidia would certainly like that version for comparison purposes as opposed to the current ps2.0 implimentation as it wouldn't be indicative of actual performance. Of course neither is ps1.1, so I would just disregard the results for now except in comparison to the nv3x line.

I can understand the desire to know how Far Cry will perform, but there really isn't anything that can be done other than waiting for the patch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
The first Evil Within still has remarkably sophisticated lighting
Replies
2
Views
1K
Phantom88
P
iroboto
  • Locked
Are current games less effectively executed than previous generations? *spawn
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
M
What was your first post on B3D?
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
homerdog
homerdog
tabs
Hearthstone
Replies
1
Views
859
tabs
tabs
Cyan
Are actually teraflops the correct metric to measure GPU compute power on consoles?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
25K
Cyan
Cyan
Back
Top