Futuremark 3DMark Next Q&A

Good interview. Even answered a couple of my questions.

That preview scene looks as though it will either have fireflies or possibly wind to show off the 3 light sources and their new shadowing.

 

I like the sound of perspective shadow maps

 

Yes it is but this is massive

 

Yes it is but this is massive.
BTW this means that everything is per pixel, like next gen and UE3?

 

Cool. I will have to google around to see if I can find a way to find that easter egg. Unless you want to tell me about it, that is.

Edit: Found the easter egg. Gonna try it now.

 

So it looks like 3Dc is out because it's only supported by one IHV, but partial precision shaders are in. How many IHV's support that optimization again? It could be argued that each of these features can provide significant performance improvements for one vendor's hardware only, while having negligible impact on image quality.

If Futuremark is going to take a position on this issue, should'nt they at least try to be consistent? I personally agree with their policy of only using features supported by multiple vendors, but I don't see how _pp hints fall into that category.

 

As I posted on [H]

....Because _pp hints is in the DX9 and OpenGL spec.

3dc ain't. It's strictly a proprietary format of texture compression, nobody CAN use it but ATI (hell, I think they even have a patent on it).

Partial precision is in the spec, and anybody who wants to *can* use it if they want. 3dc isn't, and can't be.

 

People really need to read some of my posts more closely...

 

All of the new SM3.0 capabilities are in the DX9 spec. FP blending is in the DX9 spec. Yet they are not in 3DMark04 because they are currently supported by only one vendor. I still don't see why _pp hints should be any different. OpenGL is irrelevant because this is a D3D benchmark.

3Dc is not in the DX9 spec, but it can be supported using DX9's custom texture format facility. Also, ATI has publicly stated that they are openly sharing information on 3Dc to whoever wants to use it.

Regardless, I'm not necessarily saying they should support 3Dc, I'm saying I think it would make more sense to do away with partial precision shaders.

 

not much impressed by the screenshot
if it's supposed to be realistic...
the ground textures and the shape of the rocks is cartoony

for something future looking better looks can be achieved

 

Good interview, Dave and FM.

I share Ingenu's annoyance with the italics, though. The meat of an interview is the answer, not the question, so making the answer less legible than the questions seems backwards to me. (I'm sure this has been requested before, too. I hope we're not waiting no a site redesign for greater legibility.) I think you should bold and italicize the Q, and leave the A plain. Keep the coloring, too. And adding a "B3D" to the front of each Q wouldn't hurt, either.

I'm with GfxViolence in disagreeing with FM's decision to exclude 3Dc. A "gamer's benchmark" would make use of whatever features a gamer's video card supports, no?

A related Q as to it not being in the D3D spec: were DXTC texture compression and partial precision added to the spec because of MS, or because of an IHV's pressure? Isn't ATi's hardware advantage with 3Dc similar to nV's advantage with doubled z-ops or partial precision performance? Heck, trylinear and brilinear seem fairly proprietary, but will FM protect against those?

Or is the fact that it's uniquely lossy a strike against it? Wouldn't this be countered by the fact that it offers better quality than DXTC, which FM seems to be amenable to using?

 

Really? I thought Ati decided to increase the time between each launch. So april 2005 like the R420

 

That would be a monumental task for FM to do though. Cause then they need to support every extra feature that the NV40 has also, FP blending, vertex texturing... Would make it rather difficult to get the exact same rendering on all cards then. And adding loads of feature tests doesn't seem to be a good idea imo.

 

PP hints are supported by both vendors. It's just that one vendor doesn't gain anything by using it. And the difference is also that you can use PP hints and get the same quality, as FM says, some materials will look the same with FP 16 vs FP 24/32.

 

LOL @ hoovering cows

- Nicke, it's 'hover' with one 'o'

 

Naah, nitpicker!

 

Actually I thought the idea of hoovering cows was far more amusing and merely one that hover!

 

Especially if you had a giant Dyson vacuum cleaner and could watch them spinning around in the cyclone

 

Not a bad idea..

 

LOL! Isn't hoover another word for vacuum cleaner? Now vacuum cleaning cows, there's an easter egg!