Futuremark: 3DMark06

[neliz]

I was wondering if the 3dmark rep could be so kind in explaining why rendering an entire 3d scene frame by frame using only the CPU is relevant to any kindof game. Thanks.

That results in a relative CPU performance for that workload.
Like every benchmark, if they're benchmarking something you don't use, it's irrelevant to you.

The problem is with 3dmark06 is that by this time next month it will allready be an obsolete benchmark.

 

[Neeyik]

I was wondering if the 3dmark rep could be so kind in explaining why rendering an entire 3d scene frame by frame using only the CPU is relevant to any kindof game. Thanks.

It's not - all rendering is done by the graphics card, unlike in 03/05 where the vertex shaders were done on the CPU.

 

[bigmouse]

I'm a user of Geforce 6200.I know that this display card can't run the HDR/SM3.0 demos of 3dmark06 by default.But how to let it to run HDR/SM3.0 demos by adding parameters?

 

[Neeyik]

You can't - the HDR/SM3.0 use FP16 blending which the 6200 simply cannot do.

 

[Cowboy X]

Okay, I don't quite see how you'd call the first cheating. I also have no idea what you're talking about with "3d murk," but the third was, from what I remember, only done in 3DMark. You specifically were attempting to call attention to cheating for non-DX9 games.

I considered the bri-linear 'optimisations' present in those days to be cheats , since they visibly( sometimes significantly ) lowered quality while boosting speed .But why i thought them to truly be cheats :

1/ Not done transparently to users or people like us who follow things like this .

2/ Lies , smoke and mirrors hindered us getting to the bottom of these bug/optimisations .

3/ Sliders and quality modes in the drivers that blatantly were not working or purposely did less than what they were supposed to do .

Importantly bri-linear as it is now called was applied across the board in the nv drivers and affected all DX games not just DX 9 ones . What made matters worse was that in many cases FX hardware would have done quite well without the optimisations especially in their highend ( 5800 5800U 5900 5900U ) with DX 8 and DX 7 and hybrid games ( Unreal Tournament 2003 etc ) . But because they would likely lose the benchmark or at least not look as good as the ATI high end offerings FX users were subjected to subterfuge and poor image quality for benchmarketing purposes .

Some people still don't think that bri-linear as it was applied then is/was a cheat or bad optimisation , but I do . If you don't , no problem we can agree to disagree .

 

[Mariner]

Ooh, look. Another article from The Inquirer entitled, 3DMark06 confuses Fuad

Goodness, I wish he'd get a clue.

 

[Razor1]

Ooh, look. Another article from The Inquirer entitled, 3DMark06 confuses Fuad

Goodness, I wish he'd get a clue.

LOL its good that he knows he is confused

 

[Jawed]

Actually I think it's a good point, overall.

Indeed, maybe it would have been better if FM had created 3DMk06 as a purely SM3 benchmark.

It would have better-reflected the future prospects of the available GPUs - even if we're still a long way from seeing a game with intensive use of SM3.

Oh, and isn't it more fun to link to:

http://www.chipzilla.com/?article=29188

Jawed

 

[mrcorbo]

Ooh, look. Another article from The Inquirer entitled, 3DMark06 confuses Fuad

Goodness, I wish he'd get a clue.

Grrrrr. He actually posted pictures showing the actual breakdown of scores:
1600 XT SM2.0 883, SM3.0 896.
X850 SM2.0 1153, SM3.0 N/A.

IMO any intelligent person should be able to figure out that you need to use the SM2.0 and SM3.0 scores independantly in '06 when comparing video cards. The final 3DMark score is completely unsuitable for this, not only because of this issue (the penalty on SM2.0-only cards), but because of the CPU score being factored in. What the 3DMark score does do is indicate that in future games, in order to support their full featureset with the best performance a SM3.0 capable card and a multi-core processor will be needed. Any arguments with this? The means they chose to do this was making the lack of these factor negatively into the 3DMark score.

This benchmark is just a tool. And when it comes to how well reviewers use it I'll refer to the old saying, "Blame the craftsman, not the tools."

Edited for readability

 

[ANova]

Grrrrr. He actually posted pictures showing the actual breakdown of scores:
1600 XT SM2.0 883, SM3.0 896.
X850 SM2.0 1153, SM3.0 N/A.

IMO any intelligent person should be able to figure out that you need to use the SM2.0 and SM3.0 scores independantly in '06 when comparing video cards. The final 3DMark score is completely unsuitable for this, not only because of this issue (the penalty on SM2.0-only cards), but because of the CPU score being factored in. What the 3DMark score does do is indicate that in future games, in order to support their full featureset with the best performance a SM3.0 capable card and a multi-core processor will be needed. Any arguments with this? The means they chose to do this was making the lack of these factor negatively into the 3DMark score.

This benchmark is just a tool. And when it comes to how well reviewers use it I'll refer to the old saying, "Blame the craftsman, not the tools."

Edited for readability

In this case the best way to compare them would be by disabling the SM3 tests, since both were run on the same system with the same CPU. Fuad makes a good point, the majority of people look at the final score, not the individual scores and this gives SM3 capable cards an artificial advantage that will not translate to real world games. Not to mention the different paths ATI and nvidia cards are running regardless of whether or not they're SM3 capable. 3dmark06 is fun to look at, but otherwise completely pointless imo.

 

[mrcorbo]

In this case the best way to compare them would be by disabling the SM3 tests, since both were run on the same system with the same CPU. Fuad makes a good point, the majority of people look at the final score, not the individual scores and this gives SM3 capable cards an artificial advantage that will not translate to real world games. Not to mention the different paths ATI and nvidia cards are running regardless of whether or not they're SM3 capable. 3dmark06 is fun to look at, but otherwise completely pointless imo.

Why bother changing the settings? The damn score is right there. It takes no additional effort to get these results, that's what drives me crazy. It's shows either true ignorance or willful ignorance, because laziness isn't a possible excuse.

The majority of people don't really factor into it. Any idiot can do a run of 3DMark. But a competant reviewer should be able to analyze the results and comprehend what they mean. You can make the same comparisons WRT performance as you could make using '05. You just have to go about it differently.

Finally, there will be effects introduced in games that will be SM3.0-only. There is going to be a performance advantage for multi-core processors. And IMO it is proper for a benchmark that is aiming to be an indicator of how capable your system is of running these future tiltles to take this into account in some way. How else could they quantify the fact that a card may be equivalent in raw power to a newer design, but won't be capable of running at the same settings because of missing features? How else could they indicate how your GPU may be stalled while D3D fights with the AI and physics threads for CPU time?

The gripe about using shader code that favors Nvidia hardware is the only one that I really don't dispute, because I can't. This is something that I will leave to the experts to argue. I will ask this, though. Given the default settings that 3DMark '06 runs at (no AA or AF) are the results that we have seen so far that far off what can be proven (i.e. current shader-heavy games)?

 

[ANova]

Why bother changing the settings? The damn score is right there. It takes no additional effort to get these results, that's what drives me crazy. It's shows either true ignorance or willful ignorance, because laziness isn't a possible excuse.

The majority of people don't really factor into it. Any idiot can do a run of 3DMark. But a competent reviewer should be able to analyze the results and comprehend what they mean. You can make the same comparisons WRT performance as you could make using '05. You just have to go about it differently.

And this is the problem. Look around various forums, those that have a "Post your 3dmark06" thread only post the overall score, then complain when their X850 XT and Athlon 64 3500+ is being outperformed by an X1600 XT and Pentium D 3.0 GHz. This benchmark has changed things, but most people aren't aware of the changes and what they mean. Furthermore unless you buy it you cannot fiddle with the settings to compare to each other. Yes a competant reviewer should be able to analyze the results, but the fact is not all reviewers are as knowledged in this area as others.

Finally, there will be effects introduced in games that will be SM3.0-only. There is going to be a performance advantage for multi-core processors. And IMO it is proper for a benchmark that is aiming to be an indicator of how capable your system is of running these future tiltles to take this into account in some way. How else could they quantify the fact that a card may be equivalent in raw power to a newer design, but won't be capable of running at the same settings because of missing features? How else could they indicate how your GPU may be stalled while D3D fights with the AI and physics threads for CPU time?

There's a fundamental problem with this. Firstly, the primary benefits to SM3 over SM2 are barely or not even being used in this benchmark. There really is very little difference between the two; most games (including 3dm06) are simply choosing to equate HDR with SM3 because SM3 capable cards also have the features to more easily implement it, any shaders in SM3 can be done in SM2 in addition, they may simply run a little slower depending on the complexity and whether or not they make use of dynamic branching, it's up to the developers to decide. Considering DirectX 10 is around the corner (end of this year) I doubt SM3 will have any significant life, and within a year non DX10 games will probably fall back to SM2 rather then SM3 since there are more cards in the mainstream for the former. Not to mention some SM3 cards are too slow to make any use of things like dynamic branching. Just because one may not be able to run HDR or a shader catered specifically toward SM3 doesn't mean the card that does support these features should recieve a much higher score, that does not equate to performance, that equates to extra visuals.

As far as multi-core processors, while they will most definitely help in future titles that make use of all the cores I'd say the results given are exadurated being that it can double the cpu score. It is doubtful that we'll see anywhere near that significant of a performance increase in anything other than synthetic benchmarks.

The gripe about using shader code that favors Nvidia hardware is the only one that I really don't dispute, because I can't. This is something that I will leave to the experts to argue. I will ask this, though. Given the default settings that 3DMark '06 runs at (no AA or AF) are the results that we have seen so far that far off what can be proven (i.e. current shader-heavy games)?

Any results that you get cannot be taken seriously since both cards aren't running the same settings and optimizations. If you compare the GTX 512 to the X1900 XTX the latter only beats the former by a small amount. In games like FEAR and AOE3 which are indicative of where future titles are going, ie. much more shader heavy, we are seeing a much bigger real world performance difference between the two. I'd hardly call that a future looking benchmark, which is rather self contradictory since 3dmark07 will likely be replacing it by the end of this year or beginning of next year.

 

[mrcorbo]

And this is the problem. Look around various forums, those that have a "Post your 3dmark06" thread only post the overall score, then complain when their X850 XT and Athlon 64 3500+ is being outperformed by an X1600 XT and Pentium D 3.0 GHz. This benchmark has changed things, but most people aren't aware of the changes and what they mean. Furthermore unless you buy it you cannot fiddle with the settings to compare to each other. Yes a competant reviewer should be able to analyze the results, but the fact is not all reviewers are as knowledged in this area as others.

No fiddling necessary. Again, the results you need to compare are right there when you run the default benchmark. And you can't really trust an incompetant reviewer to give you a good review regardless of what benchmarks they run. It's the craftsman not the tools....

most games (including 3dm06) are simply choosing to equate HDR with SM3 because SM3 capable cards also have the features to more easily implement it

Yup.

Considering DirectX 10 is around the corner (end of this year) I doubt SM3 will have any significant life, and within a year non DX10 games will probably fall back to SM2 rather then SM3 since there are more cards in the mainstream for the former.

I disagree with this. Over the next 8 months I think we will see a signifigant uptake in the numbers of SM3.0 hardware and thus much more use of HDR and other features that may be best implemented on SM3.0 capable hardware, even if it isn't strictly the SM3.0 compliance that enables them.

As far as multi-core processors, while they will most definitely help in future titles that make use of all the cores I'd say the results given are exadurated being that it can double the cpu score. It is doubtful that we'll see anywhere near that significant of a performance increase in anything other than synthetic benchmarks.

You're probably right. The hit in the '06 results does kinda drive the point home, though. Maybe they just wanted to make sure that people "got it".

Any results that you get cannot be taken seriously since both cards aren't running the same settings and optimizations. If you compare the GTX 512 to the X1900 XTX the latter only beats the former by a small amount. In games like FEAR and AOE3 which are indicative of where future titles are going, ie. much more shader heavy, we are seeing a much bigger real world performance difference between the two.

I couldn't find a single review that supports this for these two games. With no AA/AF enabled the performance differences are roughly the same (in the %10 range) as the difference in the '06 scores. Maybe you can find some links. If you want to compare with AA/AF results you would have to get the SM2.0 results from both cards in '06 with AA/AF enabled and compare that.

 

[tEd]

I'm sure it has been mentioned in this thread before somewhere but i couldn't find a clear answer.

For what is DB exactly used in 3dmark06?

thx

 

[KimB]

Probably soft shadows.

 

[Neeyik]

Although I've not sat through the several hundred pixel shader dumps, the longer ones from the HDR test look something like this:
[size=-5]

ps_3_0

def c6 , -0.018729299306869507000000, 0.074261002242565155000000, 1.570728778839111300000000, 10000.000000000000000000000000

def c7 , 0.000000000000000000000000, 1.000000000000000000000000, 0.031250000000000000000000, 0.062500000000000000000000

def c8 , 2.000000000000000000000000, -1.000000000000000000000000, 1.000000000000000000000000, -0.212114393711090090000000

def c9 , 0.416087001562118530000000, -0.303380995988845830000000, 0.135195001959800720000000, 0.220419004559516910000000

def c10 , -0.183682993054389950000000, 0.077253997325897217000000, -0.252817988395690920000000, -0.237764000892639160000000

def c11 , -0.054127000272274017000000, 0.662913024425506590000000, -0.031250000000000000000000, 0.318309873342514040000000

def c12 , -0.486135989427566530000000, 0.397747993469238280000000, -0.397747993469238280000000, 3.000000000000000000000000

def c13 , 0.574523985385894780000000, -0.062500000000000000000000, -0.574523985385894780000000, 0.108253002166748050000000

def c14 , -0.625000000000000000000000, -0.750000000000000000000000, 0.875000000000000000000000, 0.187500000000000000000000

def c15 , 1.000000000000000000000000, 1.001000046730041500000000, -0.797193884849548340000000, 0.014567226171493530000000

def c16 , 0.636619746685028080000000, -1.009999990463256800000000, -1.120000004768371600000000, 0.000100009805464651440000

def c17 , 0.500000000000000000000000, 1.000000000000000000000000, 0.159154936671257020000000, 16.000000000000000000000000

dcl_texcoord0  v0.xy 
dcl_texcoord1  v1.xy 
dcl_texcoord2  v2.xyz 
dcl_texcoord3  v3.xyz 
dcl_texcoord4  v4.xyz 
dcl_texcoord5  v5.xyz 
dcl_texcoord6  v6.xyz 
dcl_texcoord7  v7.xyz 
dcl v4096.xy 
dcl_2d s0 
dcl_2d s1 
dcl_2d s2 
dcl_2d s3 
dcl_2d s4 
dcl_cube s5 
dcl_cube s6 
texld r0 , v0.xyxx , s3 
mad_pp r1.xyz , c8.xxxx , r0.wyzw , c8.yyyy 
nrm_pp r2.xyz , v2 
dp3_pp r4.x , r1 , v3 
dp3_pp r4.y , r1 , v4 
dp3_pp r4.z , r1 , v5 
dp3_pp r0.x , r2 , v3 
dp3_pp r0.y , r2 , v4 
dp3_pp r0.z , r2 , v5 
dp3_pp r0.w , -r0 , r4 
add_pp r0.w , r0.wwww , r0.wwww 
dp3_sat_pp r2.w , r1 , r2 
mad_pp r0.xyz , r4 , -r0.wwww , -r0 
texld_pp r1 , r0 , s6 
mad_pp r0.w , r2.wwww , c6.xxxx , c6.yyyy 
add_pp r0.z , -r2.wwww , c8.zzzz 
mad_pp r0.w , r0.wwww , r2.wwww , c8.wwww 
rsq_pp r0.z , r0.zzzz 
mad_pp r0.w , r0.wwww , r2.wwww , c6.zzzz 
rcp_pp r0.z , r0.zzzz 
mul_pp r0.w , r0.wwww , r0.zzzz 
mad r0.xy , r0.wwww , c16.xxxx , c16.yzzw 
mul r0.xy , r0 , r0 
rcp r0.x , r0.xxxx 
rcp r0.y , r0.yyyy 
add r0.w , -r0.xxxx , c6.wwww 
mul r1.w , r0.wwww , c16.wwww 
add r2.w , r0.yyyy , c15.zzzz 
texld r0 , v0.xyxx , s2 
mov r6.z , c4.xxxx 
add r2.z , -r6.zzzz , c5.xxxx 
mad r2.w , r2.wwww , -c15.wwww , c15.xxxx 
mad_pp r5.w , r0.wwww , r2.zzzz , c4.xxxx 
mul_pp r3 , r0.xyzz , c3.xyzz 
mul_pp r2.z , r5.wwww , r5.wwww 
add_pp r0 , r3 , c8.yyyy 
mad_pp r4.w , r5.wwww , -r2.zzzz , c8.zzzz 
mad r2 , r2.wwww , r0 , c8.zzzz 
add_pp r0.xy , -r4.wwww , c15 
mad_sat_pp r1.w , r0.yyyy , r1.wwww , r0.xxxx 
add_pp r5.w , -r5.wwww , c8.zzzz 
texld_pp r0 , r4 , s5 
mul_pp r0 , r3 , r0.xyzz 
mul_pp r1 , r1.xyzz , r1.wwww 
mul_pp r0 , r5.wwww , r0 
mul r2 , r2 , r1 
mul_pp r0 , r4.wwww , r0 
texld r1 , v1.xyxx , s4 
mul r2 , r2 , r1.wwww 
mad_pp r0 , r0 , r1.xxxx , r2 
cmp r2.w , -v6.zzzz , c7.xxxx , c7.yyyy 
mul r1.xy , v4096 , c7.zzzz 
texld_pp r1 , r1 , s1 
if_ne r2 , -r2.wwww    ******* NOTE ******
dsx r2 , v7.xyxy 
dsy r3 , v7.xyxy 
add r2 , abs r2 , abs r3 
mov r3.w , c2.xxxx 
mad_pp r2 , r2 , r3.wwww , c1.xyxy 
mul_pp r4 , r1.zwxy , r2 
mad r2 , r4 , c14.zzww , v7.xyxy 
texldl r1 , r2.xyxy , s0 
texldl r5 , r2.zwzw , s0 
mad r2 , r4.zwzw , c17.xxyy , v7.xyxy 
texldl r3 , r2.xyxy , s0 
texldl r2 , r2.zwzw , s0 
mov r1.y , r5.xxxx 
mov r1.z , r3.xxxx 
mov r1.w , r2.xxxx 
mul_pp r2 , r4 , c9.xxyy 
add r1 , r1 , -v7.zzzz 
mad_pp r2 , r4.zwxy , c9.zzww , r2 
cmp_pp r1 , r1 , c7.yyyy , c7.xxxx 
add r3 , r2 , v7.xyxy 
texldl r2 , r3.xyxy , s0 
texldl r5 , r3.zwzw , s0 
mul_pp r3 , r4 , c10.xxyy 
mad_pp r3 , r4.zwxy , c10.zzww , r3 
mov r2.y , r5.xxxx 
add r3 , r3 , v7.xyxy 
texldl r5 , r3.xyxy , s0 
texldl r3 , r3.zwzw , s0 
mov r2.z , r5.xxxx 
mov r2.w , r3.xxxx 
add r3 , r2 , -v7.zzzz 
mul_pp r2 , r4 , c11.xxyy 
cmp_pp r3 , r3 , c7.yyyy , c7.xxxx 
mad_pp r2 , r4.zwxy , c11.zzyy , r2 
dp4_pp r6.w , r3 , c7.wwww 
add r2 , r2 , v7.xyxy 
texldl r3 , r2.xyxy , s0 
texldl r5 , r2.zwzw , s0 
mul_pp r2 , r4 , c12.xxyy 
mad_pp r2 , r4.zwxy , c12.xxzz , r2 
mov r3.y , r5.xxxx 
add r5 , r2 , v7.xyxy 
texldl r2 , r5.xyxy , s0 
texldl r5 , r5.zwzw , s0 
mov r3.z , r2.xxxx 
mul_pp r2 , r4 , c13.xxyy 
mov r3.w , r5.xxxx 
mad_pp r2 , r4.zwxy , c13.zzww , r2 
add r3 , r3 , -v7.zzzz 
add r5 , r2 , v7.xyxy 
texldl r2 , r5.xyxy , s0 
texldl r5 , r5.zwzw , s0 
mov r2.y , r5.xxxx 
mad r4 , r4 , c14.xxyy , v7.xyxy 
texldl r5 , r4.xyxy , s0 
texldl r4 , r4.zwzw , s0 
mov r2.z , r5.xxxx 
mov r2.w , r4.xxxx 
cmp_pp r3 , r3 , c7.yyyy , c7.xxxx 
add r2 , r2 , -v7.zzzz 
dp4 r3.w , r3 , c7.wwww 
cmp_pp r2 , r2 , c7.yyyy , c7.xxxx 
add_pp r3.w , r6.wwww , r3.wwww 
dp4 r2.w , r2 , c7.wwww 
dp4 r1.z , r1 , c7.wwww 
add_pp r1.w , r3.wwww , r2.wwww 
add_pp r6.w , r1.zzzz , r1.wwww 
texld r1 , v0.xyxx , s3 
mad_pp r1.xyz , c8.xxxx , r1.wyzw , c8.yyyy 
nrm_pp r5.xyz , v6 
dp3_sat_pp r5.w , r1 , r5 
nrm_pp r2.xyz , v2 
add_pp r2.w , -r5.wwww , c8.zzzz 
mad_pp r1.w , r5.wwww , c6.xxxx , c6.yyyy 
rsq_pp r2.w , r2.wwww 
mad_pp r1.w , r1.wwww , r5.wwww , c8.wwww 
rcp_pp r2.w , r2.wwww 
mad_pp r1.w , r1.wwww , r5.wwww , c6.zzzz 
add_pp r4.xyz , r5 , r2 
mul_pp r1.w , r2.wwww , r1.wwww 
nrm_pp r3.xyz , r4 
mad r4.xy , r1.wwww , c16.xxxx , c16.zyzw 
dp3_sat_pp r4.z , r1 , r3 
mul r3.xy , r4 , r4 
dp3_sat_pp r1.y , r1 , r2 
rcp r2.x , r3.xxxx 
rcp r2.y , r3.yyyy 
mad_pp r1.w , r1.yyyy , c6.xxxx , c6.yyyy 
add_pp r1.z , -r1.yyyy , c8.zzzz 
mad_pp r1.w , r1.wwww , r1.yyyy , c8.wwww 
rsq_pp r1.z , r1.zzzz 
mad_pp r1.w , r1.wwww , r1.yyyy , c6.zzzz 
rcp_pp r1.y , r1.zzzz 
add r1.z , r2.xxxx , c15.zzzz 
mul_pp r1.w , r1.wwww , r1.yyyy 
mul r1.z , r1.zzzz , c15.wwww 
mad r1.xy , r1.wwww , c16.xxxx , c16.yzzw 
add r1.w , -r2.yyyy , c6.wwww 
mul r1.xy , r1 , r1 
mul r1.w , r1.zzzz , r1.wwww 
rcp r1.x , r1.xxxx 
rcp r1.y , r1.yyyy 
mul r1.z , r1.wwww , c16.wwww 
add r1.w , -r1.xxxx , c6.wwww 
mul r1.w , r1.zzzz , r1.wwww 
add r1.z , -r6.zzzz , c5.xxxx 
texld r3 , v0.xyxx , s2 
mad_pp r4.w , r3.wwww , r1.zzzz , c4.xxxx 
mul r3.w , r1.wwww , c16.wwww 
add_pp r6.z , -r4.wwww , c8.zzzz 
add r1.z , r1.yyyy , c15.zzzz 
rcp_pp r1.w , r6.zzzz 
mad r6.y , r1.zzzz , -c15.wwww , c15.xxxx 
mul_pp r1.w , r1.wwww , c12.wwww 
pow r2.z , r4.zzzz , r1.wwww 
add r2.w , r1.wwww , c8.zzzz 
mul_pp r1 , r6.wwww , c0.xyzz 
mul r2.w , r2.zzzz , r2.wwww 
mul_sat r2.w , r2.wwww , c17.zzzz 
mul_pp r4.z , r4.wwww , r4.wwww 
mul r2 , r1 , r2.wwww 
mad_pp r6.w , r4.wwww , -r4.zzzz , c8.zzzz 
add_pp r5.xy , -r6.wwww , c15 
mul_pp r4 , r3.xyzz , c3.xyzz 
mad_sat r5.y , r5.yyyy , r3.wwww , r5.xxxx 
add_pp r3 , r4 , c8.yyyy 
mul r2 , r2 , r5.yyyy 
mad r3 , r6.yyyy , r3 , c8.zzzz 
mul_sat_pp r5.z , r5.zzzz , c17.wwww 
mul r3 , r2 , r3 
texld r2 , v1.xyxx , s4 
mul_pp r1 , r1 , r4 
mul_pp r1 , r6.zzzz , r1 
mul_pp r1 , r6.wwww , r1 
mul r3 , r3 , r2.wwww 
mul_pp r1 , r1 , c11.wwww 
mul_pp r2.w , r5.wwww , r5.zzzz 
mad_pp r1 , r1 , r2.xxxx , r3 
mad oC0 , r1 , r2.wwww , r0 
else
[b]mov oC0 , r0 [/b]
endif

[/size]
There are a few like this in the HDR tests.

 

[Xmas]

That is indeed quite a big if.

 

[KimB]

My, that if statement can conceivably skip most of the shader.

Edit:
Doh! I blame my missing the reply on an officemate to whom I explained the issue.

 

[ERK]

Sorry... Could somebody please remind me, do G70-class chips use _pp?
Thanks,
ERK

 

[KimB]

Sorry... Could somebody please remind me, do G70-class chips use _pp?
Thanks,
ERK

Yes. But the performance difference remains much smaller than it was for the NV3x. All NV4x (G7x-included) still gain from reduced register pressure, and also have the capability to execute partial precision normalization for free.