Geforce fx = Geforce 4600 ultra?

[Ailuros]

Thank God Microsoft included PS/VS 2.0 all the way up to 3.0 in dx9.0, otherwise history might have repeated itself, only with possibly the tables turned this time.....

 

[WaltC]

Well - technically - the GFFX is just highly evolved sand.

I beg your pardon...there is an abundance of evidence which clearly indicates the GFFX is *created* and actually did not evolve. However, I do suppose your opinion all depends on your interpretation of the evidence.

 

[T2k]

Just for the records: AFAIK the whole GF4-family is only DX8.0 due to its PS v1.3 only (Edit: v1.4 = DX8.1)

When did DX8.0 support PS 1.3?

Score.
You're right. DX8.0 - PS1.1 and 8.1 - 1.3 I was confused about 1.4...

 

[Brent]

I was confused about ps 1.4 as well, up till not i too thought it was requirenment for dx 8.1

oh well, live and learn

ps1.3 is dx 8.1

/creating new memory cell in my brain to remember that

 

[Dave Baumann]

ps1.3 is dx 8.1

So is 1.2.

 

[T2k]

I see, I need to check it launchtime...

 

[Nappe1]

I wonder why everyone still _thinks_ that only ps 1.4 is DX8.1?
Why not check from DX8.1 SDK and _be sure_ that PS 1.0 and PS 1.1 are DX8 and DX8.1 has additionally PS 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4

my question is: does GF4 really support PS 1.3? how about GF3 and GF3Ti200 / GF3Ti500? did nVidia add some additional functionality to core of GF4Tis or is that PS 1.1 -> PS 1.3 done totally with driver hack? or is it even possible?

 

[T2k]

I wonder why everyone still _thinks_ that only ps 1.4 is DX8.1?
Why not check from DX8.1 SDK and _be sure_ that PS 1.0 and PS 1.1 are DX8 and DX8.1 has additionally PS 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4

I didn't have time to find the docs...

 

[T2k]

how about GF3 and GF3Ti200 / GF3Ti500?

IIRC they are PS1.1

 

[Dave Baumann]

my question is: does GF4 really support PS 1.3? how about GF3 and GF3Ti200 / GF3Ti500? did nVidia add some additional functionality to core of GF4Tis or is that PS 1.1 -> PS 1.3 done totally with driver hack? or is it even possible?

Personally I tend to believe that GF3 did support it or was supposed to. Either they didn't feel the need to expose it in the driver and keep it as an extra 'trick', or (like GF256->GF2 GTS's 'NSR' Dot3 support) there was a small bug that they felt wasn't necessary to fix for market shipment and it get fixed correctly in GF4's design.

 

[ben6]

It's interesting that only one company made a PS 1.4 part (ATI). I think if Microsoft limited it to PS1.4 , Matrox, SiS (though their implementation leaves a lot to be desired), Trident (note this is a I don't know no review or preview I've seen definitively checked the PS version via DXCaps) , Nvidia et al , would have been happy with being only DX8.0 compliant?

 

[Bambers]

Doom 3 is more DX8 class hardware than DX 9...Doom 3 doesn't use displacement mapping, or Vertex Shader 2.0 or PS 2.0...
The only real gain a Dx 9 class card will get you may be overall speed due to the improved hardware (faster memory modules, 256 bit bus).
Doom 3 doesn't require a DX 9 card..it requires a 256-bit bus, 800 mhz DX8 class Radeon 8500/Geforce 4.

Doom3 can run on a geforce or radeon using the DOT3 support and thats DX7 isn't it?

 

[Crusher]

I guess that depends on your definition of "run". I would have probably chosen a different word, like "hobble".

 

[KimB]

Doom 3 is more DX8 class hardware than DX 9...Doom 3 doesn't use displacement mapping, or Vertex Shader 2.0 or PS 2.0...
The only real gain a Dx 9 class card will get you may be overall speed due to the improved hardware (faster memory modules, 256 bit bus).
Doom 3 doesn't require a DX 9 card..it requires a 256-bit bus, 800 mhz DX8 class Radeon 8500/Geforce 4.

Right. But there's still improvements in efficiency, particularly due to the two-sided stencil test. As I said, the only benefits will be in performance.

And the performance increases I'm talking about are not related to hardware efficiency, etc, but just things that a DX9 card can do better if programmed for (like the two-sided stencil test).

 

[KimB]

my question is: does GF4 really support PS 1.3? how about GF3 and GF3Ti200 / GF3Ti500? did nVidia add some additional functionality to core of GF4Tis or is that PS 1.1 -> PS 1.3 done totally with driver hack? or is it even possible?

Yes, there was actually some functionality added to the GeForce4, which does make it nVidia's biggest refresh to date.

 

[Tagrineth]

Doom 3 is more DX8 class hardware than DX 9...Doom 3 doesn't use displacement mapping, or Vertex Shader 2.0 or PS 2.0...
The only real gain a Dx 9 class card will get you may be overall speed due to the improved hardware (faster memory modules, 256 bit bus).
Doom 3 doesn't require a DX 9 card..it requires a 256-bit bus, 800 mhz DX8 class Radeon 8500/Geforce 4.

DOOM3 is a high-end DX7 game, it requires stencil, DOT3, and hardware TCL. No shaders here folks (except maybe UT2003-style perf. increasing but not IQ).

And... an 800MHz DX8 class video card with a 256-bit bus? WOW

 

[Doomtrooper]

I'm running Doom 3 right now

on a Radeon 8500..game runs fine..Ideally a very highly clocked DX7 or DX8 class hardware with a modern memory controller would perform as good as current DX9 cards or may be even better as Doom 3 doesn't really care about these fancy long pixel shaders as it doesn't even look for them.

So essentially we are saying the same thing..yet I lean more towards DX8 class as Carmack is coding specific code paths for the major players and already stated in 'the plan' about the fragment level processing or up to 11 textures in a single pass including lighting..this can't be done on DX7 hardware...

A article that was spawned from the Carmack interview here explains it quite well what Carmack is stating:

http://www.gamedev.net/columns/hardcore/dxshader5/

 

[Tagrineth]

I wonder if anything became of Carmack's considering making a cube-map emulated/free codepath for Kyro II, due to 'surprising performance'. Guess the performance just wasn't quite good enough... shame really.

 

[DemoCoder]

I'm running Doom 3 right now

on a Radeon 8500..game runs fine..I

Define "fine". What resolution, AA, and detail levels are you running at. The alpha build runs like a dog on my R9700 PRO.

ideally a very highly clocked DX7 or DX8 class hardware with a modern memory controller would perform as good as current DX9 cards or may be even better as Doom 3 doesn't really care about these fancy long pixel shaders as it doesn't even look for them.

Doom3 will look for whatever specific hardware Carmack decides to support for specific backend renderers. You are not running Doom3, you are running Doom3 0.01/02. At the lowest end, Carmack will write a module that can render to any Dot3 capable hardware. In fact, he could even go further by allowing it to run on even older hardware, you'll just get blocky non-normal mapped geometry and bad lighting.


At the high end, Carmack will write specific backends to take advantage of DX9 level hardware, such as the ability to sample up to 16 textures per shader, and the ability to do dependent reads from 4 to as many times as he likes. He also might take advantage of two-sided stencil if it is available. FP precision would be another plus, and if you can use internal FP precision without having to write temporarily results out to a 128-bit frame buffer, it's even better.


We simply do not know at this point what kinds of optimizations he can do with DX9 class HW or pixel shaders because we have no idea of the particular kinds of shaders/specialFX that are planned in the Doom3 final product.


Wait and see.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Fine to me for a Alpha build..800 x 600 No FSAA...16 X AF...34 FPS in a battle...hit over 50 fps walking around.

Not breathtaking..but acceptable..looking through the config file is interesting since this was a E3 demo leak..yet no reference to ATI at all.


seta r_useParhelia "0"
seta r_useNV20 "0"
seta r_useNV30 "0"