I have a Radeon

[Scali]

The card I am currently using in my own PC at home is a Radeon 9600Pro 128 mb.
I am still quite happy with it, and am not considering an upgrade yet.

Over the years I've recommended a lot of Radeons to friends and family. The first would probably have been a Radeon 8500, to my brother, who's used it to great enjoyment for many years. I have also used it myself from time to time to test some code, and I was impressed with the speed and quality of the card.

I have actually recommended a friend of mine to buy a Radeon 9600Pro earlier today.

In short: I have nothing against ATi (or any other IHV for that matter, except for VIA/AMD who made my life hell), so would all the people who think I'm an nvidiot kindly get a life and stop bothering me?!
Thank you.

 

[chavvdarrr]

sooooooo



you're hidden fanATic !!!!!!!!
I knew there's something fishy in your posts....

 

[Scali]

I am trying to be objective, and not favour any IHV. I'm only interested in technology, not who makes it, or who doesn't make it.

Apparently many people here are not familiar with the concept.

 

[karlotta]

you dont use the 9600 for your workstation do you?. And i have to add your post sounded like a 12 step program

 

[banksie]

I am trying to be objective, and not favour any IHV. I'm only interested in technology, not who makes it, or who doesn't make it.

Unfortunately from my perspective your behavior and posts belie this statement. Sadly your behavior is rapidly becoming a good argument for a user ignore feature on this board.

Apparently many people here are not familiar with the concept.

Cheap rhetoric, like this, certainly doesn't help matters.

 

[Scali]

Unfortunately from my perspective your behavior and posts belie this statement. Sadly your behavior is rapidly becoming a good argument for a user ignore feature on this board.

Then your perspective is troubled somewhat.
In my perspective the behaviour of all the people who ignore whatever I say and accuse me of being anti-ATi despite me using a Radeon card daily and still actively supporting ATi is a good argument for a user ignore feature.
I never said anything negative about ATi's products.

 

[banksie]

Then your perspective is troubled somewhat.

Possibly. It might be worth you considering that there is also a possibility you have presented it poorly. Communication is after all a two way process.

In my perspective the behaviour of all the people who ignore whatever I say and accuse me of being anti-ATi despite me using a Radeon card daily and still actively supporting ATi is a good argument for a user ignore feature.
I never said anything negative about ATi's products.

From what I have seen the issue people have with you is not that you dislike ATi cards but more that you have been advancing an argument line with scant attention to the flaws in that argument line and, lately, have largely got down to repetitive declaration of stance more than actually discussing things.

That rapidly becomes boring. I'd be much more interested in you discussing things than the more combative air your exchanges have taken of late.

This is all I am going to say on the matter, I hope you will take these comments in the helpful manner in which they are intended.

 

[Scali]

Possibly. It might be worth you considering that there is also a possibility you have presented it poorly. Communication is after all a two way process.

Yes, I think some people meddle when they should stay out of things, because they don't understand it anyway.

From what I have seen the issue people have with you is not that you dislike ATi cards but more that you have been advancing an argument line with scant attention to the flaws in that argument line and, lately, have largely got down to repetitive declaration of stance more than actually discussing things.

What argument line is that, and what flaws would that be?
I think the only people who see flaws are the ones that don't fully grasp the entire issues anyway.

This is all I am going to say on the matter, I hope you will take these comments in the helpful manner in which they are intended.

I don't see how they could have been helpful, I think you merely missed the whole point, like many others.

 

[digitalwanderer]

I think some people meddle when they should stay out of things

That's the problem with these pesky "public" BBBs.

 

[AlNom]

Sounds like a "general discussion" topic. *shrug*

 

[ChrisRay]

Scali, your problem isnt your opinions, Its the way you go about discussion, You are condescending towards other users, and you treat them terribly, Frankly I couldnt given an oats which brand you prefer or how you prefer the technology, You have the potential for brilliant discussion but you also seem to have some sort of superiority complex, You constantly belittle others who challenge your opinion.

I have a feeling 85% of the people on this board are more annoyed with the fact that you're just down right abusive to others rather than your brand preference or opinion on technology.



P.S. I have a Radeon 9800 Pro too? Can I be a Fanatic?

 

[jvd]

I have a geforce fx 5800ultra and a geforce sdr card , oh and a geforce 3 ti 500 , since those are the shortest lived and most expensive of thier generations , do i get a special nvidiot tittle ?

I also have a voodoo 5 6000 !

 

[Scali]

Scali, your problem isnt your opinions, Its the way you go about discussion, You are condescending towards other users, and you treat them terribly, Frankly I couldnt given an oats which brand you prefer or how you prefer the technology, You have the potential for brilliant discussion but you also seem to have some sort of superiority complex, You constantly belittle others who challenge your opinion.

Perhaps it's because I'm getting sick and tired of people like digitalwanderer who have nothing to add to the discussion other than personal attacks because I say some things that are less favourable to their favourite IHV (whose products I still use with much joy, and still recommend to friends, ironically enough).
I was hoping they'd shut up if they realized the level of conversation was out of their league. Apparently they only flame and troll harder that way.

You are also wrong about the opinion bit. I have rarely given my opinion on anything. Most of it was related to technical fact and background info. Facts cannot be challenged.

Some examples:

It is a fact that DST is supported by more than one IHV.
It is a fact that many games, if not all of them, use DST if they implement shadowmaps.
It is a fact that 3DMark05's gametests are aimed at trying to predict future gaming.
It is a fact that a single 3Dc texture cannot be used to store unnormalized normals for antialiasing purposes, which makes it harder to implement such a rendering method with 3Dc.
It is a fact that horizon maps can only be applied to heightmapped geometry/bumpmaps.
...

There really is nothing to discuss about such topics, yet many people choose to discuss these points.

 

[jvd]

It is a fact that DST is supported by more than one IHV

can u show me a chip from another company on the market that suppports dst ?

Till then only 1 ihv supports it .

It is a fact that many games, if not all of them, use DST if they implement shadowmaps

Really , i was under the impression that only 6 games currently support it . Can you provide a list and proof of all the games that support dst ?

It is a fact that 3DMark05's gametests are aimed at trying to predict future gaming.

As i said in another thread , dst is old tech , its even in the xbox which came out in 2001 , so far its yet to take off .

It is a fact that a single 3Dc texture cannot be used to store unnormalized normals for antialiasing purposes

but there are uses for 3Dc

There really is nothing to discuss about such topics, yet many people choose to discuss these points

because your wrong on alot of points and it doesn't matter what card u have or how much you say your unbias , all your posts for the last 4 days are coming off extremly bias .


I think the reason why dst was added and no 3dc was simple. Nvidia was down 5-15% and they threatened futuremark to add in dst to bring thier scores back up to ati lvls or they would do what they did with 3dmark 2003.

You want to look at facts well here are some

Fact 1 ) the 6800 series is 5-15% slower with out dst (see reverends 6800gt tests )

2) Dst is not part of dx 9 yet 3dmark 2005 claims to be a 100% dx 9 , which it can't be if it includes non dx tech.

3) Dst is currently only used by one ihv .

4) That ihv currently charges for the use of dst .

5) 3dc while currently also ati specific is free to liscense. Its a future looking tech which should be used alot in upcoming games as it should in all rights be in 2 of the 3 major consoles launching with in the next 3 years .

 

[digitalwanderer]

Perhaps it's because I'm getting sick and tired of people like digitalwanderer who have nothing to add to the discussion other than personal attacks because I say some things that are less favourable to their favourite IHV (whose products I still use with much joy, and still recommend to friends, ironically enough).

Or perhaps it's you're missing the whole point of what a dx9 benchmark is and should be according to FM their very ownselve and can't seem to grasp the fact that even though you have your own opinion on the matter doesn't mean it is the only one or in fact correct.

But hey, what do I know?

 

[Scali]

can u show me a chip from another company on the market that suppports dst ?

Till then only 1 ihv supports it .

In case you didn't get it yet, the card in question is yet to be released. But Futuremark was aware of its DST support, so it didn't conflict with their "more than one IHV supports it" guideline.
In time you'll find out which card we're talking about here.

Really , i was under the impression that only 6 games currently support it . Can you provide a list and proof of all the games that support dst ?

Only 6 games currently implement shadowmaps. The list is in Futuremark's FAQ, proof should be simple: run it on an NVIDIA card and study the shadow performance and quality. Or contact the developers yourself.
The fact that it's in Futuremark's FAQ should be enough proof actually, FM is not going to lie about anything, especially not if it's so easy to verify.

As i said in another thread , dst is old tech , its even in the xbox which came out in 2001 , so far its yet to take off .

It just took off, 6 games ago.

but there are uses for 3Dc

I never denied that.

because your wrong on alot of points

Not the ones I presented above. I'm not sure which points in particular you are referring to.

all your posts for the last 4 days are coming off extremly bias .

I'm not sure why you, and other people, experience it this way. As I said before, I have never said anything negative about ATi's products.
I have merely discussed a few of ATi's and NVIDIA's technologies, and the focus was never on who made them, but strictly on what the possibilities were.

I think the reason why dst was added and no 3dc was simple. Nvidia was down 5-15% and they threatened futuremark to add in dst to bring thier scores back up to ati lvls or they would do what they did with 3dmark 2003.

Again you assume that 3Dc would improve performance, which it most probably wouldn't. It would probably increase visual quality marginally at the cost of performance. It is even possible that ATi themselves advised against using 3Dc. It would be, if we have to believe andypski.
Then either Richard Huddy was not informed properly, or he chose to pretend that he wasn't informed properly, to better promote ATi's new feature.

2) Dst is not part of dx 9 yet 3dmark 2005 claims to be a 100% dx 9 , which it can't be if it includes non dx tech.

As I said before, by that same logic, neither ATi nor NVIDIA make DirectX9 hardware.

3) Dst is currently only used by one ihv .

No, it is being used by 2 IHVs, but the second IHV has not yet released its product to the public. This is simply a matter of time.

4) That ihv currently charges for the use of dst .

5) 3dc while currently also ati specific is free to liscense. Its a future looking tech which should be used alot in upcoming games as it should in all rights be in 2 of the 3 major consoles launching with in the next 3 years .

These facts are irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Scali]

Or perhaps it's you're missing the whole point of what a dx9 benchmark is and should be according to FM their very ownselve and can't seem to grasp the fact that even though you have your own opinion on the matter doesn't mean it is the only one or in fact correct.

The pot calling the kettle black, it seems.
I think you are confused with FM's opinion on benchmarking at the time of 3DMark03 and at the time of 3DMark05.
It is not the same opinion.
There is nothing about 3DMark05 that conflicts with what FM says that 3DMark05 should be, according to the whitepaper, FAQ and other documents released, is there?

 

[jvd]

In case you didn't get it yet, the card in question is yet to be released. But Futuremark was aware of its DST support, so it didn't conflict with their "more than one IHV supports it" guideline.
In time you'll find out which card we're talking about here.

Yes but its not out yet and we have no time frame for a release .

Only 6 games currently implement shadowmaps. The list is in Futuremark's FAQ, proof should be simple: run it on an NVIDIA card and study the shadow performance and quality. Or contact the developers yourself.
The fact that it's in Futuremark's FAQ should be enough proof actually, FM is not going to lie about anything, especially not if it's so easy to verify.

So 6 games in 5 years is tech taking off ? But 5 games in 1 year (3dc ) is not taking off ? How do you figure

It just took off, 6 games ago.

see above

Not the ones I presented above. I'm not sure which points in particular you are referring to.

No your wrong on alot of points

I'm not sure why you, and other people, experience it this way

Perhaps you should go back and read your posts including the one where u suggested that ati is trying to trick devs with 3dc .

Again you assume that 3Dc would improve performance, which it most probably wouldn't. It would probably increase visual quality marginally at the cost of performance.

I don't see why it wouldn't. IN half life 2 the current info is that 3dc improves performance slightly and increases iq .

As I said before, by that same logic, neither ATi nor NVIDIA make DirectX9 hardware.

YOu hve it wrong . Ati and nvidia do not make just dx 9 hardware . They make dx 9 , opengl and more hardware. THey never advertise THe video card as just a 100% dx9 card. THey claim it supports dx 9 , opengl whatever and then other special features .

Futuremark claims that 3dmark 2005 is a 100% dx 9 benchmark. Which means it should only test dx 9 features . Once it adds in 3dc or dst its no longer a 100% dx 9 card . It may support 100% of dx 9 , but it doesn't benchmark a 100% of dx 9.

There is a slight diffrence.

As i said in another thread . If 3dmark 2005 used opengl to run and it claimed to be a 100% dx 9 benchmark would u still believe it ?

No, it is being used by 2 IHVs, but the second IHV has not yet released its product to the public. This is simply a matter of time.

So it is only being used by 1 ihv . IF the second has no products out then there is no reason to discuss this , sometime in the future they could release the pdoruct , but mabye the cancel it then what ? I can say the same thing about 3dc , sometime in the future another company will release a card using it , but for now it doesn't matter . Because its not out yet.

These facts are irrelevant to the discussion.

OF course they are . They are relevant because they show that the same exact settings a surrounding 3dc .

Both are currently being used by only 1 ihv , both are used in less than a hand full of released and upcoming games , both are not part of the dx 9 specs .

Why one is included and not the other doesn't make sense .

I think the reason why dst was added and no 3dc was simple. Nvidia was down 5-15% and they threatened futuremark to add in dst to bring thier scores back up to ati lvls or they would do what they did with 3dmark 2003.

I find it telling u still wont answer this .

I als o want to hear your logic that in the past 4 or 5 years since nvidia supported dst it was only used in 6 games , but suddenly its the wave of the future ?

 

[digitalwanderer]

There is nothing about 3DMark05 that conflicts with what FM says that 3DMark05 should be, according to the whitepaper, FAQ and other documents released, is there?

Yes, yes there is...that's the problem.

 

[Fodder]

Ah, the tenth thread but the same old arguments.

Here's some spice for the mix.

It appears that DST provides superior IQ when the shadows are rendered correctly, while when stepping/pixelation occurs the inferior grainy/fuzzy shadow edges help mask this, hence providing the illusion of better IQ. Therefore, it is unfair that non-NVIDIA/DST cards aren't required to do the requisite work to achieve the same rendering result as NVIDIA/DST cards, meaning NVIDIA are in fact at more of a disadvantage with DST enabled.

Discuss.