Introduction to 3DMark2003

A developer today that chooses a proprietary back end HLSL developed by a IHV is limiting their clients to the same 'visual experience' on all hardware. There is nothing visually the FX can do over a 9700, so that is a moot point anyway, yet to pimp it with todays hardware so much better is silly.

Not exactly right for the consumer...

Example:

Consumer #1 goes to Electronics Boutique picks up 'Stalker' he has a Radeon 9700, he pays $75 Canadian for the game

Consumer #2 goes to Electronics Boutique picks up 'Stalker' he has a Geforce FX, he pays $75 Canadian for the game

Both take it home, install the game..#1 heads over to check the game at #2's house and notices ' how come the leaves on the trees move and mine don't ??'
Even though the 9700 could do it (we know it can from early tests of PS 2.0 speed etc) even though both people have good hardware, both paid the same for the game #1 is getting simply 'ripped off' from IHV favortism.

I remember stating back in the early CG arguements, going to a store looking at the back of the box and seeing 'Nvidia CG optimized title'..well it's starting.

 

You've convinced me. I'm going to boycott any title that uses proprietary extensions.

So, everybody, listen up. YOU MUST BOYCOT DOOM3. It uses proprietary extensions and the visual experience will be different on your card versus a different card. And that is a travesty!

 

good one..

maybe change it to boycot any game that is optimized to only ONE IHVs extensions ?

But seriously: i HATE comments like those above... CG.. GFFX... bullshit squared... bah... (edit: i mean the comments by the Stalker-Programmers)

 

Russ,

Though Doomtrooper's opinion is a bit extreme for my tastes, your take on his opinion misses the mark completely.

Doomtrooper's stance concerns not coding the same features (he doesn't care if it's a different or proprietary path), for the same cards that are equally capable.

Doom3 uses propritary extensions...but each path makes the full use of the architecture it's targeted for. I'm sure Doomtrooper would be just as upset about Doom3....IF for example, Carmack decided the following:

* That Radeon 8500 did not get an R-200 path, and was forced to run on ARB-1 path (which does not support all Doom3 features...)

* He coded a NV2X path for nv2X based boards.

In that case, Radeon 200 series chips, even though they are capable of the same features as the NV2x series, would not be getting fair treatment.

 

http://www.fnac.com/Shelf/article.a...64-b23c-b36d-cd410d42a641&AID=&Origin=FnacAff

 

Notice the lack of support for a certain pixel shader version:

http://developer.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=cg_toolkit

Support for new profiles
vs_1_1 for DirectX 8 and DirectX 9
vs_2_0 and vs_2_x for DirectX 9
ps_1_1, ps_1_2 and ps_1_3 for DirectX 8 and DirectX 9
ps_2_0 and ps_2_x for DirectX 9
arbvp1 [OpenGL ARB_vertex_program]
arbfp1 [OpenGL ARB_fragment_program]
vp20, vp30 [NV_Vertex_program 1.0 and NV_Vertex_program 2.0]
fp30 [NV30 OpenGL fragment programs]
fp20 [NV_register_combiners and NV_Texture_shader)
DirectX 9 and GeForce FX sample shaders
Cg Effects Explained document
Improved runtime functionality
Core runtime library for parameter management and loading programs
Runtime library for DirectX 8 based applications
Runtime library for DirectX 9 based applications
Runtime library for OpenGL based applications
Documentation updated

VS

DX9 HLSL

Go live in your rosy world, your opinion on these matters is always childish

 

Congrats (Only 649 Euro), find a US supplier..see ya in a couple of weeks.

 

Difference here is this developer is NOT ensuring they are using the strengths on all hardware, get the facts straight. John Carmack is not avoiding Pixel Shader 1.4 or 20% + of the graphic card market share like 'Stalker' that completley avoids using ATI cards strength and would not be happening if DX9 HLSL is used.

 

I've seen a Stalker build run fine with R9700Pro, although I probably shouldn't have

Chugs a bit if you throw in a lot of AA as expected, but it's OK without it.

 

Forcing a card to do Multipass that doesn't need to isn't helping (8500/9000 cards would be using PS 1.1)...the same arguement Nvidia is using for Futuremark with Pixel Shader 1.4 use...that it isn't used much and they are making sure it doesn't, are they not ??

Not supporting PS 1.4 shows the real arguement with Futuremark.

 

Ah, I'm the one with the childish views. Resort to ad hominem if you can't answer with facts.

Look, feel free to boycott any company that puts out titles that you feel "insult you", but simply because it uses Cg doesn't mean that it will run or look worse on your machine.

There are good developers (like Carmack) who makes sure it runs acceptably on all machines and does his best. There are those that do really poor jobs.

Punish the ones who do poor jobs, not those that use tools that you have some crusade against.

 

Couldn't agree more. A developer is going to have to pick someone's hardware as their primary development platform. Whether or not they then take the time to ensure their game/engine runs acceptably well on the competition's hardware is, IMO, the deciding factor. NWN is a great example of a developer failing to do just that (Bioware failed on more fronts than just the technical with that game, though. . .blech!). No Cg involved, but Morrowind was definitely coded for NV hardware (X-box) and it runs and looks so much better on my 9700 Pro than the Ti4400 I had that it's not funny.

Time will tell whether or not Cg helps or hurts the PC games market. If it does I'm sure I'll be among those pointing out Nvidia's hypocritical lack of adherence to the spirit of some of the company's former 'anti-Glide, use only open APIs/standards' PR.

 

No only developers that show BIAS by completley avoiding a installed user base, you have no answer for that and why one would defend such actions are beyond me.

 

And who's doing that? Let's string em up!

 

Nah, hangin' is soo 19th century. Lethal injection, I say!!

 

Your think a Radeon 8500 is going to run this game as well as it could have if they would have supported PS 1.4...

From the Futuremark Whitepaper:

Why Do Game Tests 2 And 3 in 3DMark03 Only Use Pixel Shader 1.4 or 1.1?

According to the DirectX 8 specification, there are 4 different pixel shader models. In order to do a fair benchmark, you want any hardware to do the minimum number of shader passes necessary to render the desired scene. We analyzed all 4 shader models and found that for our tests Pixel Shader 1.2 and Pixel Shader 1.3 did not provide any additional capabilities or performance over Pixel Shader 1.1. Therefore we provided two code paths in order to allow for the broadest compatibility.

A good 3D benchmark must display the exact same output on each piece of hardware with the most efficient methods supported. If a given hardware supports pixel shader 1.4, like all DirectX 9 level hardware does, then that hardware will perform better in these tests, since it needs less rendering passes. Additionally, 1.4 shaders allow each texture to be read twice (total 4 texture lookups in 1.1, but 12 (=6*2) in 1.4 shaders). This is why, not only Futuremark, but also game developers can only implement single pass per light rendering using a 1.4 pixel shader, and not using a 1.3 or lower pixel shader. A 2.0 pixel shader would not have brought any advantages to these tests either. Note that the DirectX design requires that each new shader model is a superset of the prior shader models. Therefore all DirectX 9 hardware not only supports pixel shader 2.0, but also Pixel Shader 1.4, 1.3, 1.2, and 1.1.

 

You find this funny I see, Oh well..time to move on.

 

That's fine, doomtrooper, but if you noticed, I said feel free to "punish those that do a poor job".

Putting out a game that is grossly unoptimized is doing a poor job.

But using Cg to develop your title does not mean that you put out a grossly unoptimized game.

 

That's a nice way to kill any underfunded development team. The only people who can afford to put out games that are not "grossly unoptimized" by your definition are those who have enough money to finish them "when they are done". And these people will probably not care much about you boycotting them.

 

Sorry, that was me.