NV40 Pixel shader = Checkbox or Useable?

[Quitch]

I'd say tha the fact that so many people choose option three is more a sign of them hedging their bets more than anything.

 

[davepermen]

of course it's usable. question is, will we see it used before nv40 gets dropped again?

Thats a bold assertion. RT-patches on NV20 anyone ? Did displacement mapping ever happen on Parhelia ? Does R300 do truform ?

i think you got me wrong. i thought about ps2.0 on the other side.. wich will be mostly used in games AFTER the nv30/r300 leading days. nv40,r420 is soon here, and still, there aren't much games REALLY using ps2.0 to any extend. most games of now use it, if at all, to enhance dx8 features.

oh, and, the RT-patches simply had a shitty interface, but there are uses for it (lack of hw support means there are some engines, wich have to do this in software). same for parhelia displacementmapping, and r300 truform.

they are all usable. problem is they aren't standard, and possibly won't be for a while else, they would get used quite much. but there's nothing stating they are not usable.

 

[no_way]

they are all usable. problem is they aren't standard, and possibly won't be for a while else, they would get used quite much. but there's nothing stating they are not usable.

AFAIK, none of them are usable. The drivers have either dropped support or that support never even materialized.

 

[micron]

That being said if the NV40 is as effective at running PS3.0 instensive applications as the FX5200 is at running any pixel shader intensive app now, then it will mean nothing, especially if that is exposed early on.

You know...one would think that nVidia learned their lesson with their weak implementation of ps 2.0, but I betcha we've got a recap of that whole situation with NV40 and it's support of ps 3.0.

 

[GrapeApe]

You know...one would think that nVidia learned their lesson with their weak implementation of ps 2.0, but I betcha we've got a recap of that whole situation with NV40 and it's support of ps 3.0.

Agreed, the only difference I see is that this time there really is nothing to compare to. The poor implementation with the NV3X series wouldn't have been exposed if it weren't for the performance of the R3XX series running the same code. If it was only the NV3X in the market, in the way that it will only be the NV4X with PS3.0 support initially (according to reports), I'm sure people would've said, 'well obviously PS2.0 is unsuable, and this must be the way it is, at least nV offers PS2.0 even if we can't really use it before 2005/2006.'

If ATI had been able to get a PS 3.0 compliant part to the market then we'd have something to compare the nV40 to, until there is, we will simply be comparing it to PS2.0 performance of the 3X-X generation cards from both ATI and nV; and NV's 3X line will make anything new look good IMO.

Sure we may have some pretty demos, but whether it's useful/practical or not remains to be seen.

There has been talk (all we have right now) of the R42X having VS 3.0 support, which may initially be more useful, but that remains to be seen as well.

 

[StealthHawk]

Agreed, the only difference I see is that this time there really is nothing to compare to. The poor implementation with the NV3X series wouldn't have been exposed if it weren't for the performance of the R3XX series running the same code. If it was only the NV3X in the market, in the way that it will only be the NV4X with PS3.0 support initially (according to reports), I'm sure people would've said, 'well obviously PS2.0 is unsuable, and this must be the way it is, at least nV offers PS2.0 even if we can't really use it before 2005/2006.'

People still would have been comparing PS2.0 game paths with NV3x to PS1.1 game paths and be complaining about the big difference in performance.

IIRC Halo PS2.0 is quite a bit slower than Halo PS1.1, and Fry Cry demo PS2.0 is a lot slower than PS1.1. So there's still some reference point, albeit not entirely apples to apples, that PS2.0 on NV3x would still have been compared to even if R3xx didn't support PS2.0.

 

[GrapeApe]

So there's still some reference point, albeit not entirely apples to apples, that PS2.0 on NV3x would still have been compared to even if R3xx didn't support PS2.0.

Oh I agree there would be a reference point like I mentioned but nothing like we have now where initially in games like FarCry the NV3X series was dropped down to PS1.1 mode while the R3XX series were getting similar and better performance using PS2.0. There are some efficiencies to be found too, and without something good to hold it up against we'd simply accept that PS2.0 is not quite ready for prime time yet. I think that would've slowed down the pace of adoption even more. The only way that the NV40 having PS3.0 suppport would sway me would be if I can see an immediate tangible benifit, even if it was just in limited demos, but if I could forsee it being useful in the life of the card, hey why not? But it has to be in addition to other benifits that are useable now.

On it's own PS3.0 support will mean very little to the average gamer, and many may simply say 'So what? Which one gets me more FPS?'. But I guess it'll depend on the PR department once again. It would likely be to nV's benifit to have sophisticated demos to showcase, in the same way rthdribl really impressed early in the life of the last generation of cards.

 

[Hubert]

Well, we will have to see NV3xs' PS2 performance improved first.
I mean do we take for granted that NV40 will be a fast PS2 hardware ?
Or is the difference so little between PS3 and PS2 that I am talking about the same thing ?