Nvidia and ATI Technologies wants a piece of PS3

[jvd]

The difference JVD is I'm questioning your BS anti-Sony comment and asked for you to justify your comment. Which you've yet to give me other than some PSP is less than Dreamcast garbage.

WIth out ever answering my questions . Hmm why do i have to do all the work in the thread .

You started this by posting the obtuse comment about ATI and nVidia allways being better than what Sony could do

Really where did i say that vince.

I said

while i personaly think having a nvidia or ati gpu/vpu inside the ps3 would make the system much better all around sony would be stupid not to reuse cell else where in the console. The investment is to high for them not to

Or is that your sony filter working . Where is someone even mentions something other than sony you must jump in and praise sony .

I just read the thread and was going to post the same thing. Personally, I'd like to discuss something other than the stereotypical, "Yeah, yeah. We've heard it all before - The Graphic Synthesizer is nothing but 25 Voodoo2's in parallel and wasn't impressive. It was bullshit then, it's probably BS now." comments. I mean, we all know that nVidia & ATI is one hell of a company and the undesputed masters of the universe, but must we repeat this in every thread instead of discussing technical aspects?

What i actually said is

But then again 32 voodoo 2s in sli mode would be more powerfull than a geforce 2 . But i'd rather have games built for the geforce 2 than the 32 voodoo 2s .

So where did i say anything wrong. 32 voodoo 2s in sli mode would be more power full (fillrate wise) But I'd rather have games built for a geforce 2 than 32 vodoo 2s .

Meaning image quality is just as important as brute strength.

Never did i once say the ps2 is not impressive. But you seem to have to take it that way .

of course why in every thread must you down play the dreamcast ?

Are you upset that it has a better feature set and image quality than the ps2 ?

You're a funny guy JVD

about the only truth i've ever heard come out of your mouth .

I also like how you call everyone in 3d tech forum idiots . Nice way to make friends vince.

 

[Vince]

If it's all public... why do nVidia and ATi's implementations both differ so wildly?

Why do they have such drastically different performance characteristics?

Because they are design implementations, they impliment what? Um, theory. From where...

I mean, what do you think people present at conferences like SIGGRAPH or IEEE or GDC? What do you think the research establishments at universities do? Do you think nVidia and ATI do it all themselves? I mean, what are you thinking?

Matrox's Parhelia-512 was an embarrassment, and it was some five years in the making, too. And Matrox had access to just as many public docs as Sony does.

And apparently, Volari and DeltaChrome use pure supersampled AA (GeForce2 / Radeon R6 tech, PS2 is capable of it, this is a pure public domain method)... and one of the two (can't remember which) isn't capable of AF full stop (it just modifies LOD if you turn it on).

WTF? Where was Z3 presented? Siggraph '99. And thats just off the top of my head from someone not in the industry. There is a massive collection of publications and research on information theory and AA.

GSCube = PS2 graphics with a fucking ludicrous amount of extra polygons. No amount of parallelism will add features to your graphics pipeline, until you bite the bullet and run a software renderer - at which point the issue is moot.

Hey, who in that other thread questioned Faf when he said that this place is going to be a vernerable hell-on-earth if Sony were to go Micropolygon. Well, this is what you're going to get, times the other 500 members who won't spend the time to learn about it

GeForce256 and Radeon R6 both have basic pixel shaders (nVidia Shading Rasteriser and Charisma Engine, respectively). PS2 has alpha blending. WOOP.

WOW, NSR and Charisma... shit, that sounds really powerful. I bet it got used in every title developed during that period! I also bet the games from 2000's hardware are just soo much better looking than PS2s... ohh, wait, No.

Some people actually prefer well-done pixel operations and texturing to fifty billion extra polygons - some people prefer Dreamcast's graphics to PS2's for this very reason.

Some people also remember what the GeFORCE256 SDR was capable of. And we still shivver in horror, only made worse by JVD's attempt at making it into something other than a horrible product.

Judging by the screenshots of "Death Jr" or whatever, PSP has a long way to go as far as pixel maths go. It looks about halfway between N64 and Dreamcast - wow, it has texture filtering and alpha blending! WOWIE!

Funny girl. Still missed the point, if ATI and nVidia are so much further than the rest of the industry, like Sony and PowerVR, why are their portable 3D solutions alot worse than PSP and it's "halfway between N64 and Dreamcast" graphics?

 

[Vince]

Or is that your sony filter working . Where is someone even mentions something other than sony you must jump in and praise sony

Where's the praise? I'm not praising Sony, I asked you to justify your blatetly ridiculous comment because I know you don't know what the hell you're talking about if you must know.

I also like how you call everyone in 3d tech forum idiots . Nice way to make friends vince.

I generally don't in the 3D Forum because I recognize they know more than me and I respect it. I have no problem doing to you though when you make a comment like this. And I'm really not that concerned about making friends on the internet, sorry.

 

[jvd]

Funny girl. Still missed the point, if ATI and nVidia are so much further than the rest of the industry, like Sony and PowerVR, why are their portable 3D alot worse than PSP and it's "halfway between N64 and Dreamcast" graphics

because this is so much better than dreamcast on a chip that was around since 2001 . Or mbx which is in hardware right now. More than can be said about the psp

 

[Vince]

Funny girl. Still missed the point, if ATI and nVidia are so much further than the rest of the industry, like Sony and PowerVR, why are their portable 3D alot worse than PSP and it's "halfway between N64 and Dreamcast" graphics

because this is so much better than dreamcast on a chip that was around since 2001 . Or mbx which is in hardware right now. More than can be said about the psp

What's more than can be said about PSP. I'm lost in this comment.

 

[Fafalada]

wow, it has texture filtering and alpha blending! WOWIE!

That's all that DC games had and people are still going Wovie over them until today 8)
Not to mention none of it has been shown on any existing portable hw as of yet.

 

[Vince]

Jeez, vince, you're a good guy that's pasionate about what you like. However The way you talk about Sony reminds me of the same way you talked about 3dfx.

Generally speaking your right. But in this case I wasn't even thinking about Sony when I commented, I was thinking that JVD was talking out of his ass and wanted to see his reasoning. I sware..

 

[Tagrineth]

If it's all public... why do nVidia and ATi's implementations both differ so wildly?

Why do they have such drastically different performance characteristics?

Because they are design implementations, they impliment what? Um, theory. From where...

I mean, what do you think people present at conferences like SIGGRAPH or IEEE or GDC? What do you think the research establishment at universities does? Do you think nVidia and ATI do it all themselves? I mean, what are you thinking?

Ah, but why does everyone else's implimentation suck so horribly? With the notable exception of 3dlabs, but I doubt they'd license SuperScene to Sony.

Matrox put forth a valiant effort with 16x FAA, but that implementation fizzled pretty badly most of the time. A decent Wu algo would probably work better most of the time...

Matrox's Parhelia-512 was an embarrassment, and it was some five years in the making, too. And Matrox had access to just as many public docs as Sony does.

And apparently, Volari and DeltaChrome use pure supersampled AA (GeForce2 / Radeon R6 tech, PS2 is capable of it, this is a pure public domain method)... and one of the two (can't remember which) isn't capable of AF full stop (it just modifies LOD if you turn it on).

WTF? Where was Z3 presented? Siggraph '99. And thats just off the top of my head from someone not in the industry. There is a massive collection of publications and research on information theory and AA.

Okay? So why do Volari and DeltaChrome, very new cores whose parent companies certainly had access to this same presentation, have such horrid implementations? Please explain THAT to me.

Theory != practice, and in today's tech world, stepping on other companies' patents is a constant danger.

In theory, Sony could've included at least EMBM or DOT3 bump mapping, or something along those lines, in GS. Those two technologies were pretty widespread by then, wouldn't you agree?

GSCube = PS2 graphics with a fucking ludicrous amount of extra polygons. No amount of parallelism will add features to your graphics pipeline, until you bite the bullet and run a software renderer - at which point the issue is moot.

Hey, who in that other thread questioned Faf when he said that this place is going to be a vernerable hell-on-earth if Sony were to go Micropolygon. Well, this is what you're going to get, times the other 500 members who won't spend the time to learn about it

Sony tried to go with mass polys this gen. And what did we get? A lot of really bad looking games. A few good looking ones, but sadly, even the PS2's best looking games don't quite stack up against GameCube's best visuals (except from an art direction viewpoint - and if you want to go THAT far, we could bring in some Dreamcast examples too! And besides, art direction falls under aesthetics which can't really be measured too well)

GeForce256 and Radeon R6 both have basic pixel shaders (nVidia Shading Rasteriser and Charisma Engine, respectively). PS2 has alpha blending. WOOP.

WOW, NSR and Charisma... shit, that sounds really powerful. I bet it got used in every title developed during that period! I also bet the games from 2000's hardware is just soo much better looking than PS2... ohh, wait, no.

I never said they were used. In fact, offhand I can't name a single game that used either of them. The technology was in place, though.

And the games from 2000 didn't use the hardware - AS YOU SO KINDLY POINTED OUT YOURSELF. Hell, compare Xbox's visuals to those of games from GeForce3's launch. Games that actually USE the hardware to any serious, low-level extent, DO end up looking a whole lot better. Just like PS2's graphics do end up looking quite a bit better than anything that was achieved during Voodoo/Voodoo2/Voodoo3's time, despite the similar feature set.

Some people actually prefer well-done pixel operations and texturing to fifty billion extra polygons - some people prefer Dreamcast's graphics to PS2's for this very reason.

Some people also remember what the GeFORCE256 SDR was capable of. And we still shivver in horror, only made worse by JVD's attempt at making it into something other than a horrible product.

DOOM3 technically uses (or at least at one point used - and hasn't changed much visually except for things like HDR) GeForce256's feature set as a base.

Granted, it won't run well on a GeForce256 (partly because of abstraction due to OS, AGP bus, driver interface, general programming, Carmack's severe abuse of five hundred passes per pixel)... but it's the technology.

Judging by the screenshots of "Death Jr" or whatever, PSP has a long way to go as far as pixel maths go. It looks about halfway between N64 and Dreamcast - wow, it has texture filtering and alpha blending! WOWIE!

Funny girl. Still missed the point, if ATI and nVidia are so much further than the rest of the industry, like Sony and PowerVR, why are their portable 3D alot worse than PSP and it's "halfway between N64 and Dreamcast" graphics?

Because the portable sector has never been their focus, and demand for high-performing 3D in the hand-held market has been absurdly small until very, very recently. Look at PowerVR MBX, though, if you want to see hand-held graphics from a PC sector dev who actually dared enter the market.

 

[Vince]

Ah, but why does everyone else's implimentation suck so horribly? With the notable exception of 3dlabs, but I doubt they'd license SuperScene to Sony.

Matrox put forth a valiant effort with 16x FAA, but that implementation fizzled pretty badly most of the time. A decent Wu algo would probably work better most of the time...

AND

WTF? Where was Z3 presented? Siggraph '99. And thats just off the top of my head from someone not in the industry. There is a massive collection of publications and research on information theory and AA.

Okay? So why do Volari and DeltaChrome, very new cores whose parent companies certainly had access to this same presentation, have such horrid implementations? Please explain THAT to me.

Go ask the companies why they suck. I mean, come on.. where's this going, it's such a nonstarter of a position. Lets talk about the basic facts which will show your position is utter bullshit.

New theory is constantly being presented on these topics like informartion theory. Z3 is an example and it's clear that there are many ways to get high quality filtering and there will only be more ways in the future. There is no bound on theory - period.

But, this theory needs to be implimented by a company in a physical product. There are many bounds on this, like engineering talent, size, time limits, commercial viability, financing, etc, etc. Most companies aren't as big as an nVidia or ATI or Sony and don't have the resources (be them monetary or human or temporal) to pull it off. Whats so hard to understand about this?

You make it seem like there's only one way to to any specific thing.

In theory, Sony could've included at least EMBM or DOT3 bump mapping, or something along those lines, in GS. Those two technologies were pretty widespread by then, wouldn't you agree?

First off, this only reinforces my previous stance from above. Yes, the theory behind DOT3 and EMBM was widespread in the academic fields - but they weren't capable of being implimeted due to the practical bounds on manufacturability and related things. Voodoo3 didn't support it, neither did the GeFORCE256 SDR or DC to practical levels - the GS would have been the same. Their decision is probably a good one.

Sony tried to go with mass polys this gen. And what did we get? A lot of really bad looking games. A few good looking ones, but sadly, even the PS2's best looking games don't quite stack up against GameCube's best visuals (except from an art direction viewpoint - and if you want to go THAT far, we could bring in some Dreamcast examples too! And besides, art direction falls under aesthetics which can't really be measured too well)

Um. Why would I comment or care about your opinion of something like why the PS2 doesn't compare against the year younger GC? And the DC argument is so tired it's not even funny when you look at the games people praise.

I never said they were used. In fact, offhand I can't name a single game that used either of them. The technology was in place, though.

And the games from 2000 didn't use the hardware - AS YOU SO KINDLY POINTED OUT YOURSELF. Hell, compare Xbox's visuals to those of games from GeForce3's launch. Games that actually USE the hardware to any serious, low-level extent, DO end up looking a whole lot better. Just like PS2's graphics do end up looking quite a bit better than anything that was achieved during Voodoo/Voodoo2/Voodoo3's time, despite the similar feature set.

Ok, first off, you don't think there is a nexis between the level of preformance and support for these features and their adoption be developers?

Second, the Voodoo3 or GeFORCE256 SDR, even if it was fully exploited would still not match PS2's potential.

DOOM3 technically uses (or at least at one point used - and hasn't changed much visually except for things like HDR) GeForce256's feature set as a base.

Granted, it won't run well on a GeForce256 (partly because of abstraction due to OS, AGP bus, driver interface, general programming, Carmack's severe abuse of five hundred passes per pixel)... but it's the technology.

What a weak argument. So, if your building for a closed system and support and waste logic on supporting a hardwired feature which runs so slowly it can't be feasibly used - that's preferable to not supporting it and using the logic elsewhere?

Because the portable sector has never been their focus, and demand for high-performing 3D in the hand-held market has been absurdly small until very, very recently. Look at PowerVR MBX, though, if you want to see hand-held graphics from a PC sector dev who actually dared enter the market.

First off, your blatently incorrect on the first point. The company nVidia bought was an exclusive designer of portable 3D ICs (IIRC) and they still are nowhere near the PSP. Second, lets look at the MBX... where is it again in the market and what software can we compare against the PSP?

 

[Tuttle]

"In theory, Sony could've included at least EMBM or DOT3 bump mapping, or something along those lines, in GS."

Oh please.

That one sentence sums up this entire silly thread. And a good many other threads on this board.

 

[jvd]

"In theory, Sony could've included at least EMBM or DOT3 bump mapping, or something along those lines, in GS."

Oh please.

That one sentence sums up this entire silly thread. And a good many other threads on this board.

what the fact that hardware in 99 should have at least supported some of the more advance features released in other hardware in 99 ?