Russ, I propose logic and specific questions, and, once again, you seem to be choosing to disregard that opportunity to do so with any clarity.
RussSchultz said:
First off, I NEVER said that performance is not possible to be included in "properly" in his sentence. Unless "safe to assume" means "not possible"? (I guess I should be prepared for the essay on how it means exactly that!?)
Now we're back to incompatibility with language again.
I provide an argument to Dave H concerning your assertion of incompetence based on (what you proposed as) the usage of "properly" by Jerky, which according to Dave H (at that time) was not a "matter of opinion". This argument by Dave H was predicated on the only interpretation for "properly" being exclusive of performance (i.e., "DX 9 compliance"). You did actually read this discussion, yes? You realize that this post was not a reply to you, and that your response to it placed you in the middle of it, right?
You replied to that post by saying:
Russ said:
Demalion: he (Jerky) specifically mentioned performance in his original statment, so it would be safe to assume that the second part (can't run dx9 properly) does not include performance as a criteria.
'Technically', you "said" "safe to assume" (if you define "said" as restricted to literal utterance)...
And if this is all opinion, can I therefor say that the R300 can't run Dx9 (or even dx7 or dx8) properly because the anisotropic isn't good?
...except it was predicated on proposing that the usage of properly wasn't a matter of opinion,
both by this phrase challenging my assertion that it
was indeed a matter of opinion,
and by agreeing with what Dave H originally proposed. But...you didn't "say" it...
you just "agreed" with it, said it was "safe to assume" and defended it.
"This is progress....you're admitting that you were wrong when you said it was safe to assume, agreed with, and defended the idea that this was not possible in your first reply."
Are you happy? What progress have you made? What did your use of semantics here serve, Russ? I think "said" communicated accurately with just 4 letters, and, IMO, this type of semantic misuse is exactly what initiates our semantic discussions, Russ, since "said" is not restricted to literal utterance (your reply depends on this error, and that is why I end up looking to a
dictionary to bring in some sanity). I wasn't arguing about literal utterance, which is the only interpretation of "said" that allows your statement of disagreement to make sense.
Next, yes extrapolating performance IN PS2.0 is possible. The 5900 has a set of performance, the 5600 has a set of performance, the 5200 has a set of performance. They all have the same feature set.
But not the same performance in implementing it, yes. Though it is unclear that that this statement about featureset is the case in the PS 2.0 testing conducted by the reviewer, however. Does uncertainty still make him incompetent?
The 5200 is some fraction of the 5600 which is some fraction of the 5900. These fractions are pretty consistant across the feature set (in terms of fillrate, pixel shading rate, etc) It would therefor follow that if comparing card A and card b in fillrate leads to the conclusion that B is capable of providing acceptable framerates at lower resolutions, then when considering pixel shading.
Well, it would have been useful if you addressed my provided discussion, so I wouldn't have to repeat pointing out that multipassing on non shader hardware and CPU rendering fit into your logical chain and its dependency on excluding minimum resolution, as well. This choice of response is what I mean by lack of clarity...you require me to do my work over again when you could have just addressed it.
The only thing that would differ is the resolution at which it reaches parity to your criteria of "properly", unless we now include sufficient resolution in "properly".
[relevant only to other possible discussions]
Well, it wasn't what I was proposing as my criteria of running DX 9 properly, it was Jerky's. I tend towards preferring phrases like "can't run PS 2.0 quickly", and I'd tend to use "properly" like Dave H would, but my preference (nor Dave H's) doesn't limit what can be fairly said by someone. I mention this again (and I do have to justify this since it doesn't matter for your current statement by itself) because, in my estimation, you (RussSchultz, in particular) seem to tend to apply the statements of others outside of their context, and I'd prefer to not have to explain how "properly" depends on context at a later date.
[/relevant only to other possible discussions]
Discussing the criteria of properly that I am, indeed, defending:
Do you limit fractions of that performance are you allowing, or are you really proposing that there is no minimum reslution for PC gaming? If you have specifics in mind, please mention them. The ones I have in mind are, for example,
this:
At 1024x768, the 5200 is ~ 1/6 (24/4.3) the speed of a 9500 (non Pro) in the 3dmark 03 PS 2.0 test.
At 1024x768, the 5200 is ~ 1/3 (18.3/5.3) the speed of a 9500 (non Pro) in the 3dmark 03 GT 4 test.
- First, you haven't clearly answered my question as to whether the problem was with his "uncertainty", or for his evaluating the performance of the 5200 as being too low. It reads right now as if you propose that the uncertainty shows incompetence, and that his evaluation that it's performance being too low when running PS 2.0 is just plain wrong, leaving the only option for a competent reviewer being to say that the 5200 "certainly" has sufficient performance to "run DX 9 propeerly". Do I misunderstand?
- Second, I currently think the 5200 performance is being overstated due to special case "optimizations" in these test, which seems to indicate both special attention and the ability to avoid image quality manifestion of special attention to be representative (i.e., not "consistent").
- Third, even aside from that, the situation with shaders seem to have a lot more uncertainty than you propose. Note that (compared to themselves in the other tests) the 9500 non pro is faster in the PS 2.0 test, and the 5200 is faster in the GT 4 test, almost as if your proposal of extrapolation without uncertainty has some flaws.
- Fourth, what fraction of this resolution do you propose ensures that the 5200 use is unequivocably "running DX 9 properly"? What fps do you extrapolate for it? I'll point out that 640x400 has 1/3 (1/3.072) the pixels of 1024x768.
Mutliplying by that gives us 16.3 fps and 13.2 fps. If your calcuation is something else, please clarify. For contrast, the 9700 (not a high end card anymore) gets about 24 fps at 1024x768.
And please, stop with the intellectual slights.
What intellectual slights? Asking that you be consistent...when you don't appear to be? Saying you are proposing logical fallacies? These assertions aren't slights, and I don't see any in my last post. Could you simply propose an example, like I asked before?
