NVIDIAs claims on R300 are wrong?

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by ram, Aug 19, 2002.

  1. ram

    ram
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Dave Baumann wrote in his Radeon 9700 review at page 2:

    versus the claim in the CineFX white papers:

    [​IMG]

    Interesting!


    Is your info based on the caps info?
     
  2. Dave Baumann

    Dave Baumann Gamerscore Wh...
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    14,081
    Likes Received:
    651
    Location:
    O Canada!
    the information was initially passed to me via certian people who frequent these boards, although a 'competetive analysis' document was passed to me on Friday (after the majority of the review had been written) which I have asked if I can publish in full.

    WRT to NV's docs and ATI's specs to a certain extent ATI caused the consufions becuase they published DX9 specifications, not what R300 is actually capable of. So, yes, ATI also go beyond PS/VS2.0 is a few places but that wasn't well reported before.
     
  3. alexsok

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    807
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Intresting...

    So R300 basically has more temporary registers than NV30 (32 versus 16) and apparenly, together with loops & branching, it has the same vertex instructions capability as NV30.

    Dave - what type of flow control? static or dynamic?
     
  4. kid_crisis

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2002
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    65536 is an easily factored number in the binary world (1024 x 64).

    65026 doesn't really make sense though (32,513 x 2?). Is this the correct number?
     
  5. alexsok

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    807
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Exactly, doens't make sense!

    Does R300 support True Dynamic Branching with loops & subroutines, etc?

    From all the articles I've read, it seems that R300 supports 1024 vertex instructions compared to 256 on NV30, BUT, NV30 can raise this number to 65536 through the use of loops & subroutines, while R300 remains limited to 1024 vertex instructions and is not capable of what NV30 is capable (true dynamic branching).

    The table brought in Dave's review confuses me...
     
  6. ram

    ram
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Do they write something new about the PS? It is still not clear if the R300 is capable of 96 (NVIDIA claim) or 160 (ATI claim) PS 2.0 instructions per pixel.
     
  7. alexsok

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    807
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    That's not what Nvidia claims...

    Nvidia claims ATI are capable of only 96bit color precision, while NV30 is capable of 128bit color precision, but there is more to that than can initially be seen...

    In terms of Pixel Shader instructions, R300 is capable of 160 instructions, while NV30 is capable of 1024 instructions, this was ATI's and Nvidia's claim from the beginning.
     
  8. ram

    ram
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Switzerland
    [​IMG]
     
  9. Snyder

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Vienna, Austria
    It's a bit odd still...
     
  10. alexsok

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    807
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Where do u see the number 96 there?

    Granted, swizzling is an essential component of DirectX 9, so I find it weird that R300, according to this chart, doesn't support it...
     
  11. ram

    ram
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Switzerland
    max. 32 + max. 64 = max. 96 ...
     
  12. alexsok

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    807
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Well, i think it is wrong... it should be 160, although some clarifications would be welcome! :D
     
  13. Reverend

    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    24
    Re R300 temp registers.

    ATI engineer tells me that the drivers should only reveal 16 (not 32) atm, maybe increased later.
    [edit]Oh btw, Wavey, best to change that "36" figure in your review to 32 (or 16, like I said above).
     
  14. ram

    ram
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Hmm, why should a driver report less registers than there actualy are as long as DX9 allows it? The latest DX9 specs allows up to 32 r/w registers in the VS 2.0.
     
  15. Reverend

    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    24
    Does anyone find what ATI believes in to be incorrect for specific cases?
     
  16. Reverend

    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    24
    Apparently (i.e. ATI engineer's words) is that this is for future shader optimizations for the compiler
     
  17. Xmas

    Xmas Porous
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,314
    Likes Received:
    140
    Location:
    On the path to wisdom
    For non-graphics-applications, yes.
     
  18. Heathen

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    380
    Likes Received:
    0
    Swizzler Sticks

    Maybe Nvidia were mistaken... :lol:

    Pretty sure Reverend confirmed that the R300 supports swizzling (whatever the nine blazes it is).

    Lots of big numbers at any rate, all good stuff.
     
  19. Reverend

    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    24
    I think I'm going to edit those table images with a "Please read the article at Voodooextreme before you assume all the info in this image is correct" disclaimer at the bottom.

    :)
     
  20. Xmas

    Xmas Porous
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,314
    Likes Received:
    140
    Location:
    On the path to wisdom
    Actually, there is a caps bit indicating whether the hardware can do arbitrary swizzling, or only some limited swizzling.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...