PowerVR VS 3.0 Demo!!!

[radiATIon]

Hi everyone,

If I'm not mistaken, there are some PowerVR VS 3.0 demo that requiers SM 3.0 or at least VS 3.0 to run the demo. Did anyone try this yet??? I'm really interested to know what happen when running with GeForce 6800.

Please Anyone can run the demo & give us an idea???

 

[Tim Murray]

I've heard from numerous people that the PVR SM3.0 demos do not work at all on NV40.

 

[Geo]

I've heard from numerous people that the PVR SM3.0 demos do not work at all on NV40.

And what does this portend?

 

[Tim Murray]

I've heard from numerous people that the PVR SM3.0 demos do not work at all on NV40.

And what does this portend?

Last I heard, Microsoft had relaxed some of the requirements for SM3.0 between the release of the PVR demos and the introduction of NV40, and the demos will not run on the hardware because it doesn't meet all of the requirements.

 

[Geo]

I've heard from numerous people that the PVR SM3.0 demos do not work at all on NV40.

And what does this portend?

Last I heard, Microsoft had relaxed some of the requirements for SM3.0 between the release of the PVR demos and the introduction of NV40, and the demos will not run on the hardware because it doesn't meet all of the requirements.

Ya don't say. That sounds awfully like MS turned SM3.0 into SM3.0- in order for NV's part to qualify. Can't be true tho, cause everyone knows that MS hates NV and cheats for ATI.

 

[Ostsol]

Last I heard, Microsoft had relaxed some of the requirements for SM3.0 between the release of the PVR demos and the introduction of NV40, and the demos will not run on the hardware because it doesn't meet all of the requirements.

Hmm. . . So I wonder what this says for PVR upcoming hardware. . .

 

[anaqer]

Hmm. . . So I wonder what this says for PVR upcoming hardware. . .

Unsupported features? (like how the NV3x is PS2.0+)

 

[Ostsol]

Unsupported features? (like how the NV3x is PS2.0+)

The NV3x is PS2.0+. Just because the speed is crap doesn't mean that the support isn't there. What features developers choose to use is irrelevant where the hardware's feature list is concerned.

 

[BRiT]

Unsupported features? (like how the NV3x is PS2.0+)

The NV3x is PS2.0+. Just because the speed is crap doesn't mean that the support isn't there. What features developers choose to use is irrelevant where the hardware's feature list is concerned.

I believe he meant that PVR-Series5 is to PS3 what NV3x is to PS2. [ie: PVR-S5 = PS3+]

 

[anaqer]

What features developers choose to use is irrelevant where the hardware's feature list is concerned.

Agreed, although I would have thought that folks around here are more interested in features that are exposed, supported, and actually widely used, rather than just a checkbox list of features that may very well end up being paperware ( Truform, F-Buffer, etc., anyone? ).

EDIT : BRiT, yes, with the extension that I fear that the "extra" capabilities will fall into the second category.

 

[Ante P]

I've tried running the dmeo after installing DX9.0c on an NV40 with 61.11 and it just complains about lack of SM3.0 support.

Pixel Shader 3.0 in Shadermark 2.1 works perfectly though (except for one test which is all f'ed up)

 

[tEd]

I've tried running the dmeo after installing DX9.0c on an NV40 with 61.11 and it just complains about lack of SM3.0 support.

Pixel Shader 3.0 in Shadermark 2.1 works perfectly though (except for one test which is all f'ed up)

is ps3.0 any faster in shadermark compared to ps2.x on the nv40?

 

[Ante P]

is ps3.0 any faster in shadermark compared to ps2.x on the nv40?

nope, slower actually

 

[Tim Murray]

is ps3.0 any faster in shadermark compared to ps2.x on the nv40?

nope, slower actually

but, PS3.0 depends on the shader and where it's being used... I'm curious to see how Series 5 (or SOME OTHER SM3.0 CARD) performs in Shadermark 2.1.

 

[DemoCoder]

Not much has changed in SM3 between DX9 and DX9c. It may be that the PVR demo requires some surface formats or modes that the nV40 doesn't have.

 

[overclocked]

So what´s the deal of making demos nobody can see/test if not we are seeing a PVR series 5 board soon...
Is there any indication´s that this will happen soon, and also some techinfo about it? I know we have a couple a guys from the company here soo can´t you hint something, plz...

 

[SegaR&D]

I know we have a couple a guys from the company here soo can´t you hint something, plz...

There's a better chance of george bush giving you a tour of Area 51

 

[Jodi]

Those demos used advanced stuff

From memory, the powrvr 3.0 demos used alot of advanced techniques, that would be the bane of any IHV anywhere.

MRTs, multiple dependant texture reads in the vertex shader, multiple vertex streams and frequencies, dynamic branches and loops and funny textures and all sorts. This is just from memory, but the fact that the nVidia part doesn't work with these demos comes to no surprise to me.

I hope someone in nVidia is working on a way to get these demos to work, cos if someone else comes out with a part that does...

 

[DemoCoder]

Everything you listed is supported by the NV40. Many NVidia demos that *should work* on other cards, don't. This all comes down to caps-bit checking that is probably too strict.

 

[Ante P]

Everything you listed is supported by the NV40. Many NVidia demos that *should work* on other cards, don't. This all comes down to caps-bit checking that is probably too strict.

• NV40 GPU
• 16 rendering pipelines
• 256 bit memory bus
• Shader Model 3.0
• funny textures