PVR5 to be unveiled on the 18th!

[Lazy8s]

Initial game development could've started a ways back, but focused development with the final kit would still be needed for a few months to bring the software together. Production cycles of games for the new systems can run a year or more easily, too. Sega Sammy's upcoming arcade board is probably on a similar -- yet a little earlier -- timescale for R&D/release as the new consoles.

 

[Lazy8s]

Speaking of Imagination Technologies, there was a press release about the new part from Metagence yesterday that doesn't seem to be there anymore...

edit: No, it's up at Metagence's site now.

 

[Dave B(TotalVR)]

If its not about price but performance, you can take KyroII too, because GF3 was very unavalaible. PCX2 made it to market half year before Voodoo2, therefore its clearly highend (coupled with highend CPU). I'm curious about rumours of slow performance of m3d, hadn't it slower clocks then normal PCX2?

No, the drivers were just a steaming pile of turd.


They both ran at 66Mhz, but the M3D didn't have a 66Mhz crystal on it, it used a clock multiplier but I dont know what that multiple was.

 

[Dave B(TotalVR)]

Oh and I might add that gave it 66Mpixels of fillrate with about 95% efficiency, compare that to the Voodoo 1 which had 45Mpixels of fillrate and about 20% efficiency.


Trouble was you could never access that higher fillrate until you stuck like a 233Mhz+ processor in with the PCX-2 because the polygon setup engine was done in the driver (not in hardware like ont he Voodoo).

 

[darkblu]

Trouble was you could never access that higher fillrate until you stuck like a 233Mhz+ processor in with the PCX-2 because the polygon setup engine was done in the driver (not in hardware like ont he Voodoo).

voodoo1 did tri setup in the driver as well. voodoo2 had hw tri setup.

 

[Nappe1]

M3D is still available.

in fact about 2 weeks ago, it was on sale. 10 Euros per pcs.

Where? at Matrox Online Shop.

I would ordered one, but the shipping costed twice the card.

 

[Sage]

yeah I found an M3D in a little shop about 2 years ago. got it for $5

 

[_xxx_]

Trouble was you could never access that higher fillrate until you stuck like a 233Mhz+ processor in with the PCX-2 because the polygon setup engine was done in the driver (not in hardware like ont he Voodoo).

voodoo1 did tri setup in the driver as well. voodoo2 had hw tri setup.

Ahem, a triangle is a polygon...

 

[akira888]

Of course, no modern PC HW rendering architecture directly scan-converts any geometric primitive (such as quads) other than a triangle, so "polygon setup" is really just "triangle setup."

 

[MrFloopy]

Of course, no modern PC HW rendering architecture directly scan-converts any geometric primitive (such as quads) other than a triangle

Sure about that?

some older hardware (at least Glint 300sx and I believe most others) used to render trapezoids. So a triangle was always two trapezoids. Have never seen anything that changes this. (not saying they don't but would be interested in your source for this).

 

[_xxx_]

Older HW did, modern HW doesn't. Triangles only.

 

[MrFloopy]

Older HW did, modern HW doesn't. Triangles only.

Any references to this. Just curious. Haven't bothered to follow HW that closely in last few years.

 

[Simon F]

Of course, no modern PC HW rendering architecture directly scan-converts any geometric primitive (such as quads) other than a triangle, so "polygon setup" is really just "triangle setup."

FWIW PCX1 and PCX2 could handle N-sided convex polygons.

 

[GameCat]

I doubt they scan convert anything other than tris but there's certainly support for quads in modern chipsets, it's ptractically required for good performance in some OpenGL based pro apps. This probably happens between tri setup and vertex transform though (or in the early stages of tri setup rather).

 

[Ty]

Simon, those aren't modern.

 

[Dave B(TotalVR)]

Of course, no modern PC HW rendering architecture directly scan-converts any geometric primitive (such as quads) other than a triangle, so "polygon setup" is really just "triangle setup."

FWIW PCX1 and PCX2 could handle N-sided convex polygons.

FWIW?
From What I Wimember?

 

[darkblu]

Of course, no modern PC HW rendering architecture directly scan-converts any geometric primitive (such as quads) other than a triangle, so "polygon setup" is really just "triangle setup."

FWIW PCX1 and PCX2 could handle N-sided convex polygons.

but from what i understand they did not have hw 'polygon setup' to start with : )

Ahem, a triangle is a polygon...

'tri setup' is just a term signifying a certain stage in the rasterizer pipeline. it does not necessariy setup tris -- it calculates screen space gradients from tris (i.e. from any 3 apt vertices, as a rule), but its output can be used for filling out any planar contour.

FWIW?
From What I Wimember?

usually 'for what it's worth', but only Simon can tell for sure what it signified this time ; )

 

[mboeller]

Of course, no modern PC HW rendering architecture directly scan-converts any geometric primitive (such as quads) other than a triangle, so "polygon setup" is really just "triangle setup."

FWIW PCX1 and PCX2 could handle N-sided convex polygons.

Simon;

Is that Your way to say that the MBX can do the same?

 

[Mintmaster]

FWIW?
From What I Wimember?

FYI, FWIW = For What It's Worth

 

[_xxx_]

Older HW did, modern HW doesn't. Triangles only.

Any references to this. Just curious. Haven't bothered to follow HW that closely in last few years.

Just look for any gfx chips specs. You'll always see a "Triangle Setup Engine" there. It's not because the HW couldn't do it if so wanted, the tris are just the cheapest/easiest to calculate.