Read it at: http://www.ve3d.com/hw/previews/cinefx/
Reverend's NV3x architecture article
- Thread starter John Reynolds
- Start date
- Status
Doomtrooper
Veteran
It would be nice to see some other interviews by Reverend with other IHV's...
CG topic has been beaten to death as I see not one other IHV state any support for it...in fact the other major player released tools and a compiler of their own, this Nvidia PR crap about other IHV's using it needs to be put to rest.
As for going above DX9 spec..since DX9 won't expose these 'extra features' Nvidia had to expose them somehow with their own HLSL. As said before the REAL reason why CG is here today.
CG topic has been beaten to death as I see not one other IHV state any support for it...in fact the other major player released tools and a compiler of their own, this Nvidia PR crap about other IHV's using it needs to be put to rest.
As for going above DX9 spec..since DX9 won't expose these 'extra features' Nvidia had to expose them somehow with their own HLSL. As said before the REAL reason why CG is here today.
I wouldn't necessarily be too sure of that...
Doomtrooper would you quit this? You make posts like this in almost every nvidia related thread.
Um, was this an interview? no? So how is that relevant to the article John posted?
Did you read the article? it wasn't just about CG, and it wasn't "PR crap" imo. Some of it is very good information that I'd personally like to read about. Just becuase you don't care, doesn't mean it's always "PR crap".
Exactly which features are going "above the DX9 spec" again? features that can't be utilized without CG? Please referesh my memory, because I'm not certain you really know. If you really don't know, then you shouldn't bother posting comments like that.
Um, was this an interview? no? So how is that relevant to the article John posted?
Did you read the article? it wasn't just about CG, and it wasn't "PR crap" imo. Some of it is very good information that I'd personally like to read about. Just becuase you don't care, doesn't mean it's always "PR crap".
Exactly which features are going "above the DX9 spec" again? features that can't be utilized without CG? Please referesh my memory, because I'm not certain you really know. If you really don't know, then you shouldn't bother posting comments like that.
Equally, you could try not rising to it - if there isn't an audience, there isn't a point.
Doomtrooper
Veteran
DaveBaumann said:
DX 9.1 I assume or late changes in DX9 spec..
I don't think NVidia will have to wait for DX9.1 to have all NV30 features exposed 
.
As for the "late changes in DX9 spec"... It's a problem to call something a "late change" in DX world since public DX9 shader spec are more then a year old (I think they were first mentioned in MS Meltdown presentation first).
.As for the "late changes in DX9 spec"... It's a problem to call something a "late change" in DX world since public DX9 shader spec are more then a year old (I think they were first mentioned in MS Meltdown presentation first).
I really don't care about the "politics" behind Cg.
As far I'm concerned as a gamer, anything that brings DX9 and above features into games faster is a good thing.
One of the biggest problems for game developers, is having to write special code for direct x and openGl and for all the different hardware out there.
From what I see of Cg, it will simplify all of this so that these features will be used sooner which is good for gamers.
If ATI doesn't like this then they better get busy developing and pimping their own software.
As far I'm concerned as a gamer, anything that brings DX9 and above features into games faster is a good thing.
One of the biggest problems for game developers, is having to write special code for direct x and openGl and for all the different hardware out there.
From what I see of Cg, it will simplify all of this so that these features will be used sooner which is good for gamers.
If ATI doesn't like this then they better get busy developing and pimping their own software.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Um....read the article.
Rev is not entirely consistent, but he does say specifically several times about NV30 being "beyond" DX9 spec. It's not clear to me though, whether Rev is making the assumption that "R300=DX9", or not.Joe DeFuria
Legend
I would have thought it prudent though, for Rev (perhaps he did try?) to get some answers/clarifications from ATI first (concerning the capabilities of R-300), BEFORE publishing an article that compares the architectures.
Interesting article. I would say, however, that "NVIDIA CineFX / NV3x Architecture" is not the best title for the article.
It seems to be mainly a comparison between the R300 and NV30 rather than just an overview of the capabilities of the CineFX stuff!
Doesn't matter to me, however, as both are likely to be too expensive for me for some time!
It seems to be mainly a comparison between the R300 and NV30 rather than just an overview of the capabilities of the CineFX stuff!
Doesn't matter to me, however, as both are likely to be too expensive for me for some time!
Doomtrooper
Veteran
Qroach said:
I can critique all I want, I've never seen any interview besides one IHV come from him so it would be refreshing to see something else..there is other IHV's out there despite what some people think
In a recent conference call, Geoff Ballew and Brian Burke (NVIDIA's Senior Product Manager and Senior PR Manager respectively) briefed me on NVIDIA's CineFX architecture that will debut in their next generation product based on the NV3x core.
vs.
I have no issue going beyond DX9 spec but as stated MANY times on this forum, developers code for whatever the greater user base ..stating that we are possibly going to see some decent DX 8.1 value cards on the market and people believe that some developer is going to code for one segment of the industry only ignoring all the other DX9 cards including the Parhelia, P10 etc...
There is a little confusion to be had here. Perhaps you should think more along the lines of DX9.0 compliancy vs beyond DX9 PS/VS 2.0.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
OK, well then now I am confused.
I would have thought that part of DX9.0 compliancy implies PS/VS 2.0 compliancy. So, if something goes beyond PS/VS 2.0, doesn't that imply beyond DX 9.0? I'm not saying that NV-30 isn't a DX9.0 compliant part, but it would seem logical that one could not take advantage of extra "VS/PS 2.0+" capability while only using DX 9.0 API.
In any case, rev stated a more than once, things like:
So what are we to make of this?
Rev hasn't quite got the complete picture just yet.
- Status
Similar threads
