Take a look:
http://www.viaarena.com/?PageID=119
BTW, it's Via's own site, and thanx to www.3dcenter.de for the link!
http://www.viaarena.com/?PageID=119
BTW, it's Via's own site, and thanx to www.3dcenter.de for the link!
Savage XP has quiet impessiv benchmarks
- Thread starter up
- Start date
Hellbinder
Banned
the comparrison is based on price. Those other cards are in the same price bracket as the SavageXP.
Or do you people think that it should be "normal" practice to compare a 15$ chip to a 75$ chip. Or that just becase it 20fps faster than its market siblings, that somehow its dishonest?
Savagexp cards will only cost about 50$.
I guess every chip on the market no matter the make, model, price should only *ever* be compared to a GF4 ti 4600....
Or do you people think that it should be "normal" practice to compare a 15$ chip to a 75$ chip. Or that just becase it 20fps faster than its market siblings, that somehow its dishonest?
Savagexp cards will only cost about 50$.
I guess every chip on the market no matter the make, model, price should only *ever* be compared to a GF4 ti 4600....
It's nice to see that the SavageXP is not nearly as slow as the news at xbitlabs said. Really good news. I hope the story from eetimes, that the SavageXP is an DX8.1 chip is also true.
From memory it seems the SavageXP @32bit is as fast as the GF2-MX400 @16bit. So maybe it is even faster then the GF4-MX420 @16bit.
From memory it seems the SavageXP @32bit is as fast as the GF2-MX400 @16bit. So maybe it is even faster then the GF4-MX420 @16bit.
mboeller said:
you and me both.
Still, S3's web pages don't make this any clearer...
http://www.s3graphics.com/prod_frame_SavageXP.htm
( I hope paste worked allright...
)EDIT: it didn't worked allright, so I did it again with a hard way.
anyways, it looks like having Vertex Shader as in Hardware, but is there PS and if yes, then what version it is using?
Chalnoth said:
Well;
It's really nice that You think that an SavageXP is an better card than the GF4 MX420 since, according to an eetimes-article last week it supports DX8 pixel-shaders and the GF4-MX series does not. I really hope this article is true.
IMHO the MX440 is more expensive and so comparing the SavageXP with an MX440 is not appropriate. But I agree the MX440 would be faster ( but has no DX8 functionality ). So the SavageXP seems to be the perfect OEM 3D-chipset. Cheap but with DX8 support to have an "feature-complete" OEM-card. Only the Xabre400 should have more appeal to the OEM's.
But I would not touch both cards, cause the drivers should suck, based on reports from the old cards from both producers.
Doesn't look bad at all feature-wise! If the drivers are halfway decent this should be an interesting chip for people looking for a cheap DX8 solution, Desktop OEMs, and if I interpret the "internal DDR" and power consumption correctly even for notebooks!
Gotta love all these comebacks - the 512kb graphics card in my old 486DX66 I still keep around has an S3 chip, they owned back then (oh my god, must be a decade old by now)...
Edit: Hmmm, Fully compatible with DX7/8 T&L/Vertex shaders but just Compatible with Pixel shaders? Also, compatible, not compliant?
Gotta love all these comebacks - the 512kb graphics card in my old 486DX66 I still keep around has an S3 chip, they owned back then (oh my god, must be a decade old by now)...
Edit: Hmmm, Fully compatible with DX7/8 T&L/Vertex shaders but just Compatible with Pixel shaders? Also, compatible, not compliant?
Dave B(TotalVR)
Regular
So they go and benchmark Quake 3 also and wonder why it wins at that too.
Some people just have no brains.
Nappe1 said:how you can be only Compatible with pixel shaders without being also compliant with PS?
afaik, you are compliant with PS or then you just don't support it at all...
Just wondering, usually verdors are very specific, and compliant is the word commonly used when talking about fully supporting these features in hardware. IMHO compatible could mean anything from "not crashing when the game asks for it but ignoring the request" to "having some of the features, not all, but enough to emulate the rest" and finally "we meant compliant all along, sorry for the typo, we're fully in DX8.1 spec"...
But they don't write "compatible with DirectX 8.0 and 8.1" but "compatible with Vertex and Pixel Shader implementations" As we know, Vertex Shader aren't the problem, but Pixel Shader couldn't be emulated! So why should or could they mention Pixel Shader if it don't have one? This wouldn't make much sense...
Oh, I would think Joe knows.
OpenGL guy
Veteran
Chalnoth said:
UT was working when I left... Trust me, I know
