State of 3D Editorial

[Arun]

NVIDIA doesn't care about who posts information. What matters is who gave those persons this information.

---

BTW, I've seen someone in this thread mention Carmack and Serious Sam are the two last strongholds of OpenGL gaming.
First, I disagree. Some minor games, such as Savage: The Battle For Newerth ( damn, that game OWNS! ) are OpenGL.

Also, Serious Sam 2 is mostly Direct3D. That decision seems to have taken to make XBox ports more easy, as well as for other reasons.
An OpenGL version will still exist, and be a pretty big focus for the team. But the days of Serious Sam being a pure-OGL or mostly OGL game are gone.


Uttar

 

[Saist]

It wouldn't have to have FP16 only FP32.

Nvidia are trying to raise the minium precision requirement to FP32 because it is VERY likely that the R420 will still only have FP24 precision there for nvidia can advertise they are the only DX9.1 complaint product.

Aside from the fact that there is yet to be any proof of any kind that there will be a Microsoft DirectX 9.1, and counting the fact that Microsoft DirectX 9.0b already covers Pixel and Vertex shaders 3.0, as well as covering the 32bit precision (although it is not a required part of the spec while 24bit is), and tossing onto that the fact that the Microsoft DirectX team has stated publically that there will be no updates to the DirectX standard until the time of Longhorn...


Makes me wonder there Bloodbob were exactly your pulling this out of?

Well first thing first I never said there was gonna be a DX9.1 I was replying to someone ( I can't find the post now ) who said that DX9.1 / PS3.0 was gonna require FP32. I said the obvious reason behind this if it was true as we know nvidia has been pushing for FP32 all along.

Now of course a company says there will be no more updates but what happens if they found something that REALLY stuffed up the standard at a late stage would they leave the standard completely broke I doubt it. And atleast on a binary level DX9 is gonna be updated because the DX9.0b does not yet support PS3.0 with HLSL.

Don't confuse the DX9 runtime with the SDK. Microsoft have stated their intention to release updated versions of the DX9 SDK over time, specifically to include updated versions of the HLSL compiler. The runtime is not expected to be updated in terms of functionality (i.e. no DX9.1) but future revisions for bug fixes etc. (9.0c) can never be ruled out.

GP.

heh: http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33717136

I re-wrote the argument there and had mentioned the bug fixes... didn't think to write it into the rant here.

 

[Geo]

NVIDIA doesn't care about who posts information. What matters is who gave those persons this information.

Uttar

Oh, I get that. I was thinking more along the lines of "You will tell us who the mole is, or. . . well, you wouldn't like to see us get mad, would you? It isn't very nice when we get mad." Like that.

 

[g__day]

I have been pretty impressed with how the folk here have applied a professional eye to Josh's article and helped him gain the experience and contacts he needs to get access to better information. I have also be impressed with Josh for venturing here to take feedback from a some very informed sources - as people have pointed out a pretty daunting task.

And I like the serious and professional tone most people exhibit when faced daily with folk sprouting all types of opinions. That is another factor which sets B3D apart.

If 2003 delivered one thing it might be helping alot of "3d review sites" to realise just how complex and challenging it is to analyse balanced 3d performance. With NVidia's NV3x you probably need experience in compiler optimisation techniques to get a better feel for NV3x undelivered potential.

I wonder if the key learnings from this are (by audience):

i) PC / 3d review sites - read B3D to understand how to review 3d h/w & s/w
ii) NVidia - the market has waken up to you - better drivers - prioritise compiler optimisation for NV3x HLSL, stop trying to force proprietary designs on the industry for nefarious reasons and get NV4x out ASAP
iii) ATi - keep doing it exactly as you are, with the addition of express your points of view on the industry, how to select a card, a day in the life of a game developer etc a bit more frequently, visibly and powerfully - don't hide your light under a barrel
iv) game developers - scalable graphics engines are Nirvana - thank you - keep them comming, include benchmarks and cheat detects, encourage IHVs to work closer and more transparently with you
v) OEMs - throw your weight around more when it comes to truth in marketing or practices of the IHVs in benchmarks - more of the "We'll have you nuts if you mis-represent your capabilities to our buyers in leading benchmarks, cheat or cut corners and we'll read you the rite act"
vi) Joe Public - complain loudly when you get taken for a ride, read more about your intended purchases - anywhere - but realise a few sites like B3D do exists and are really showing thought leadership in a hell of alot of areas.

Its a shame the public don't know were to go for the best information in an are able to get it in an easy to understand form. For movies you have the oscars - and all actors know the effect of winning one. If 3d review prowess were clearly measured and recognised broadly I think its clear B3D would be winning with almost clockwork regularity.

 

[webmedic]

A couple of weeks. When will we see a dx9 offering from nVidia below $100 that can actually run dx9 stuff?

I'm glad you're taking the time to address this Josh, that article is a bit of a travesty the way it stands.

Just to clear this up for you I have a bfg 5200 right here and I'll have you know I dont care what nvidia says in thier liturature this thing says nothing about dx9 anywere on the box. It only states dx8 compatable. Try running any game in dx9 and see what happens. If it runs in dx9 at all(becuase nvidia is not bumping it down to dx8 with cheats) it will run at about 4 or 5 fps max. That is not dx9 in my book.

 

[webmedic]

As for the FP32 comment I was asking about, I wasn't talking about the current generation of products, so I am unsure what you are talking about with the nv3x comment? Yes, it does support FP32, but it also supports FP16. The question I was trying to ask is if the next gen parts from ATI and NV will only support FP32 (and not FP24 and FP16). Now, I know that DX9 doesn't really have FP32 spec, but it is supported (as full precision). FP32 is the IEEE standard, so I was just wondering if anyone in the know has anything to comment about the next gen parts transitioning to a full FP32 precision and not supporting FP16 and FP24 anymore.

the thing you seem to miss is that fp16 is not in the dx9 spec. the minimum is fp24 so ati cards do meet dx9 spec and nvidia cards dont unless they run in fp32 which they are very bad at. In other words the only way for nvidia to compete is to simply not run as a dx9 part at all. If they say we do dx9 but only in fp16 to stay competative then it is not dx9. Whatever it is they are not running in dx9.

 

[digitalwanderer]

A couple of weeks. When will we see a dx9 offering from nVidia below $100 that can actually run dx9 stuff?

I'm glad you're taking the time to address this Josh, that article is a bit of a travesty the way it stands.

Just to clear this up for you I have a bfg 5200 right here and I'll have you know I dont care what nvidia says in thier liturature this thing says nothing about dx9 anywere on the box. It only states dx8 compatable. Try running any game in dx9 and see what happens. If it runs in dx9 at all(becuase nvidia is not bumping it down to dx8 with cheats) it will run at about 4 or 5 fps max. That is not dx9 in my book.

Interesting to hear that they don't claim it's dx9 on the box...I wonder if it's for legal reasons?

 

[webmedic]

same here I was on another forum about a month ago or so and there was some discussion about it. I cant remember exactly what was said but it was very interesting that someone mentioned this thing so I looked. I wish I remember what it was about but more or less it was down ot wheather or not they could be sued for false advertising. In the case of the bfg 5200 whatever was bad they cant be sued since they dont claim anywere that it is or can do dx9.

 

[PaulS]

Interesting to hear that they don't claim it's dx9 on the box...I wonder if it's for legal reasons?

No, because they CAN technically run in DX9. nVidia effectively don't let you, but they didn't lie when they said it's a DX9 card.

 

[webmedic]

Oh boy i wish I could say what that other forum thread was about but i dont rememeber. I think it was discussing the possibility of the 5200 emulating some of dx9 in software but Ioculd be wrong.

Whatever it was there was a legitimate reason others were talking about sueing nvidia for false advertising. Really though this is serious. Just wish i could rememebr what it was.

 

[nelg]

the thing you seem to miss is that fp16 is not in the dx9 spec. the minimum is fp24 so ati cards do meet dx9 spec and nvidia cards dont unless they run in fp32 which they are very bad at. In other words the only way for nvidia to compete is to simply not run as a dx9 part at all. If they say we do dx9 but only in fp16 to stay competative then it is not dx9. Whatever it is they are not running in dx9.

FP16 is in the spec. It’s partial precision. Wether you are allowed to use FP16 when full precision is called for (min Fp24), that is another story.

 

[PaulS]

Oh boy i wish I could say what that other forum thread was about but i dont rememeber. I think it was discussing the possibility of the 5200 emulating some of dx9 in software but Ioculd be wrong.

That's true IIRC, but I doubt it would hold up in court as grounds for legal action.

 

[Hellbinder]

Something i was wondering lately is if the "time to market" impact for R300 is not underestimated.

Imagine if NV30 hitted first the market and that developpers had to discover DX9 with that architecture and limitations. Don't you think if DX9 softwares have been primarily made on NV30, the R300 would not seem so good as i guess the software would just not use all its potential ?



Edit:typos

I would imagine that a number of things would be different if the FX had hit first. One thing it would have been clocked lower without a leaf blower. Thus it would be about the speed of the non ultra model at MOST. Which means the 9700pro still launching on time would have immidiately out classed it. Secondly.. People would have made a lot bigger deal out of it not being Truely DX9 complient, becuase there would have been no lead time to gloss it over. Then there is the issue that FP24 is STILL the min spec for DX9. It still would have multiple missing features.. in fact the Fx line still is to this day. The R300 would have been the performance leader and had more and better shipping features.

But you can believe whatever you want.

 

[webmedic]

Oh boy i wish I could say what that other forum thread was about but i dont rememeber. I think it was discussing the possibility of the 5200 emulating some of dx9 in software but Ioculd be wrong.

That's true IIRC, but I doubt it would hold up in court as grounds for legal action.

Oh true I just thought it was interesting that it does not say dx9 anywere on the box. Also my father in law bought the stupid thing thinking he was getting a good deal so I ended up with the stupid thing and he has a radeon 9500 now. So one thing is for sure nvidias lying pr is working great for the regular Joe type out there.

 

[Hellbinder]

Uttar--

I may be out of line here. . .but I've read what you've written publically about your reasons for bailing out of GPU: Rumor Watch. Then I read your posts here. I get a different impression of what might be driving you to give it up: getting sick of wading thru the muck, and possibly concern that if you wade thru the muck long enuf you might end up. . .well, mucky, yourself.

Well some stuff did annoy me: I must admit the ONE thing that disgusted me the most was something a reviewer told me...
"Really, you should continue working on this stuff - it's the greatest industry in the world. You can make millionaires fear you." ( paraphrase )

The last sentence just completely, utterly disgusted me.
Plus, at the time I stopped GPU:RW ( and most of my dealings with sources, what I'm giving you here is mostly rethinking of old info or things which were FYI and is now okay to post ), I began realizing just how serious rumors were to NVIDIA and ATI's eyes.

I knew about ATI's misinformation campaign for a while ( not that they seem to take it very seriously *grins* ), and around the 15th of September, certain NVIDIA stands on rumors were communicated to me.


While ATI employees freely post on Beyond3D, NVIDIA consider forum posts as a crime. Their information security department ( and no, that's not just a myth ) never hesitate to use that against target employees.


Uttar

P.S.: Once ULE is published and I responded to all the feedback, expect to see me visit 3D forums as much as between 75 and 90% less.

I tell ya... The more I learn about Nvidia the more I wonder why anyone would EVER want to work there. It reminds me of a concentration camp or something. Really messed up.

I would also like to comment that I have personally considered Brian Burke the Single biggest low like unethical lying *beep* since the days he worked at 3dFX. he has only gotten Worse since he went to work for Nvidia.

 

[Pete]

Thank you Pete, that actually means a lot to me after the last two days.

My pleasure, Josh. I enjoy your work, and I don't think that bad-mouthing you as a person will improve your work, especially considering how responsive you've been following your article's publication. The reason I frequent B3D is because the majority of posters here act the same way. I don't know of another 3D forum where so many authors from other sites congregate, and while B3D's founders have a lot to do with maintaining that collegial atmosphere, no doubt that responsibility has shifted somewhat more to the other forum members as they've multiplied.

Now, carry on feeding my 3D addiction. Maybe you can pick up some of Uttar's sources on the rebound.

 

[rwolf]

Dio, join the marketing department now

Is that a compliment or an insult? Actually I've just been watching sireric. He really gets it right - solid engineering facts presented clearly.

Well if that means you and/or eric will have to leave your job(s) in the cafeteria, forget it. I would never suggest that anyone gives up free doughnuts. Kidding aside, yourself, sireric, OpenGl guy and Simon do a great job at explaining the inner workings of graphic chips. I am a lost to understand why the marketing department is so quite in this regards.

I would say marketing does a great job.

http://mirror.ati.com/vortal/r350/flash/9800educational/index.html

Ever see anything like this on Nvidia's website?

 

[rwolf]

Well Josh is ok in my books. He is man enough to admit making mistakes and that is pretty cool.

 

[nelg]

Rwolf, that is impressive but nonetheless it is still just an overview. I was referring to specifics. I would like to see the marketing dept. explain things like how FP24 is the right choice for today and the near future. How full trilinear filtering looks compared to quasi trilinear. Demonstrate the difference between different ways of doing AA and Anisotropic filtering. If they could produce something like this and include it on the driver cd I think it would be beneficial to both users and reviewers (present company excluded Dave). As I have mentioned before in another thread I find it simply amazing that in the minds of the general gaming public nV probably has the perception as being the leader in image quality when that is not the case.

 

[stevem]

V) OEMs - throw your weight around more when it comes to truth in marketing or practices of the IHVs in benchmarks - more of the "We'll have you nuts if you mis-represent your capabilities to our buyers in leading benchmarks, cheat or cut corners and we'll read you the rite act"

Not likely. The OEMs are pissed for various reasons, but have to take the IHV's spiel at face value. Apart from board level & general architecture briefs, they're as much in the dark as everyone else. In fact, the big OEMs have sought diversification for a long time, only to be realised relatively recently (again for various reasons). The name of the game is to be in the game. Hedging is only a security net.

Aside: There's been some mention of "reviewer whitepapers". Something akin is produced for the OEMs. These are tougher to get a glimpse of. Perhaps some enterprising soul might enquire about the "NV30 OEM whitepaper(s)" & then correlate with Triantos' recent comments...