Why DoomIII?
What does everyone think about the ATI video presentation?
- Thread starter Raystream
- Start date
Regarding Cg in the academic arena, it makes sense because OpenGL is traditionally used there. Perhaps ATI and 3DLabs' new initiative will change something. But Cg was a pretty smart move for NVIDIA in that respect.
Regarding "DX9 for $79", I definitely find that attractive. Sounds like a great budget card for 3D research. I also hope it wins over ATI's 9200. The faster the budget market is taken over by PS 2.0 (and higher) cards, the faster developers will be able to rid themselves of the baggage of older pixel shader (and fixed pipeline) versions. The 9200 is like NVIDIA's GeForce4 MX (although not as bad).
Regarding "DX9 for $79", I definitely find that attractive. Sounds like a great budget card for 3D research. I also hope it wins over ATI's 9200. The faster the budget market is taken over by PS 2.0 (and higher) cards, the faster developers will be able to rid themselves of the baggage of older pixel shader (and fixed pipeline) versions. The 9200 is like NVIDIA's GeForce4 MX (although not as bad).
I'm glad to see that ATI is starting to get vocal and aggressive. I just hope they don't get too egotistical and start to underestimate the competition. As long as they're out to be number one, it brings high competition to the video card industry and plentiful benefits to the consumer.
DaveBaumann said:
IIRC its because nvidia has optimised its pipeline for DOOMIII and it wouldn't be fair to use anything else to compare performance now would it? Course you know that Dave. I think that if indeed it is a DX9 card it should be benched on DX9 benchmark 3DMark2003. Of course that is MO.
Sabastian said:IIRC its because nvidia has optimised its pipeline for DOOMIII and it wouldn't be fair to use anything else to compare performance now would it? Course you know that Dave. I think that if indeed it is a DX9 card it should be benched on DX9 benchmark 3DMark2003. Of course that is MO.
Yeah, you're right. Much better to get a higher 3D Mark 2003 score then good Doom3 performance.
Besides, i said f.e. I didn't single out Doom3 as the single performance benchmark for DX9 cards. But i'm of the opinion that it's going to be very important, especially for the value cards since i don't think anyone expects to be able to run any full blown DX9 game (2-3 years from now ?) on them anyway. And most definitely not on a R9200
Sorry to burst your bubble, but any developers that TARGET the 9700 today won't sell many games, comparitively, until those games are deep in the discount bins and 9700 performance is the MX performance of tomorrow.Sabastian said:
Bjorn said:Sabastian said:IIRC its because nvidia has optimised its pipeline for DOOMIII and it wouldn't be fair to use anything else to compare performance now would it? Course you know that Dave. I think that if indeed it is a DX9 card it should be benched on DX9 benchmark 3DMark2003. Of course that is MO.
Yeah, you're right. Much better to get a higher 3D Mark 2003 score then good Doom3 performance.
Besides, i said f.e. I didn't single out Doom3 as the single performance benchmark for DX9 cards. But i'm of the opinion that it's going to be very important, especially for the value cards since i don't think anyone expects to be able to run any full blown DX9 game (2-3 years from now ?) on them anyway. And most definitely not on a R9200
So why buy the GFFX5200? I am not going to argue about how fast a DX9 game will take to appear I would imagine some time. Unless you don't want the highest performing DX9 card then you might as well go with a high performing DX8 card in which case the Radeon 9200 might just do great.
So why again would someone want a low performing DX9 card? If it is going to be a couple of years before we see any DX9 games then indeed you would want the faster cards available now that would be relivent to some degree then rather then the GFFX5200??? I wouldn't touch that card with a ten foot pole. It certainly smells like a MX senerio.
I liked the ATI presentation. It was interesting and you could tell they had a good time with it.
On the "professionality" of it. Sorry, but amongst conventions and "geek meets", the intensely immature and gaudy presentations are the ones that make the biggest impact.. bar none. As lame as it looks to see a bunch of grown men doing kung-fu fighting with heavy metal and flashing lights on a small streaming video, this kind of presentation *LIVE* is what leaves an impact on the audience. My company started doing this from the advice of industry research- the overhead presentations of facts and keypoints are now replaced by hiring dancers, gymnasts and performist artists. The impact is much greater from some guy doing summersaults in a big, bright Superman costume with a big flowing red cape than a CEO clicking buttons on a slideshow of specs.
Of all the bazillion tradeshows and conventions I've seen, the only presentations I can recollect are those that were similarly in poor taste and unprofessional... one like 4 years ago I still chuckle just thinking about was some new OLE extension toolkit.. and the presentation had pyro-effects, a bunch of loud Flamenco guitarists and blaring horn players, colorful dancing spanish ladies and ear-drum shattering "OLAY!" shouting as this big cacophony of sight and sound went on and on in song and dance. I don't remember a single other "professional" presentation from that con one bit, but I surely remember the flamboyant and unprofessional one quite clearly, and the sales pitch/product it reflected.
Now about ATI's product line up- the videos they prepared looked really cool. I like the shots of that one game that is using pixel shaders- it kind of looked like a C&C generals kind of game (the one Mr. Huddy showed and appeared to blow-up near the end hehe). Nascar 2003 Season also looks pretty cool as the reflections on the cars and the shadows look pretty cool. Their 50 fps vs 2 fps was pretty interesting also... not to mention the numerous pot-shots at NVIDIA (especially the Green NVIDIA bus comment hehe. I was surprised he didn't mention the bus was rather "short" or similar..).
In all, it looks like ATI has momentum and may be keeping ahead of the game. I also like the fact that they have taken a no-nonsense approach without trying to box anyone into anything (*cough* Cg *cough*). I hope ATI will continue to ride NVIDIA's butts for the next year+ as consumers are going to be the real winners if this kind of head-to-head title bout keeps up.
On the "professionality" of it. Sorry, but amongst conventions and "geek meets", the intensely immature and gaudy presentations are the ones that make the biggest impact.. bar none. As lame as it looks to see a bunch of grown men doing kung-fu fighting with heavy metal and flashing lights on a small streaming video, this kind of presentation *LIVE* is what leaves an impact on the audience. My company started doing this from the advice of industry research- the overhead presentations of facts and keypoints are now replaced by hiring dancers, gymnasts and performist artists. The impact is much greater from some guy doing summersaults in a big, bright Superman costume with a big flowing red cape than a CEO clicking buttons on a slideshow of specs.
Of all the bazillion tradeshows and conventions I've seen, the only presentations I can recollect are those that were similarly in poor taste and unprofessional... one like 4 years ago I still chuckle just thinking about was some new OLE extension toolkit.. and the presentation had pyro-effects, a bunch of loud Flamenco guitarists and blaring horn players, colorful dancing spanish ladies and ear-drum shattering "OLAY!" shouting as this big cacophony of sight and sound went on and on in song and dance. I don't remember a single other "professional" presentation from that con one bit, but I surely remember the flamboyant and unprofessional one quite clearly, and the sales pitch/product it reflected.
Now about ATI's product line up- the videos they prepared looked really cool. I like the shots of that one game that is using pixel shaders- it kind of looked like a C&C generals kind of game (the one Mr. Huddy showed and appeared to blow-up near the end hehe). Nascar 2003 Season also looks pretty cool as the reflections on the cars and the shadows look pretty cool. Their 50 fps vs 2 fps was pretty interesting also... not to mention the numerous pot-shots at NVIDIA (especially the Green NVIDIA bus comment hehe. I was surprised he didn't mention the bus was rather "short" or similar..).
In all, it looks like ATI has momentum and may be keeping ahead of the game. I also like the fact that they have taken a no-nonsense approach without trying to box anyone into anything (*cough* Cg *cough*). I hope ATI will continue to ride NVIDIA's butts for the next year+ as consumers are going to be the real winners if this kind of head-to-head title bout keeps up.
I don't get your point.
(But if Doom3 does play acceptably on a GF2DDR, then it will rock on a 5200.)
(But if Doom3 does play acceptably on a GF2DDR, then it will rock on a 5200.)
DX9 doesn't mean "R0x0rs at new games"
Its a level of functionality.
WTF do you want for $79, anyways?
Its a level of functionality.
WTF do you want for $79, anyways?
RussSchultz said:
Man in terms of longevity you are buying a peice of trash compared to the Radeon 9700. Surely the Radeon 9700 would hammer the crap out of the GFFX 5200... and it is over six months old where the GFFX5200 isn't going to be available for another month. So if the the GFFX5200 is supposed to be DX9 for $79 then why are they focusing on DOOMIII. In other words don't buy this card for DX9 right? If that is the case then surely the Radeon 9200 would be just as suitable if not better then.(depending on how much faster or not it is.)
Nebuchadnezzar
Legend
Somebody know what game that strategy DX9 game was? :?
Of course the 9700 will hammer the 5200. It costs more than 3x as much (almost 4x as much at retail)
Every person has a budget to spend on their new card (or the OEM who has a budget to put into their new box). You cannot upsell them to something that costs 3x (in general)
I'd rather they spend their ~$80 on a DX9 card than a DX7. Sure, its not future proof for all the uber games, but again, what do you expect for $79? (But, I bet it'll play The Sims Ad Nauseum when it comes out in 3 years)
Every person has a budget to spend on their new card (or the OEM who has a budget to put into their new box). You cannot upsell them to something that costs 3x (in general)
I'd rather they spend their ~$80 on a DX9 card than a DX7. Sure, its not future proof for all the uber games, but again, what do you expect for $79? (But, I bet it'll play The Sims Ad Nauseum when it comes out in 3 years)
Sabastian said:
I'm pretty sure that there will be some games using DX9 before the "full blown" DX9 games that i was talking about. Some of them might have "uber shiny water" or stuff like that which might require DX9. Or maybe you'll get better overall image quality in some games.
And as i said before, why not wait until we actually know how it (FX 5200) performs before judging it ?
Finally, how in the whole wide world can you compare this to a MX scenario ? (i'm assuming that you're talking about the GF4 MX here)
RussSchultz said:
DX9 for $79..... that is their marketing on this bugger. But it won't play a DX9 game. Maybe it will play some shiny water effect. (allibit crappy.)
Who is advocating a DX7 card anyhow Russ? What about a DX8.1a compliant card running PS1.4?
To put it as simply as possible here, you wouldn't buy this card for its DX9 then why is it being hyped as if it is a viable solution for DX9? Again if indeed the Radeon 9700 is the chosen plateform for DX9 then surely the GeforceFX 5200 is a massive marketing gimmick. In the end an end user may well be better off buying a good performing DX8.1a card for the same price. Hell if the DX8.1a card actually does PS1.4 it may even out perform the GFFX5200 for relatively the same price.
Now you know I think that the GFFX5200 DX9 for $79 is nothing but a marketing gimmick. I sincerely think however a solution based on the RV350 would clearly be a better choice for someone whom wants to buy a DX9 card. Anyone who doesn't know a dammed thing about graphics only that when they see "Geforce FX 5200 DX9 compliant" on the box they will think "gee DX9 has got to be better then DX8 for only $79" where do I sign? Then they take it home thinking well I got a DX9 card so I can play games that require that I guess. Then they finally get a game that needs DX9 compliant hardware and end up playing a slide show wondering why the game isn't working right. The DX9 for $79 is purely a marketing scam aimed at OEMs and maintaining graphics market share with a crappy low end product.... that is how it is like the MX. Further if the silicon isn't under the hood doesn't that make it technically not DX9 hardware?
kyleb said:
Sure, it's comparable to the MX scenario in that it's exactly the opposite. They now have the features, but what about performance ?
And i don't mind speculations, but it seems like some people have already made their judgments about it's performance which i think is a bit to early to do.