What does everyone think about the ATI video presentation?
- Thread starter Raystream
- Start date
overclocked
Veteran
I dont think of different brands, i see DX9 become avaliable for everyone!
The 9600 is cert going to be a very good performer but when i say that GD targets DX9 as minimum i think that you se to the userbase and then if "one" card is slow and the other is "very fast" as we can se the trend is going just that ALL cards can do DX9, from the very low end IS WHAT MATTERS..
That´s the point as i se it.
I don´t favorize ATI over nVIDIA or reversed, i just think it´s good that the trend since ATI launched it´s DX9 parts are that they push it fast into mainstream and the low-end. And that nVIDIA seems to be doing the same thing because of the competition.
I think when the GF2MX came out - that was a good thing.
It brought the GF1/2 featureset to the public.
You might say it was half as fast as the GTS - but that wasn't really the right way to look at it - it never was.
The GF2MX is as fast as the GTS if it's in lower resolution, or if it's in the same resolution in 16bit and the GTS is in 32bit.
You could make sacrifices to achieve the same score - something you can expect when bying a budget card.
But you didn't have to disable effects for it - of course thats an option too.
A developer didn't have to target the GF2MX as long as playability on the GTS wasn't meant in 640x480x16.
The GF4MX on the other hand was a very bad thing - as it did held back progress. I think there still cannot be a game this year that has DX8 level cards as a minimum hardware.
So I see the FX5200 as a right thing - and I hope that the R9600 NP will get cheap enough soon, so DX9 can accepted as a minimum, sooner than the DX8 could.
And I do not worry about performance - one can always lower the resolution.
(All this assuming the FX5200 is PS2.0 capable.)
It brought the GF1/2 featureset to the public.
You might say it was half as fast as the GTS - but that wasn't really the right way to look at it - it never was.
The GF2MX is as fast as the GTS if it's in lower resolution, or if it's in the same resolution in 16bit and the GTS is in 32bit.
You could make sacrifices to achieve the same score - something you can expect when bying a budget card.
But you didn't have to disable effects for it - of course thats an option too.
A developer didn't have to target the GF2MX as long as playability on the GTS wasn't meant in 640x480x16.
The GF4MX on the other hand was a very bad thing - as it did held back progress. I think there still cannot be a game this year that has DX8 level cards as a minimum hardware.
So I see the FX5200 as a right thing - and I hope that the R9600 NP will get cheap enough soon, so DX9 can accepted as a minimum, sooner than the DX8 could.
And I do not worry about performance - one can always lower the resolution.
(All this assuming the FX5200 is PS2.0 capable.)
kyleb said:but the smart developer did target the gf2mx because they are spread far and wide across gods creation.
Just so long as the engine can scale with different LOD's, does it matter? I don't think engines are going to remove their settings to enable/disable different features/detail levels just becuase they are targetting DX9.
overclocked
Veteran
I think the competition last year and this is going to make it even better for the"low-end"..
Lets say nVIDIA roll out their new line and replace the 5200 with 5300 etz.. Build on the new NV35 core. I can only se this as good to us consumers if they get som presure..
You said end user i said #low-end user# that´s what it´s about for the GD.
Lets say nVIDIA roll out their new line and replace the 5200 with 5300 etz.. Build on the new NV35 core. I can only se this as good to us consumers if they get som presure..
You said end user i said #low-end user# that´s what it´s about for the GD.
Bjorn said:Sabastian said:
Well, that's better then not getting that effect isn't it ? And again, i don't think anyone bying a $79 card really believes that it's going to be a "all features enabled" card 2-3 years in the future.
That might be true. But the RV 350 doesn't cost 79$ now does it ?
Sure, it might end up being a big piece of crap. But again, why judge it so prematurely ? (Edit: was a bit to slow
Well my point is this, R9200 (being faster clocked than 9100Pro) should be able to use Ps1.4 faster compared to 5200 based on 5800 performance (considering it doesn't have Z compression and color compression Plus a 2x2 design).
Also which one would you buy? a $79 card that plays most games at respectable speeds or a card that "supports" many features but plays like s#$&.
But.... the catch is a consumer is going to see a DX9 label and buy the card. In my opinion nVidia is still playing the name game.
Another thing in another six months time we will be seeing another refresh from ATI and hopefully 9200 will be out of the picture by then and we will all have RV350 performance parts in the low budget segment as well.
DemoCoder said:
Demo coder first of all
Welcome back
Second my point is 5200 is reported to have LMA2 missing (from some stuff on nVnews) I mean look at parhelia lack of HSR has crippled it too much. I know a lot of people are saying that parhelia is not a budget card so price/performance wise it is a bad comparision BUT at the same time an R9200 will be able to run most of the games with all of the eye candy as well and at a faster rate. (My opinion being a larger installed base of 1.4 rather than 2 would mean more companies will code for 1.4).
Now if 5200 turns out to have a much better performance than 9200 I would be the first one to get it
(thinking of upgrading my r8500 )DaveBaumann said:kyleb said:but the smart developer did target the gf2mx because they are spread far and wide across gods creation.
Just so long as the engine can scale with different LOD's, does it matter? I don't think engines are going to remove their settings to enable/disable different features/detail levels just becuase they are targetting DX9.
of course it matters, it determines how those scales are set.
I don't think this idea that developers focus on the low end is entirely correct. In fact it is total BS that the low end drives the development community. It is the high end development that drives the whole industry. Otherwise we would all still be playing around with the lowest common denominator in terms of what we can do with graphics. Pong anyone?
Think any of these games require a 9700?
Nope, they don't, some of them don't even need DX7.
But, it just goes to show there's a massive demand for games that co-incidentally run on low end cards.
I'm just glad that low end cards now will have the DX9 featureset, so the high end games don't have to stoop so low to be mass marketable and we can begin to move along a bit.
But anyways, I can tell you think the 5200 is a waste of time, as you've Stated that many times in many threads. Apparently $79 is too much, and its snake oil, and its not even DX9.
What should they have done instead of the 5200?
But, it just goes to show there's a massive demand for games that co-incidentally run on low end cards.
I'm just glad that low end cards now will have the DX9 featureset, so the high end games don't have to stoop so low to be mass marketable and we can begin to move along a bit.
But anyways, I can tell you think the 5200 is a waste of time, as you've Stated that many times in many threads. Apparently $79 is too much, and its snake oil, and its not even DX9.
What should they have done instead of the 5200?
I want to add to that, a couple of years ago you would have had difficulties finding hardware to run them games. But with the push on the high end, and the real engine of developement in hardware and software, we now have a wider proliferation of decent performing hardware and more demanding software. That is what we want isn't it?
RussSchultz said:
How well would them games run on a TNT graphics card?Making arguments for mediocracy now are we?
EDIT: no it has only been in two threads that I have taken up this debate not "many". IMO they should have put more hardware support in the die rather then emulate the API in the CPU. This is a half assed DX9 solution.
What is your real beef? That a $79 dollar card doesn't perform like a $200 card? That a $79 was made at all? That it's DX9 but doesn't perform like a $200 dollar card?
What should they have done instead of the 5200?
What should they have done instead of the 5200?
RussSchultz said:
My "beef" is that it is a crappy DX9 solution and they are marketing it as if it is a viable solution "DX9 for $79" when it clearly will suck in a major way particularly when running DX9. My "beef" is that it will be a shitty DX9 card and it is quiet possible that you could get a card priced relitively the same that has full DX8.1a support and that card will outperform the Geforce FX 5200. Further in no way is the 5200 hardware anywhere close to the same as the Geforce FX 5600. It is likely more similar to the Geforce2 MX architecture. It ought to be renamed the Geforce MX 5200. Just sayin.