X1800/7800gt AA comparisons
- Thread starter Nite_Hawk
- Start date
- Status
Deathlike2
Regular
I should've thought through my response more.
There's a lot more "forward thinking" going on with ATI.
There obviously was a reason to have a programmable memory controller. Given that faster memory is always expensive and in demand... there needed to be a method to get the most of what you have. Ideally, there would be this memory controller that would be optimized (but non-programmable) that you would get the most of your transistors. The reality is that there is a way to get general gains through analysis (probably not as good as a dedicated solution, but works better in general).
Besides competition driving innovation, it's not surprising that after the introduction to the use of transparent AA by NVidia that ATI has something to respond with... which even extends to an older generation because of what they thought was a good idea back then. I'm not saying NVidia is doing a terrible job, but looking at the changes between ATI and NVidia's individual architecture.. someone is doing a better job of researching better ways to get more out of hardware. NVidia's transparant AA is great.. no doubt about it. However, it's fixed in the hardware.. unlike ATI's programmable AA where you can do many more things with it (it might not be as fast as dedicated hardware, but it can be done.. and still can be usable).
You could say that it's similar to writing a better driver to benefit all prior hardware.. but it is also something that you add new features into a driver based on an architectural design because it allows you to go further than the limitations of previous architectures.
There's a lot more "forward thinking" going on with ATI.
There obviously was a reason to have a programmable memory controller. Given that faster memory is always expensive and in demand... there needed to be a method to get the most of what you have. Ideally, there would be this memory controller that would be optimized (but non-programmable) that you would get the most of your transistors. The reality is that there is a way to get general gains through analysis (probably not as good as a dedicated solution, but works better in general).
Besides competition driving innovation, it's not surprising that after the introduction to the use of transparent AA by NVidia that ATI has something to respond with... which even extends to an older generation because of what they thought was a good idea back then. I'm not saying NVidia is doing a terrible job, but looking at the changes between ATI and NVidia's individual architecture.. someone is doing a better job of researching better ways to get more out of hardware. NVidia's transparant AA is great.. no doubt about it. However, it's fixed in the hardware.. unlike ATI's programmable AA where you can do many more things with it (it might not be as fast as dedicated hardware, but it can be done.. and still can be usable).
You could say that it's similar to writing a better driver to benefit all prior hardware.. but it is also something that you add new features into a driver based on an architectural design because it allows you to go further than the limitations of previous architectures.
Last edited by a moderator:
DemoCoder said:
I'm not saying replace the gfx APIs -- Just trying to limit to prolification of new ones. What if the physics API doesn't allow for all physical phenomena to be done? Do you create a new API for that? What if signal processing wants to be done and you only have collision hooks?
At the end, I fear the same thing regarding low level of detail. But I fear the extreme work in having lots of new specialized APIs too. I'd like a reasonably low level API that allows more "to the metal" performance, but that abstracts some of the quirks of programming a given architecture. I don't really know the answer either. It's a new place were we are continuing to explore, but we are listening and talking to that community.
Except these two things do not follow. Firstly, I really don't see how you can quantify ATI as doing more "forward thinking." It was, afterall, nVidia was the first one to implement a large number of the technologies that we take for granted in 3D graphics now, including anisotropic filtering, FSAA, MSAA, programmable shaders, and hardware geometry processing.Deathlike2 said:
Then you have other nVidia-specific things like their unified driver architecture. It is conceivable, for example, to take an old driver from the TNT days, edit the .inf files, and use it on a Geforce 7800 GTX. You wouldn't get the use of any features beyond those that the TNT supported, and there may be a number of bugs since this combination clearly wasn't tested when the driver was writen, but it should work. This is an extremely forward-thinking design, because it allows a whole lot about the driver to stay the same between architectures.
The R5xx architecture doesn't have ATI's first programmable memory controller. It's merely a more programmable one than ATI has had in the past. How do you know that nVidia doesn't also have a programmable memory controller? They have, after all, brought out drivers in the past that have improved performance by 50% in some benchmarks.
And finally, you should have expected ATI's R5xx to be significantly better than nVidia's NV4x simply because the architecture was released a year and a half later. The fact that the NV4x still can compete fairly well with the R5xx should be evidence that nVidia is quite forward-thinking indeed.
Chalnoth said:
3dfx would beg to differ on that one....
Or did you mean all of them together as a collective whole? And if you mean as a collective whole, many would say the ATI R300 was the first one to truely offer it where it wasn't just a gimmick and able to be used together.
Last edited by a moderator:
LMAO! Oh noes, and ATi hasnt ever done anything that's forward thinking.... give me a break Chalnoth.
Yes, all of those things are nice and dandy, but what the heck is the point of using TNT drivers on a 7800GTX? NONE. Unified drivers are nice because you only have to download one package, not because some anicent driver will work on a new card.....
You're correct, Nvidia brought all these great things, that's just dandy, but ATi has certainly improved or go on beyond what they have done too, and vice versa.
And plus, why are you comparing the R5xx to the Nv4x? Its the "G70" afterall, oh wait... They were both ment to compete with each other now. Also, ever consider just how great the R300 core is? Its lasted now for a very long time with not to much in the way of great change till now. I'd say that's pretty damn forward thinking, oh yeah, if we want to compare R5xx to Nv40 "foward thinking" wise, how do you put the R300 in the grand scale?
Yes, all of those things are nice and dandy, but what the heck is the point of using TNT drivers on a 7800GTX? NONE. Unified drivers are nice because you only have to download one package, not because some anicent driver will work on a new card.....
You're correct, Nvidia brought all these great things, that's just dandy, but ATi has certainly improved or go on beyond what they have done too, and vice versa.
And plus, why are you comparing the R5xx to the Nv4x? Its the "G70" afterall, oh wait... They were both ment to compete with each other now. Also, ever consider just how great the R300 core is? Its lasted now for a very long time with not to much in the way of great change till now. I'd say that's pretty damn forward thinking, oh yeah, if we want to compare R5xx to Nv40 "foward thinking" wise, how do you put the R300 in the grand scale?
The G70 is NV4x based. Actually an NV47. I dont see the problem saying the Nv4x line is competing with the R5xxx. Because it is. Dont forget the 6800/6600 line which atm is competing with ATIS lower end SM 3.0 hardware. I dont think Chalnoths comments are out of line in that regard at all.
Deathlike2
Regular
What NVidia has done seems to fall along the lines of the evolution of 3D graphics. It was inevitable to include such things as MSAA and anisotropic filtering simply because it was the next step up (and the extra power enabling people to use such features)
The whole unified driver architecture is more of a marketing feature and for driver writer convienence. (It would be tons of fun to have 50 different drivers for 50 different generations of video cards
) It was NVidia that first emphasized this. Personally.. you're falling into the marketing speak of the concept if not just using word for word that they have said
I'm not saying NVidia doesn't have one already there (let alone one in the works). However, every important driver series NVidia has touted usually correlates/corresponds with the unveiling of a new hardware debut. It's easy to point times in the history of NVidia's driver development where this has occured. Most of the time, it is more tweaking of the current architecture. I have not heard much about NVidia new drivers affecting the performance of older architectures with the exception of the Geforce 3 series.. which was mostly due to the simple support of S3TC in the drivers.
If you know NVidia enough, it's that their marketing would have emphasized any architectural change/improvement. ATI is generally terrible in that department. Something that needs to be considered.
Also, you've made the most flawed response Chalnoth. First off, ATI hasn't released any official drivers supporting the X1000 series. Second, the drivers released for the debut of the hardware is very similar to the performance of the Geforce 3 when it was released. The next official release boosted performance significantly.. you could see then why you could justify purchasing the Geforce 3 because the previous drivers made inital Quake 3 benchmarks made the Geforce 3 look overpriced vs the Geforce 2. So at the moment, I would not pass judgement until ATI releases a driver which optimizes its hardware better than the current drivers have suggested (expected in the next release in Nov).
Maybe it's just me, but I like at ATI's philosophical decisions on what they have done to be better than a diverging opinion that NVidia has. It shows a lot.. and the best part is seeing how ATI engineers contribute to the discussion. It would be nicer if Beyond3D had more NVidia engineers discussing different aspects and thoughts.. even if they differ in general.
The whole unified driver architecture is more of a marketing feature and for driver writer convienence. (It would be tons of fun to have 50 different drivers for 50 different generations of video cards
) It was NVidia that first emphasized this. Personally.. you're falling into the marketing speak of the concept if not just using word for word that they have saidI'm not saying NVidia doesn't have one already there (let alone one in the works). However, every important driver series NVidia has touted usually correlates/corresponds with the unveiling of a new hardware debut. It's easy to point times in the history of NVidia's driver development where this has occured. Most of the time, it is more tweaking of the current architecture. I have not heard much about NVidia new drivers affecting the performance of older architectures with the exception of the Geforce 3 series.. which was mostly due to the simple support of S3TC in the drivers.
If you know NVidia enough, it's that their marketing would have emphasized any architectural change/improvement. ATI is generally terrible in that department. Something that needs to be considered.
Also, you've made the most flawed response Chalnoth. First off, ATI hasn't released any official drivers supporting the X1000 series. Second, the drivers released for the debut of the hardware is very similar to the performance of the Geforce 3 when it was released. The next official release boosted performance significantly.. you could see then why you could justify purchasing the Geforce 3 because the previous drivers made inital Quake 3 benchmarks made the Geforce 3 look overpriced vs the Geforce 2. So at the moment, I would not pass judgement until ATI releases a driver which optimizes its hardware better than the current drivers have suggested (expected in the next release in Nov).
Maybe it's just me, but I like at ATI's philosophical decisions on what they have done to be better than a diverging opinion that NVidia has. It shows a lot.. and the best part is seeing how ATI engineers contribute to the discussion. It would be nicer if Beyond3D had more NVidia engineers discussing different aspects and thoughts.. even if they differ in general.
Last edited by a moderator:
IgnorancePersonified
Regular
via had there 'all in one' driver well before nvidia iirc.
Deathlike2
Regular
geo, just think of it differently... it is just to keep the codename/number at the same level as the "generation"..
G70 = 7800
G7x = 7xxx
G70 = 7800
G7x = 7xxx
DudeMiester
Regular
So if you are about getting more low level, then would it be safe to assume that you will make available utilities to query the new performance info and more importantly, create your own profiles to tweak the MC and other new features? Or will sophisticated profile creation be an ATI in-house only thing?
geo said:
Who said they did? I was just pointing out the Nv4x is infact competing with the R5xxx level of hardware. In both the midrange/lowend and high end segment.
How about Double Z-rate with 2 sided stencil? What about free FP16 normalization. This is an obsurd argument IMO. Both companies bring out performance and IQ enhancing features that innovate and will vary dependently on how they judge transistor budget.
No moreso than ATI's programmable memory controller. That is to say, a memory controller that isn't as programmable, but is just very highly optimized could, in principle, be every bit as good. There is no user front-end that allows programming this memory controller, so it's no more than an implementation detail.Deathlike2 said:The whole unified driver architecture is more of a marketing feature and for driver writer convienence. (It would be tons of fun to have 50 different drivers for 50 different generations of video cards
I don't see how that's relevant to my discussion at all.
Every new architecture has relatively immature drivers at release. But that doesn't mean that you should ever purchase a product with the expectation that newer drivers will boost performance significantly. If, for example, you don't think that an X1800 XL's performance warrants a purchase right now, but you think that drivers may improve performance, you should wait until new drivers are released that do improve performance.
If you ever buy a product on anything but its current performance, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
Philosophical? How is anything ATI is doing philosophical?
- Status
