x800 texture shimmering: FarCry video
- Thread starter Grestorn
- Start date
You can also dl one or two small files from www.tommti-systems.de an place them (alternating) in your Far Cry/Bin32 directory.
That also forces R300-path (optional with PP-hints) on any card able to physically render it.
That also forces R300-path (optional with PP-hints) on any card able to physically render it.
ChrisRay said:
quote is from me i messed up.
The claim is that these cards will never run dx 9.0 shaders at reasonable speeds .
800x600 for a 6 month old card is not acceptable . Perhaps in nvidiot land it is . But i would never pay 500$ for that. I pay 500$ to get the fastest fps/ highest percision/ best looking image quality. On all games released when it is a top of the line card.
I can't fault a card for 2 or 3 years after its release to not play unreal 3 with that lvl of perfromance. But IF i bought a 9800xt 6 months ago and was forced to play at 800x600 you can bet i'd be pretty pissed off . Esp if i could go to nvidia , spend the same money and be playing at 1600x1200 .
err 500 dollars? My geforce FX 5900 cost me 198 dollars.
But anyway
I find it acceptable. Considering the other reasons I bought the card, Sure had I bought the card for sheer DirectX 9.0 performance. Then you might be onto something. But I didnt it. I bought it for numerous other reasons. Which I could list. But whats the point?
My Card offers acceptable performance in DirectX 9.0 games. Is it perfect? Hell no, I'd be lying to say it was, But there are other feature sets on the card that made it worth while to me. This whole DirectX 9.0 thing hasnt made me flinch.
But anyway
I find it acceptable. Considering the other reasons I bought the card, Sure had I bought the card for sheer DirectX 9.0 performance. Then you might be onto something. But I didnt it. I bought it for numerous other reasons. Which I could list. But whats the point?My Card offers acceptable performance in DirectX 9.0 games. Is it perfect? Hell no, I'd be lying to say it was, But there are other feature sets on the card that made it worth while to me. This whole DirectX 9.0 thing hasnt made me flinch.
Right. 7 months ago the fx 5900ultra cost 500$ the non ultra cost 400$ .ChrisRay said:
SO if u bought it last week then I can agree with you. But there are still people who bought those cards when they were released thinking they would get great dx 9 perfromance and it is not the case .
radar1200gs
Regular
jvd said:ChrisRay said:
Heh. Still have to say you over payed for a card that runs farcry only at 800x600
That is your opinion only. It isn't Chris's opinion, my opinion or plenty of other peoples opinion.
Its fines to have an opinion, but, facts are NV3x does run farcry (and any other DX9ish game you care to mention) and does so while remaining compliant with DX9 specs.
radar1200gs said:jvd said:ChrisRay said:
Heh. Still have to say you over payed for a card that runs farcry only at 800x600
That is your opinion only. It isn't Chris's opinion, my opinion or plenty of other peoples opinion.
Its fines to have an opinion, but, facts are NV3x does run farcry (and any other DX9ish game you care to mention) and does so while remaining compliant with DX9 specs.
This is an opinion shared by many . Otherwise when benchmarking highend cards websites would use 640x480 and up. Instead of starting at 1027x768
Thats why http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12941
only 2 people picked 800x600 for thier gaming res .
Grestorn said:
No the dx 9 spec doesn't mention a framerate or resolution. The consumer base sets that , the reviewers set that .
I guess if the geforce 2 can do sm 3.0 in software at sub 640x 480 at 1 fpm then it supports the dx 9 specs ?
Is that where everyone is going with this ? Is that the point that I'm missing ? THat it doesn't matter how slow it is as long as it can do it thats all that matters ?
The point was that the FX line (the whole line) is DX 9 compliant.
It was not point of this discussion to evaluate if these cards can play all DX9 games well.
Do you deny that it's possible to write a DX9 game which would be unplayable on a 9800 or even a x800 with more than 800x600? I'd even wager that such a game will exist in less than 2 years (at least with this future game's highest visual settings).
Does this make a x800 non-DX9 compliant?
It was not point of this discussion to evaluate if these cards can play all DX9 games well.
Do you deny that it's possible to write a DX9 game which would be unplayable on a 9800 or even a x800 with more than 800x600? I'd even wager that such a game will exist in less than 2 years (at least with this future game's highest visual settings).
Does this make a x800 non-DX9 compliant?
radar1200gs
Regular
jvd said:
Nope, a GF2 doing SM3.0 in software doesn't support the Dx9 specs in terms of compliance - it may be compatible but it isn't compliant. And that brings me to another point ATi might want to consider, hardware acceleration (vertex shader functions) does NOT mean software emulation! The entire point of hardware acceleration is to remove a paticular processing load from the system cpu.
No, the fact that the GF4MX also did a similar thing isn't an excuse (and don't forget there are VE versions of older radeons that leave out T&L or emulate it on cpu).
BTW, jvd, I'm pretty sure that you understand the difference between "compliant" and "suitable". A FX5200 might not be suitable for the latest DX9 games, but it's certainly DX9 compliant.
Since I'm sure you're intelligent enough to know the whole time what we wanted to point out, the only thing left is that you're keeping up this discussion just for the sake of being a pain in the ass.
Which brings me back to my point in the other thread:
"He [jvd] is not interested in exchanging arguments and opinions, he just wants to shove his point of view up everyones' ass.
And he's abolutely neither interested nor capable of understanding facts or opinions that don't happen to support his own point."
qed.
Since I'm sure you're intelligent enough to know the whole time what we wanted to point out, the only thing left is that you're keeping up this discussion just for the sake of being a pain in the ass.
Which brings me back to my point in the other thread:
"He [jvd] is not interested in exchanging arguments and opinions, he just wants to shove his point of view up everyones' ass.
And he's abolutely neither interested nor capable of understanding facts or opinions that don't happen to support his own point."
qed.
Grestorn said:
That was never my point. My point is that the fx line (which we are not tlaking about the whole line) is that its dx 9 perfromance is horrible and thus held back dx 9 development.
So read everything before you call names .
No I don't deny it. But i assure u that even the 6800 will be unplayable with a game like that .
I can bet that you can write a game to make any tech unplayable before the tech is even released.
That doesn't bring up the fact that ati was offering and still is offering dx 9 features and perfromance where as nvidia is not .
IF you have 2 cards . 1 card can run with its features on and get 1600x1200 with 30+ fps and the other one using its features only gets 800x600. You don't think that would hold back the developement of games using those features ?
That is my point. Call me whatever it is you want . I have a name for you too. But i'm nice enough not to insult people
radar1200gs
Regular
No, resolution certainly won't hold developers back.
They don't care what resolution you play their game in, they only care that you are able to play their game in the first place.
They don't care what resolution you play their game in, they only care that you are able to play their game in the first place.
