Chaos Theory: SM2.0 vs SM3.0

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Drayvn

Originally posted by: mwmorph
I have a question: If i have a 9800 pro, will i be ble to run it or is it 2.0b only? I myself love Soft shadows and parallax mapping. I think that adds to the game by a lot.
will it run 10x7 no aa sm 2.0 decetly?

I dont know if SC:CT is only SM2.0b or just SM2. Try it out see if it works... tell us what its like!

SC:CT is SM1.1 (all ATI can play) and SM3 only. There is no parallax mapping or soft shadows for ATI cards in this game.

Ok now its on a different thread, as i said on the other thread, SM2 has been added so now HDR, Soft Shadows, Parallax Mapping all work with SM2 and only on the ATi cards.

Heres the link if you dont believe me, check out teh 1.04 patch just to be sure, it adds SM2 for SC:CT and the functionality of the SM3 features.

http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_058a.html

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Drayvn

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Drayvn

Originally posted by: mwmorph
I have a question: If i have a 9800 pro, will i be ble to run it or is it 2.0b only? I myself love Soft shadows and parallax mapping. I think that adds to the game by a lot.
will it run 10x7 no aa sm 2.0 decetly?

I dont know if SC:CT is only SM2.0b or just SM2. Try it out see if it works... tell us what its like!

SC:CT is SM1.1 (all ATI can play) and SM3 only. There is no parallax mapping or soft shadows for ATI cards in this game.

Ok now its on a different thread, as i said on the other thread, SM2 has been added so now HDR, Soft Shadows, Parallax Mapping all work with SM2 and only on the ATi cards.

Heres the link if you dont believe me, check out teh 1.04 patch just to be sure, it adds SM2 for SC:CT and the functionality of the SM3 features.

http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_058a.html

The thing about this is, AFAIK, parallax mapping is SM3 specific? I just read that article, but I thought parallax mapping was a form of displacement mapping that required SM3 hardware.

In any case, they still say SM2 or not the IQ is visibly different:

The lack of parallax mapping and soft shadows is very noticeable between the 1.1 and 2.0 profile shots. The lighting between the 2.0 and 3.0 profile shots, however, while subtle is still noticeably different. The following screenshots do a better job in showing this difference.

Oh well. Good news for ATI owners, any IQ improvement in this game is a windfall for them.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Gee, back from vacation and the "Bouzouki doesn't like nV only features" tape is still looping.

How many times are you going to say this? You'll never figure it out apparently:
AA, AF, HDR, Soft Shadows, displacement/parallax mapping are all image quality enhancing features.
Some you can't run with others on current hardware.

Some people would actually have you believe it's better not to have the choice at all than have to run one or the other. These people work for ATI, or bought their primitive cards and want to convince themselves they didn't screw up.

Tough luck- you did.
:beer:

Originally posted by: Rollo
Whatever you say BFG10K....errrr, Bouzouki. LOL- I'm sure everyone really cares about what I was saying or doing 3 years ago?

It's pretty sad how you guys can't get over whining about 9700 days. What's next? Attacking my stance on the 8086?

I see you've got a 7800 now Bouzouki, why the crying about the features? It would be nice if it did that cool shutter glasses 3d effect without the glasses and headache too- but whats the point of whining that it doesn't?

You just exist to flame nVidia. You have the best gaming card in the free world and you bitch the HDR doesn't work with AA. Pretty sad.

Originally posted by: Rollo
You don't know much about it then. There are no games that use ATI HDR?

The fact ATI cards could do a cheesier more limited form of HDR isn't relevant as no games use theirs.

Really nice, Rollo. Perhaps now some of your "fans" can see how a thread will be going along just fine until you pop in to stir things up.

Keys? Kevin? You seeing this?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Creig

Really nice, Rollo. Perhaps now some of your "fans" can see how a thread will be going along just fine until you pop in to stir things up.

Keys? Kevin? You seeing this?

:roll:
Yeah, crime of the century here- I skim an article and misunderstand that UBI has actually got some limited parallax mapping and perhaps HDR functionality in SC:CT, come back and correct myself, and you're there to cast a stone.

Maybe they'll put me in jail Creig! Pretty big deal here!
:roll:

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Yeah, crime of the century here- I skim an article and misunderstand that UBI has actually got some limited parallax mapping and perhaps HDR functionality in SC:CT, come back and correct myself, and you're there to cast a stone.

Maybe they'll put me in jail Creig! Pretty big deal here!
:roll:

It's not the misunderstanding part, it's the smartass attitude and insults. Everybody was getting along just fine and discussing the topic like adults until you popped in.



I especially like this one...

You just exist to flame nVidia.

That's pretty rich, coming from you. Look in a mirror lately?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Rollo
limited parallax mapping and perhaps HDR functionality

The once "SM3 exclusive" features are now fully implemented in Spliter Cell with SM2. Use 3danalyze to force a Radeon device ID on your Geforce and take some shots of SM2 and SM3 to compare for yourself if you don't think it is all there.

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Rollo
Gee, back from vacation and the "Bouzouki doesn't like nV only features" tape is still looping.

How many times are you going to say this? You'll never figure it out apparently:
AA, AF, HDR, Soft Shadows, displacement/parallax mapping are all image quality enhancing features.
Some you can't run with others on current hardware.

Some people would actually have you believe it's better not to have the choice at all than have to run one or the other. These people work for ATI, or bought their primitive cards and want to convince themselves they didn't screw up.

Tough luck- you did.
:beer:

Originally posted by: Rollo
Whatever you say BFG10K....errrr, Bouzouki. LOL- I'm sure everyone really cares about what I was saying or doing 3 years ago?

It's pretty sad how you guys can't get over whining about 9700 days. What's next? Attacking my stance on the 8086?

I see you've got a 7800 now Bouzouki, why the crying about the features? It would be nice if it did that cool shutter glasses 3d effect without the glasses and headache too- but whats the point of whining that it doesn't?

You just exist to flame nVidia. You have the best gaming card in the free world and you bitch the HDR doesn't work with AA. Pretty sad.

Originally posted by: Rollo
You don't know much about it then. There are no games that use ATI HDR?

The fact ATI cards could do a cheesier more limited form of HDR isn't relevant as no games use theirs.

Really nice, Rollo. Perhaps now some of your "fans" can see how a thread will be going along just fine until you pop in to stir things up.

Keys? Kevin? You seeing this?

Why would they be surprised?

 

[Rent]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Rollo
Yeah, crime of the century here- I skim an article and misunderstand that UBI has actually got some limited parallax mapping and perhaps HDR functionality in SC:CT, come back and correct myself, and you're there to cast a stone.

Maybe they'll put me in jail Creig! Pretty big deal here!
:roll:

It's not the misunderstanding part, it's the smartass attitude and insults. Everybody was getting along just fine and discussing the topic like adults until you popped in.



I especially like this one...

You just exist to flame nVidia.

That's pretty rich, coming from you. Look in a mirror lately?

I agree that there should be some "adjusting" in the way some members talk to others.

But I think Rollo has a point, even if he is an ass in the way he states it.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Rollo
limited parallax mapping and perhaps HDR functionality

The once "SM3 exclusive" features are now fully implemented in Spliter Cell with SM2. Use 3danalyze to force a Radeon device ID on your Geforce and take some shots of SM2 and SM3 to compare for yourself if you don't think it is all there.

Fully implemented?

HDR/tone mapping

Worth noting is that there's a significant visual quality difference between the two higher shader profiles with this setting, as seen below in the screenshots section of the article.

I personally want to know more about this than one article. Anyway, like I said, it's obviously an improvement for ATI owners, and that can only be positive.

 

[kylebisme]

Tone mapping doesn't work on the Radeons becuase the Radeon's don't support a floating point buffer, but all the same the effect is fully implemented in SM2 as you would see if you try it out on your Geforce like I suggested.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Rent
But I think Rollo has a point, even if he is an ass in the way he states it.

Heh- given that I biffed the skim on the article, I look like Hustlers "A$$hole of the Month".

 

[Munky]

BUHAHAHAHAH! Well, now the whole sm3 debate takes on new life, since you can have soft shadows and hdr using sm2, AND it takes less of a performance hit. Also, as the first graph in the article shows, the x800xt running sm2 is still faster than the 6800gt running sm3 even without hdr and soft shadows. How's that for a primitive rehashed r300?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: munky
BUHAHAHAHAH! Well, now the whole sm3 debate takes on new life, since you can have soft shadows and hdr using sm2, AND it takes less of a performance hit. Also, as the first graph in the article shows, the x800xt running sm2 is still faster than the 6800gt running sm3 even without hdr and soft shadows. How's that for a primitive rehashed r300?

Ah Munky, get a grip on the bananas. Given the article says there's a big difference in image quality, and it's only one article on one game, let's not proclaim the R420 "ruler or the universe" yet, OK?

 

[MegaWorks]

Originally posted by: munky
BUHAHAHAHAH! Well, now the whole sm3 debate takes on new life, since you can have soft shadows and hdr using sm2, AND it takes less of a performance hit. Also, as the first graph in the article shows, the x800xt running sm2 is still faster than the 6800gt running sm3 even without hdr and soft shadows. How's that for a primitive rehashed r300?

BUHAHAHAHAHAH! Same here , I liked the way Rollo and his troops used to say how SM3 was so amazing compare to the SM2!

 

[fstime]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: BouZouki
Well yes, with Rollo telling us how good softshadows is, he always fails to mention the biggest downside to it.

I have no idea why he brings up NV when I say HDR is terrible imo when it's also an ATI feature.

You don't know much about it then. There are no games that use ATI HDR? :roll:

The fact ATI cards could do a cheesier more limited form of HDR isn't relevant as no games use theirs.

HDR is HDR rollo.

 

[kylebisme]

Yeah, like I said the HDR option looks the same on either hardware. The tone mapping option only has an effect on a 6600s and up, but looks the same regardless of whether you use SM2 or SM3.

 

[BFG10K]

Soft shadows and HDR are still a waste of time given you have to use ancient settings to run them at, but at least now the nVidia trolls can't keep pimping this game as "OMG need nVidia to get these features".

Whatever you say BFG10K....errrr, Bouzouki. LOL

Good day Rollo, back from your temp ban I see? And straight back into usual business too, I might add?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BouZouki

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: BouZouki
Well yes, with Rollo telling us how good softshadows is, he always fails to mention the biggest downside to it.

I have no idea why he brings up NV when I say HDR is terrible imo when it's also an ATI feature.

You don't know much about it then. There are no games that use ATI HDR? :roll:

The fact ATI cards could do a cheesier more limited form of HDR isn't relevant as no games use theirs.

HDR is HDR rollo.

No kidding, wise Bouzouki?

http://www.krazygamers.com/?view=article&article=255

OpenEXR can theoretically be translated to ATi hardware, however this would require reducing the precision, and thus reducing the image quality significantly, or performing multiple pass rendering, meaning tieing up the VPU core during rendering processes, meaning massive performance losses.

However, ATi?s architecture is not ?fully programmable? and does not support HDR FP units throughout the entire pipeline. HDR has been hardware implemented on ATi hardware since the Radeon 9700 Pro, but only in a 12-bit FP output, or using multiple passes.

Since you say "HDR is HDR" Bouzouki, can you provide us with links that show ATIs HDR is comparable? The article noted in this thread stated:

Worth noting is that there's a significant visual quality difference between the two higher shader profiles with this setting, as seen below in the screenshots section of the article.

Doesn't sound like "HDR is HDR" to me Bouzouki.

 

[kylebisme]

Like I have said twice now, it works the same on both:

Geforce
Radeon

So for this game, HDR is HDR either way.

 

[fstime]

I cant wait to hear Rollo's response to this one.

I'm sure we will hear less moaning out of him now that there is 2.0 for SC:CT.

 

[Cookie Monster]

The textures look a bit more realistic on the GF screenshot.. look carefully, and their are quite a few differences.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Like I have said twice now, it works the same on both:

Geforce
Radeon

So for this game, HDR is HDR either way.

Like I've said a few times now as well, the article we're discussing pretty clearly says the HDR is not the same, so why do you keep saying it is??????

http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_058b.html

Worth noting is that there's a significant visual quality difference between the two higher shader profiles with this setting, as seen below in the screenshots section of the article.

Do you understand what "significant visual quality difference" means, Snowman and Bouzouki? (Hint: not "the same" or "HDR is HDR")

http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_058c.html

The lighting between the 2.0 and 3.0 profile shots, however, while subtle is still noticeably different. The following screenshots do a better job in showing this difference.

Again, do you understand that "different" does not mean "the same"?

Because of the confusion surrounding the HDR feature now available with the new 2.0 profile, the following screenshots are intended to display the visual differences between the two graphics boards used for this article

Yet Snowman and Bouzouki say they're the same! Who to believe? The guy who wrote the article, or Snowman and Bouzouki........

The most noticeable difference is that the specular lighting is much more pronounced with the 3.0 profile's HDR output and the entire scene isn't quite as dark as with the 2.0 profile. Interestingly enough, the 2.0 profile shows no visual difference with or without tone mapping enabled.

But....but.....Bouzouki says "HDR is HDR"?!?! The guy who wrote the article says tone mapping on 2.0 doesn't seem to work and the lighting is different?!?!?
Who to believe?????? The guy who wrote the article, or wise Bouzouki?????????


LOL the way you guys try to spin the facts is pretty astonishing:
Article: There are differences in the image quality of 3.0 and 2.0 in SC:CT.
Bouzouki and Snowman: It says they're both H-D-R! Must be the SAME!

:roll:





I don't have to say anything, the article does it for me?

 

[fstime]

Good morning rollo, unfortunately I cant chat.

Off to work.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Like I have said twice now, it works the same on both:

Geforce
Radeon

So for this game, HDR is HDR either way.

Like I've said a few times now as well, the article we're discussing pretty clearly says the HDR is not the same, so why do you keep saying it is??????

http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_058b.html

Worth noting is that there's a significant visual quality difference between the two higher shader profiles with this setting, as seen below in the screenshots section of the article.

Do you understand what "significant visual quality difference" means, Snowman and Bouzouki? (Hint: not "the same" or "HDR is HDR")

It is obvious that you are the one who doesn't understand. There is a signifcant visual quaitly diffference between the two cards running on their respective paths, and the HDR option provides the same results on either path. Those two statments do not contradict eachother.

Originally posted by: Rollo
http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_058c.html

The lighting between the 2.0 and 3.0 profile shots, however, while subtle is still noticeably different. The following screenshots do a better job in showing this difference.

Again, do you understand that "different" does not mean "the same"?

Again, the difference comes in with the tone mapping option being exclusive to the floating point blending ablities of the Geforce 6600s and up, but all the same you can get that tone mapping in SM2 with the Geforce and it looks the same as it does with SM3.

Originally posted by: Rollo

Because of the confusion surrounding the HDR feature now available with the new 2.0 profile, the following screenshots are intended to display the visual differences between the two graphics boards used for this article

Yet Snowman and Bouzouki say they're the same! Who to believe? The guy who wrote the article, or Snowman and Bouzouki........

You can belive both if you take a break from being an asshat long enough to think things though.

Originally posted by: Rollo

The most noticeable difference is that the specular lighting is much more pronounced with the 3.0 profile's HDR output and the entire scene isn't quite as dark as with the 2.0 profile. Interestingly enough, the 2.0 profile shows no visual difference with or without tone mapping enabled.

But....but.....Bouzouki says "HDR is HDR"?!?! The guy who wrote the article says tone mapping on 2.0 doesn't seem to work and the lighting is different?!?!?
Who to believe?????? The guy who wrote the article, or wise Bouzouki?????????

The lighting is different becuase tone mapping doesn't work on Radeons. John obviously didn't bother to test the SM2 path on a Geforce or he would have seen that tone mapping works fine on with the SM2 path as long as you can make use of a floating point buffer.

LOL the way you guys try to spin the facts is pretty astonishing:
Article: There are differences in the image quality of 3.0 and 2.0 in SC:CT.
Bouzouki and Snowman: It says they're both H-D-R! Must be the SAME!

:roll:





I don't have to say anything, the article does it for me?

I took part in the discussion over at Beyond3d that lead to the article and I could try to talk John into comming over and holding your hand though understanding what I am telling you if you that is what it will take. But I'm pretty sure you have the game and I know you have the hardware, so why not compare the SM2 and SM3 paths for yourself?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I took part in the discussion over at Beyond3d that lead to the article and I could try to talk John into comming over and holding your hand though understanding what I am telling you if you that is what it will take. But I'm pretty sure you have the game and I know you have the hardware, so why not compare the SM2 and SM3 paths for yourself?

I've always respected John's opinion. Why don't you ask him to come over and post why he chose to say the image rendered by SM2 and SM3 is different about four times in his article if he really meant to say "it's exactly the same" like you are?

Why should I go to the trouble to do as you ask when Reynolds already did it and said there were differences in the image rendered?

Let's say for a moment the image quality is exactly the same, SM2 has saved the day for ATI on SC:CT.
OK- how many months ago did SC:CT come out? Is this going to be like 3dfx days where a game comes out and if you don't have a 3dfx card, you wait months for them to patch it to run sort of the same on your card. (back then it was porting to std OGL or D3d)
What if other developers don't bother with the patch? I see no HDR for Far Cry, no soft shadows for Riddick?

Do you think you can take the position that "SC:CT is now roughly comparable- this will surely be the trend! The devs won't let R420 owners down, they'll spend the money and work!" with 100% certainty?

History has already proven this position wrong, and an isolated case of UBI throwing ATI a bone because they still can't figure out SM3/EXR HDR/soft shadows doesn't mean all will.

BTW- John Reynolds is a long time well respected person in the gaming forums, but IIRC, he's not a programmer and if that is true, and he has no inside knowledge from UBI, he's still basically relying on examining screenshots and effect on performance. I think at this point only UBI can tell us if the image rendered nV and ATI hardware is exactly comparable.

I posted a link to an article explaining why ATIs HDR is partial precision compared to nVidia's, feel free to post a link to why it's comparable and I'd be happy to read.