BroadbandGamer
Senior member
I haven't been following the NVIDIA scene since going ATI.
Thanks,
Thanks,
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Do NVIDIA cards still stink at DX9?
- Thread starter BroadbandGamer
- Start date
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
only in certain dx9 features, not dx9 overall. they beet the pants off of XGI and S3 very easily
Wow. What a concept. Why haven't we ever discussed this before?!?!
To answer your question:
Your 9700Pro is faster than the current nVidia cards in DX9. Unfortunately for you, this isn't saying anything because all cards currently stink at DX9, yours included.
So, it's kind of a moot point.
To answer your question:
Your 9700Pro is faster than the current nVidia cards in DX9. Unfortunately for you, this isn't saying anything because all cards currently stink at DX9, yours included.
So, it's kind of a moot point.
nemesismk2
Diamond Member
Yeah the DX9 performance with Nvidia video cards isn't as strong as ATI however it doesn't appear to be limiting their performance as much as expected.
It really depends on how a scene is rendered. In fact the fx series has very high performance vertex shaders. It isn't until you get into the pixel shaders that it can get in trouble. They end up tring to go through the 32-bit route which is currently slower vs the 24 bit that ATI does. This brings back so many memories. Back when 16-bit vs 32-bit ruled the day, but anyway.... The stuff coming down the runway this year looks to put a hurt on everything in the past. It looks like both Nvidia and ATI will completely wipe the floor with the older technology. With massive amounts of fillrate, and more power you can shake a stick at. I suspect that even the mainstream cards will put the likes of the 5950 and the 9800xt to shame. One can hope can't we. 🙂
rbV5
Lifer
CMR4 Demo plays very well on my 9700pro, and its DX9. I think it will depend on the game. Painkiller from what little I've played seemed like it has good performance as well. Far Cry even has playable performance, more fluid than Halo on my rig by a far shot. I think there will be plenty of playable DX9 titles on the current hardware.
don't forget, 99% of FarCry demo uses PS1.1 shaders (regarless of whether it's running on ati or nv parts).... the only thing that uses ps2.0 is a few lighting affects, so if you aren't using the flashlight indoors, or see the sun refelecting outside in a couple instances, you aren't getting ps2 effects.
rbV5
Lifer
What you consider "good" anything could be considered questionable to some folks. DX9 isn't only about PS2.0 obviously. Game developers haven't had alot of experience with DX9 either, as they get used to using DX9 specific features, they'll get better performance. That has been shown time and time again. To be honest, the poorest performing game or demo I've tried in the past year has been Halo. The newer games and demos have pretty good performance. CMR4 demo is a good example of a new title with excellent performance, but most racers are decent performers even at lower framerates, so it will depend heavily on the skill of the programmers and the type of game itself. You can't just pidgeon hole the entire API on current hardware as "poor", what little we've seen so far is proof of that as there are games with good/playable performance using DX9 currently IMHO. Its how the games play thats important.
also, while i don't think there is a dx9 game available at this time which uses enough "dx9" to truly show the difference between dx9 performance of ati vs. nv, my 9800 pro (400/710) runs about 10-20% faster then my 5900nu (450/850) on avg in the farcry demo when using the highest settings.
Again, the FX isn't slower than ATi cards in DX9 pixel shader 2.0 effects because they're using FP32 while ATi is using FP24, but probably because of a lack of temporary registers (in effect, not enough memory). I believe ATi is still faster in FP24 than nV is in FP16. And ATi's vertex shaders are FP32, just like nVidia's, and 3DM03 seems to show the 9800 series' vertex shaders as far faster than the FX 5900's with VS2.0.
It just seems that nV didn't focus as much on DX9 (or ran into too many manufacturing problems doing so) than ATi. That doesn't seem to have hurt them too much up to now in benchmarks, though ATi's apparent dominance in high- and mid-range DX9 card sales seems to indicate it is a consumer concern. Or maybe ppl were just more attracted to ATi's superior AA, which is easier to demonstrate in reviews than nV's superior texture filtering.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand. AFAIK, ATi cards still seem to have the edge in early DX9 games. The fact that there have been so few commercially available DX9 games has rendered that edge somewhat moot, though.
I guess I'm still waiting. We've got all these claims of superior DX9 performance on ATI parts, acceptable DX9 performance on ATI parts, and "nVidia stinks at DX9", but all I see is the same thing I've seen for the last 18 months listening to "ATI is better at DX9":
1. DX9 games I can count on one hand, DX9 games with PS2 effects even scarcer
2. Pointing at demos of upcoming DX9 games that have a couple DX9 PS2 effects mixed in as evidence of DX9 performance
3. The only posted DX9 benchmarks in review sites like this one showing slow framerates and huge performance losses
So why don't you guys support your argument? Post some links to benchmarks that support your assertions, like this:
Shady Days:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1863&p=10
HL2 uses lots of PS2 shaders supposedly. 46fps average at 10X7, no AA/AF is crap performance, IMO. With the average at 46, you know the minimums are dropping below 30, and motion is no longer smooth. While the other two demos at 70 odd fps is "ok" this is without AA/AF. Let's say you take a 25% framerate hit to enable your AA/AF-this brings your average down into the 50's - again not good.
Tombed Raider:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1896&p=39
Look at that crap. A Radeon 9800XT losing 58% of it it's performance in PS2, at a crap setting like 10X7, no AA/AF. Pathetic. Add some AA/AF, where does that leave you? Screwed.
So instead of saying "Rollo, you're ignorant" because you can run around in a demo scene rendered in DX8 PS 1.1 at 70fps with some AA on (big deal- we've all been doing that a while) why don't you guys post some links to real review sites, with real benchmarks of DX9 game that uses a lot of PS2 effects and an ATI card is getting good frame rates at a modern setting?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: To date, DX9 performance is totally irrelevant. When it is relevant, any card out at this point in time will be irrelevant. You can talk about good DX9 performance on your 9700s and whatnot all you like, but I scoff at my 9800Pros feeble DX9 flailings and wait for MAy when I can buy a real DX9 card.
1. DX9 games I can count on one hand, DX9 games with PS2 effects even scarcer
2. Pointing at demos of upcoming DX9 games that have a couple DX9 PS2 effects mixed in as evidence of DX9 performance
3. The only posted DX9 benchmarks in review sites like this one showing slow framerates and huge performance losses
So why don't you guys support your argument? Post some links to benchmarks that support your assertions, like this:
Shady Days:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1863&p=10
HL2 uses lots of PS2 shaders supposedly. 46fps average at 10X7, no AA/AF is crap performance, IMO. With the average at 46, you know the minimums are dropping below 30, and motion is no longer smooth. While the other two demos at 70 odd fps is "ok" this is without AA/AF. Let's say you take a 25% framerate hit to enable your AA/AF-this brings your average down into the 50's - again not good.
Tombed Raider:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1896&p=39
Look at that crap. A Radeon 9800XT losing 58% of it it's performance in PS2, at a crap setting like 10X7, no AA/AF. Pathetic. Add some AA/AF, where does that leave you? Screwed.
So instead of saying "Rollo, you're ignorant" because you can run around in a demo scene rendered in DX8 PS 1.1 at 70fps with some AA on (big deal- we've all been doing that a while) why don't you guys post some links to real review sites, with real benchmarks of DX9 game that uses a lot of PS2 effects and an ATI card is getting good frame rates at a modern setting?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: To date, DX9 performance is totally irrelevant. When it is relevant, any card out at this point in time will be irrelevant. You can talk about good DX9 performance on your 9700s and whatnot all you like, but I scoff at my 9800Pros feeble DX9 flailings and wait for MAy when I can buy a real DX9 card.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
