"FarCry Performance Revisited: ATI Strikes Back with Shader Model 2.0b"

[PrayForDeath]

Read it here!

Comments are welcome

 

[SickBeast]

Yah I read it too, very interesting. It appears ATi gained close to what nVidia got from SM3. If only there were more games that used 2.0b/3.0, we could have a more serious look at the value of SM3.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Anyone noticed how the 9800XT has double the performance of the 5950Ultra in those benchmarks?
How is that?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath
Anyone noticed how the 9800XT has double the performance of the 5950Ultra in those benchmarks?
How is that?

Well, the 9800XT properly supports DX9 whereas the 5950 doesn't. It also has much better shader performance, and has an 8x1 architecture as oppposed to 4x2.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

Why does xbit insist on not doing AA/AF benches? These numbers are mostly worthless for comparing card to card.

It really looks like the x800 Pro gets worse day by day. It's performing much closer to 6800 than to GT levels.

 

[Shad0hawK]

so instead of going with teh sm3 standard, ATI is going to try and make thier own.

that is pretty ballsy.

this is going to be interesting.

 

[FluxCap]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
so instead of going with teh sm3 standard, ATI is going to try and make thier own.

that is pretty ballsy.

this is going to be interesting.

I think they are just going to do this until they get SM3.0 cards on the market, then switch to SM3.0.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: FluxCap

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
so instead of going with teh sm3 standard, ATI is going to try and make thier own.

that is pretty ballsy.

this is going to be interesting.

I think they are just going to do this until they get SM3.0 cards on the market, then switch to SM3.0.

Actually I think the next move for ATi will be to go straight to DX10 w/ R500, effectively bypassing SM3 altogether. I suppose they will still need to support it for legacy games though.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: FluxCap

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
so instead of going with teh sm3 standard, ATI is going to try and make thier own.

that is pretty ballsy.

this is going to be interesting.

I think they are just going to do this until they get SM3.0 cards on the market, then switch to SM3.0.

Actually I think the next move for ATi will be to go straight to DX10 w/ R500, effectively bypassing SM3 altogether. I suppose they will still need to support it for legacy games though.

that would make sense, any links to info on dx10?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
that would make sense, any links to info on dx10?

Here.

It appears that graphics cards supporting DX10 are going to be monsters.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
that would make sense, any links to info on dx10?

Here.

It appears that graphics cards supporting DX10 are going to be monsters.

thanks

i was s thinking if long shader instructions are "no big deal" according to aTI, whya re they doing this(sm2b)?

 

[rbV5]

For some reason, Shader Model 3.0 could not be enabled on NVIDIA?s latest official 61.76 drivers

I wonder why not? I'm using official 61.76 and SM 3.0 is enabled.

 

[Genx87]

Well, the 9800XT properly supports DX9 whereas the 5950 doesn't. It also has much better shader performance, and has an 8x1 architecture as oppposed to 4x2.

How do you "properly" support DX9? And exactly what would a 5900 need to support in order to "properly" support it?

Why does xbit insist on not doing AA/AF benches? These numbers are mostly worthless for comparing card to card.

It really looks like the x800 Pro gets worse day by day. It's performing much closer to 6800 than to GT levels.

Possibly due to time restraints or the fact neither card does AA and AF exactly the same. So not applying AA\AF allows them to run the cards and not worry about optimizations.

Actually I think the next move for ATi will be to go straight to DX10 w/ R500, effectively bypassing SM3 altogether. I suppose they will still need to support it for legacy games though.

At first I expected the NV50 and R500 to both support DXNext(DX10) but I am starting to have a feeling it wont be until the NV60 and R600 till this happens due to Longhorn being pushed back into 2006. DX10 wont be showing up until Longhorn does. No real need to have a card in the channel that supports a standard that wont even be out for a year+ after the card is.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath
Anyone noticed how the 9800XT has double the performance of the 5950Ultra in those benchmarks?
How is that?

The FX series was never very strong at DX9. Farcry doesnt use that much of it, but when it does it can put the hammer on your system.

Also, the 1.2 patch fixed many graphical issues that the 1.1 patch brought it. It also drop the performance because it fixed the issues.

Pretty ironic that the 1.1 patch gave the FX series a huge boost, but also introduced a lot of graphical "bugs". The 1.2 patch comes out (almost) just as the 6800 series does, raising the 6800's performance a hair, and fixing the FX problems, but dropping the frames a lot.

 

[NYHoustonman]

I can't wait for that HDR stuff... Long way off though ><.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Genx87
DX10 wont be showing up until Longhorn does. No real need to have a card in the channel that supports a standard that wont even be out for a year+ after the card is.

Do you not remember the 9700PRO? It was out for ages before DX9 was released. ATi has been designing R500 around DX10 from the start. I would be very surprised if it doesn't fully support it.

 

[Genx87]

Do you not remember the 9700PRO? It was out for ages before DX9 was released. ATi has been designing R500 around DX10 from the start. I would be very surprised if it doesn't fully support it.

9700 Pro came out in Aug of 2002. DX9 came out, what, Jan of 2003?

Next Spring the R500 will be out and Longhorn probably wont be for 18 months.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Do you not remember the 9700PRO? It was out for ages before DX9 was released. ATi has been designing R500 around DX10 from the start. I would be very surprised if it doesn't fully support it.

9700 Pro came out in Aug of 2002. DX9 came out, what, Jan of 2003?

Next Spring the R500 will be out and Longhorn probably wont be for 18 months.

So you're saying that Longhorn will have DX10, but they won't make a standalone installer for Windows XP? We don't know for certain what Microsoft has planned. They may release DX10 for XP before Longhorn because of the delays (however unlikely that may be). In any event, I was just making the point that oftentimes graphics cards are released that support a future version of DirectX. I doubt ATi is going to throw their hands up and scrap their DX10 plans because of some Microsoft delays.

 

[NFactor]

Longhorn will probably use DX10 and i really don't see a reason for Microsoft to release it before then, but i could be wrong. Remember Microsoft doesn't do what ATI wants. ATI will do what Microsoft wants, look at how far they've delayed the 64 bit version of Windows XP without a peep comming out of AMD. AMD is just playing the good silent doggy and waiting for Microsoft to get around to it.

If Microsoft intends to release DX10 with Longhorn then it will take R600 or 700 before the software actually is out.

 

[Rage187]

Longhorn is slated for a 2006 release, and most people beielve it will slip at least 1 yr.


So thats 4 years away.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: NFactor
If Microsoft intends to release DX10 with Longhorn then it will take R600 or 700 before the software actually is out.

Maybe people will just start programming for OpenGL; it will be fully capable of all of DX10's features.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

I dont see why/how R500 will be released so soon. It's not like R420 is being totally outdone by the NV40, any lack of sales is due to lack of card output and not a poor design.

 

[futuristicmonkey]

All through that article i was getting the feeling that xbitlabs is a little slanted towards nvidia. For example:

The RADEON 9800 XT seriously lags behind NVIDIA?s GeForce 6800 graphics card.

wtf?

NVIDIA, not talking about the RADEON 9800 XT that remains galaxy behind the GeForce 6800.

???

Oh, and my favourite :

Meanwhile the RADEON 9800 XT demonstrates lower performance compared to the GeForce 6800.

On page 12. At 10x7 the 9800XT ACTUALLY BEATS the 6800, and at 16x12, the 9800XT is only behind by 5.3 fps.

I wonder why didn't they post scores of the 6800 with SM 2.0?

 

[Genx87]

So you're saying that Longhorn will have DX10, but they won't make a standalone installer for Windows XP? We don't know for certain what Microsoft has planned. They may release DX10 for XP before Longhorn because of the delays (however unlikely that may be). In any event, I was just making the point that oftentimes graphics cards are released that support a future version of DirectX. I doubt ATi is going to throw their hands up and scrap their DX10 plans because of some Microsoft delays.

We will see an installer but we wont see it until after longhorn launches.

I dont see why/how R500 will be released so soon. It's not like R420 is being totally outdone by the NV40, any lack of sales is due to lack of card output and not a poor design.

Because next Spring when the NV50 is released ATI will need a card to counter it.

I wonder why didn't they post scores of the 6800 with SM 2.0?

Because it was a review of ATI cards using the PS2.0b rendering path. They threw in the SM3.0 6800 scores for an idea on how both optimized paths compare.

 

[oldfart]

Originally posted by: futuristicmonkey
All through that article i was getting the feeling that xbitlabs is a little slanted towards nvidia. For example:

The RADEON 9800 XT seriously lags behind NVIDIA?s GeForce 6800 graphics card.

wtf?

NVIDIA, not talking about the RADEON 9800 XT that remains galaxy behind the GeForce 6800.

???

Oh, and my favourite :

Meanwhile the RADEON 9800 XT demonstrates lower performance compared to the GeForce 6800.

On page 12. At 10x7 the 9800XT ACTUALLY BEATS the 6800, and at 16x12, the 9800XT is only behind by 5.3 fps.

I wonder why didn't they post scores of the 6800 with SM 2.0?

Why all the comparisons of last years HW to this years? I would hope the 6800 is faster. BTW, why no mention that last years top end nVidia card is MUCH SLOWER, sometimes 1/2 the speed compared to the 9800XT in their benches?