Much the same as saying ATi will be faster in PS 2.0 shader heavy games. They should be faster just as nV should be faster in games with heavy stencil ops. nV's hardware is capable of effectively handling more stencil ops per clock and is clocked higher. That doesn't mean they will always be faster, you could show the reverse being true with regards to shadows just as you can show beating ATi in a straight up PS 2.0 comparison- if you use a shader heavy in certain functions.
Much the same as saying ATi will be faster in PS 2.0 shader heavy games. They should be faster just as nV should be faster in games with heavy stencil ops. nV's hardware is capable of effectively handling more stencil ops per clock and is clocked higher. That doesn't mean they will always be faster, you could show the reverse being true with regards to shadows just as you can show beating ATi in a straight up PS 2.0 comparison- if you use a shader heavy in certain functions.
So what are the games people are playing with PS2 shaders where they're seeing the advantage of owning an ATI product Snowman? I have a 9800Pro, I don't want to be missing out.
BTW- the "amazing" differences in PS2 vs non PS2 rendering are still unimpressive to me:
Woot. DX9 is da bomb
In the first shot the difference is a joke, the second I can see the pipe looks nicer, but for this we've all gone to war against each other?
Like the shinier HL2 water before them, these screens just reaffirm to me PS2 isn't worth the hit in framerate current hardware takes.
BTW anyone else notice the ATI shot is from a different perspective on the pipes shot where it looks like PS2 makes a difference? In the nV38 shot, you can see where the pipes are entering the wall, but you can't in the ATI shot. So we don't really even know what the difference would have been if the perspectives were the same.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: CaiNaM
ok, i see
heh.. btw i didn't "imply" antyhing; that was a direct quote.
i know it was a quote, but you used it to try and strip any value away from ps2.0 peformace in the near future, when in fact you know as well as i do:
while it's not the majorty of games, plenty of games will be makeing use of ps2.0 well before the end of 2005.
heck the ut2004 demo barely uses dx8 at all, it is mostly dx7 tech. i didn't find it impressive at all either; neither from a graphics, performance, or gameplay perspective.
the 9800 can handle 8 stencel ops per clock, how many more can the 5900 do, eh Ben? thats right, 0 more.
you know the answer to that just as well as i do, but you discount the value of it:
just like many 3dfx fanboys discounted the value of nvidia's tnt line and it's introduction of 32bit true color, i'm glad most people people finaly got over that.
Of course the video cards we're discussing will be like GF1s at the end of 2005, so the value of current DX9 performance is still pretty negligible.
Personally, I'm more interested in Doom 3 performance this year.
I'm no company's fanboy, I just think the differences in the current flavor of video cards are too subtle to care much about, and that neither runs PS2 effects as fast as I want games to run.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
but they won't be well before the end of 2005
heck i'm more interested in playing cs at 1600x1200 with the aa and af cranked as high as i can. that is x16af but only x2aa to get no drops in performace on my 9800xt, so i still have some room for improvment.
again you come to this argument of ps2.0 performance not being fast enough for you without accepting the fact that ps2.0 doesn't automatically dictate some fixed performance level on a given piece of hardware, it is all about implementation. i can show you ps2.0 effects running at over 300fps, hardly a perfomace figure anyone can complain about.
Its openGL, ati will suck at it. They always do. I just hope it at least works on doom3 at release, unlike the last 2 big opengl titles on their release.
the whole deal tho snowman is you and others are making a huge thing about ps2 shaders. it's really a non-issue at this point, and i think it will pretty much remain that way until perhaps hl2 comes out.
then there's the whole difference of how ps2 shaders affect the overall image quality of game over that of ps1.1. very negligible at this point.
if your're THAT stuck on the benefits of ps2 shaders, it's still a moot point as the next gen cards will run circles around the current gen cards, but frankly i don't think dx9 will have a significant effect in games overall anyways.
if hl2 comes out and the nv cards run at half the framerates of the ati cards and is barely playable, i'll jump to your point of view, however that isn't the case with ANY game right now, to it's worthless arguing over it.
yea, ATI DEALS W PS2 SHADERS MUCH BETTER THAN NV AT THIS TIME. but really, does it really impact anyone's gaming experience much at this point in time? no.
then there's the whole difference of how ps2 shaders affect the overall image quality of game over that of ps1.1. very negligible at this point.
if your're THAT stuck on the benefits of ps2 shaders, it's still a moot point as the next gen cards will run circles around the current gen cards, but frankly i don't think dx9 will have a significant effect in games overall anyways.
if hl2 comes out and the nv cards run at half the framerates of the ati cards and is barely playable, i'll jump to your point of view, however that isn't the case with ANY game right now, to it's worthless arguing over it.
yea, ATI DEALS W PS2 SHADERS MUCH BETTER THAN NV AT THIS TIME. but really, does it really impact anyone's gaming experience much at this point in time? no.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
ya they suck so bad that they hold the top spots on glexess.
we arn't making a huge deal about them, the "huge deal" is comeing from our unwillingness sit by and have people outright dissmiss the value of comparing ps2.0 shader performace in a topic about what is more or less future proof.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
oh ya they also toped nvidia in toms doom3 preview benchmarks at 1024x768 and 1280x1024 with x8 af. granted the difference is hardly enough to brag about, but obviously it does not suck.
ATI also provides better framerates in COD which is based on the Quake III engine which Nvidia is supposed to dominate.
Good for them, and they finally got it to stop crashing every 5 minutes after FOUR DRIVER RELEASES.
You can have your 5 fps, id rather have my games work.
Edit: Link? if youre referring to the toms article he did one timedemo at 1024x768 and no aa or af.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
the link is right there, it goes to the af benchmarks which tom's did:
as for crashing in cod, i don't have it myself but i know a few people with ati cards that do play the game and they don't have any stablity issues.
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
oh ya they also toped nvidia in toms doom3 preview benchmarks at 1024x768 and 1280x1024 with x8 af. granted the difference is hardly enough to brag about, but obviously it does not suck.
as for crashing in cod, i don't have it myself but i know a few people with ati cards that do play the game and they don't have any stablity issues.
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
ya they suck so bad that they hold the top spots on glexess.
we arn't making a huge deal about them, the "huge deal" is comeing from our unwillingness sit by and have people outright dissmiss the value of comparing ps2.0 shader performace in a topic about what is more or less future proof.
but you're contradicting yourself.. if it's not a "huge deal", there's nothing to dismiss. i'm sorry, but having each of the cards in one of my pc's, it simply does not make a practical difference in any of todays game iq wise, and a marginal difference in performance as shader 2 simply is not prevelant.
the entire argument is that when dx9 effects become the rule rather than the exception, these cards will simply be "underpowered" anyways.
it makes little difference today, and will make little difference in the future as there will be much more powerful parts available at a reasonable price. all your arguments have done nothing to change that.
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
the link is right there, it goes to the af benchmarks which tom's did:
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
oh ya they also toped nvidia in toms doom3 preview benchmarks at 1024x768 and 1280x1024 with x8 af. granted the difference is hardly enough to brag about, but obviously it does not suck.
as for crashing in cod, i don't have it myself but i know a few people with ati cards that do play the game and they don't have any stablity issues.
lol.. it was a fact acknowledged by ati, who even issued a "hot patch" to correct the problem.
Cainam:
I don't think we're going to convince the Snowman his 9800XT is pretty much wasted as far as PS2 goes these days. After all, he can play the wonderful Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness better than just about anyone, and lord knows, that is worth the price of the card alone. (oh yeah, I forgot, he can play a level of Far Cry demo like nobody's business as well!)
Snowman:
I concede the argument to you. If you think playing TRAoD is reason enough ATI is the best card for the buck, I think that's great. I don't play any Tomb Raider, but I'm sure it's all I've heard it is.
BTW- interesting how the Doom 3 is owned with AA on in the benchmarks you posted a link to Snowman. Big on gaming w/o AA these days, are you?
I don't think we're going to convince the Snowman his 9800XT is pretty much wasted as far as PS2 goes these days. After all, he can play the wonderful Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness better than just about anyone, and lord knows, that is worth the price of the card alone. (oh yeah, I forgot, he can play a level of Far Cry demo like nobody's business as well!)
Snowman:
I concede the argument to you. If you think playing TRAoD is reason enough ATI is the best card for the buck, I think that's great. I don't play any Tomb Raider, but I'm sure it's all I've heard it is.
BTW- interesting how the Doom 3 is owned with AA on in the benchmarks you posted a link to Snowman. Big on gaming w/o AA these days, are you?
heh.. well, i bought my 9800pro for $199. i think it was the best value, or "bang for the buck" at the time. it does, however have it's shortcomings as well as it's advantages, just like any other part, and does not imo make my 5900 any less viable as great card for its own reasons, ps2 performance be damned. imo, at least at this time, ps2 shader performace or iq is, a few cases notwithstaning, an non-issue.
as far as the orginal topic, there's been nothing shown to me that either of these cards are more "futureproof" than the other. the fact remains i don't think either are futureproof, as when dx9 is prevelant, there will be a different piece of hardware in my gaming pc.
it's all perception, which is why ati says "buy this card now, it's the best dx9 part available and provides the best performance for upcoming games". in a month or two, they'll be saying that about their next card, just as nv will do. in the meantime there will still be few dx9 games actaully available. it's called "marketing", and too many people buy into it.
as far as the orginal topic, there's been nothing shown to me that either of these cards are more "futureproof" than the other. the fact remains i don't think either are futureproof, as when dx9 is prevelant, there will be a different piece of hardware in my gaming pc.
it's all perception, which is why ati says "buy this card now, it's the best dx9 part available and provides the best performance for upcoming games". in a month or two, they'll be saying that about their next card, just as nv will do. in the meantime there will still be few dx9 games actaully available. it's called "marketing", and too many people buy into it.
Im doing it for the performance! I used to have a Ti4600 and sold it so I could get a 9800 Pro but that turned into a mistake so now I am making it right with a 5950 Ultra. I dont care what people say about how it performs against a 9600XT in HL2 I just care about being able to play the damn game and have fun. IMO people spend too much time here! FLAME ME CMON!!!
No, I'm against people saying there are future proof cards, and slamming nVidia's current product line as somehow "defective" because they have slower DX9 PS2 performance. (which matters about as much as Howard Dean's run at presidency these days)
They point to the Half Life demos, point to the Far Cry demos as "proof" of why no one should buy nVidia based cards these days, when these are just demos of unreleased games.
I'm reading carefully this flamebait, and I'm laughing my ass off.
My God we are geeks (including me).. But what can you say? We luv these stuff....
As for this whole debate I have to say the following:
I have seen ppl attacking Snowman just because he's trying to defend his statements, which btw look far more convincing to me.
When you are buying a new gpu (especially a high end one) you seem to care A LOT for those "TINY" features that make the difference from a previous generation card (eg PS 2.0 a directx 9.0 feature).
What I'm trying to say is that ALL OR 99% of ALL THESE PPL WHO ARE ATTACKING SNOWMAN TODAY were anxious to see these new features installed on the gpus.
Now that the first safe DX9 conclusions are finally here, the displeased ppl (NVIDIA NV30-NV35 owners) are trying to lower and underestimate the value of ATI cards for obvious reasons....
Sure WE CANNOT TAKE ADEQUATE ADVANTAGE OF TRUE DX9 applications today, but that does not mean we HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISTORT THE TRUTH EVEN IF THAT SERVES AS A REFERENCE POINT. (FOR NOW)
ATI GPUS ARE BETTER THAT NVIDIAS IN DX9 ENVIROMENT. FACT
You pay for a high end card .So you want the BEST from it. ATI offers you the best "FOR TODAY FOR TODAY FOR TODAY "games and most probably for the whole 2004, based on facts. NOTE : WITH THESE GPUS NOW TOMMOROWS
Why when you see that Nvidia failed to bring a good dx9 gpu you are saying. " Yes ATI is theoretically better in DX9 but I want to see some real application of that , otherwise its worthless???"
Why then do you care for DX9 features? And why do you buy a high end card if you don't care as you claim for that slight boost in performance? BECAUSE YOU KNEW THAT TAKING A BRAND NEW DX9 GPU WOULDN'T OFFER YOU REAL USE OF IT FROM THE FIRST MOMENT, DIDN'T YOU??
No my friend, YOU CARE BUT WHEN YOU MAKE A MISTAKE YOU ARE NOT MAN ENOUGH TO FACE IT.
EVERYONE MADE A BAD ESTIMATION OR CHOICE WITH A HARDWARE PURCHASE. EVERYONE. SO WHAT ?? GET OVER IT. 2MORROW YOU MIGHT BE THE WINNER.
BUT DON'T TRY TO UNDERESTIMATE AND DISTORT THE FACTS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO FEEL BETTER.
My God we are geeks (including me).. But what can you say? We luv these stuff....
As for this whole debate I have to say the following:
I have seen ppl attacking Snowman just because he's trying to defend his statements, which btw look far more convincing to me.
When you are buying a new gpu (especially a high end one) you seem to care A LOT for those "TINY" features that make the difference from a previous generation card (eg PS 2.0 a directx 9.0 feature).
What I'm trying to say is that ALL OR 99% of ALL THESE PPL WHO ARE ATTACKING SNOWMAN TODAY were anxious to see these new features installed on the gpus.
Now that the first safe DX9 conclusions are finally here, the displeased ppl (NVIDIA NV30-NV35 owners) are trying to lower and underestimate the value of ATI cards for obvious reasons....
Sure WE CANNOT TAKE ADEQUATE ADVANTAGE OF TRUE DX9 applications today, but that does not mean we HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISTORT THE TRUTH EVEN IF THAT SERVES AS A REFERENCE POINT. (FOR NOW)
ATI GPUS ARE BETTER THAT NVIDIAS IN DX9 ENVIROMENT. FACT
You pay for a high end card .So you want the BEST from it. ATI offers you the best "FOR TODAY FOR TODAY FOR TODAY "games and most probably for the whole 2004, based on facts. NOTE : WITH THESE GPUS NOW TOMMOROWS
Why when you see that Nvidia failed to bring a good dx9 gpu you are saying. " Yes ATI is theoretically better in DX9 but I want to see some real application of that , otherwise its worthless???"
Why then do you care for DX9 features? And why do you buy a high end card if you don't care as you claim for that slight boost in performance? BECAUSE YOU KNEW THAT TAKING A BRAND NEW DX9 GPU WOULDN'T OFFER YOU REAL USE OF IT FROM THE FIRST MOMENT, DIDN'T YOU??
No my friend, YOU CARE BUT WHEN YOU MAKE A MISTAKE YOU ARE NOT MAN ENOUGH TO FACE IT.
EVERYONE MADE A BAD ESTIMATION OR CHOICE WITH A HARDWARE PURCHASE. EVERYONE. SO WHAT ?? GET OVER IT. 2MORROW YOU MIGHT BE THE WINNER.
BUT DON'T TRY TO UNDERESTIMATE AND DISTORT THE FACTS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO FEEL BETTER.
rollo, if there are people that are going to upgrade in the near future, they prolly will not upgrade again when Far Cry or HL2 comes out. therefore, the card they upgrade to today, is the card they will be using when far cry so its perfectly legitiamate to use it as an indicator to make a decison
wow jim.. u sure shout alot...
you hit it right on the head. they are, at least at this point in time, "tiny" features to use your words. that's all we've been saying the whole time. now that you've already confirmed what many of us have said all along, i don't think there's a need to answer your other comments, point by point, as they mostly contradict what you said in the firs couple of paragraphs
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter