Is DX9 just a better water effect over DX8.1? That's all I see different, but then again I only have one DX game out of my 7 or 8 and have played the Far Cry demo. What is it?
Notice any difference between DX8.1 and DX9?
- Thread starter VIAN
- Start date
The same effect you get with DX8.1 too!
The mirror effect in MP2 is a PS1.4 shader effect, there are no DX9 class shaders in the game at all. DX9 is required as they validated the game using the D3D9 run time, but it doesn't use any of the features.The shaders offer the potential for a nigh limitless amount of different effects, how many of those are viable is another matter though
As McArra pointed out- fur, lighting effects and reflections can all be rendered in a more realistic fashion using DX9 level shaders then they can with DX8/DX8.1 level. With the exception of some minor shader effects here and there(compared to what we have seen already in games) HL2's HDR is the only thing I've seen on the horizon at any point that is going to show a very noticeable difference. Hell, DooM3 is pretty much using DX7 class shader effects and they seem to be doing OK on the visual front
None of the current boards have close to enough power to show what DX9 level shaders can do in a real time(even limiting it to PS2.0/VS2.0) gaming situation. Much like DooM3 targets a GeForce1 feature set yet will run like an utter dog on it, the same will be true of games that really would display the capabilities of PS2.0 level shaders. Of course, instead of actually using PS2.0 shaders they will be using 3.0 or 4.0 as they should be far more efficient(we know PS 3.0 will be) but PS2.0 level shaders are capable of getting within close proximity of off line rendered CGI, just the hardware isn't close to fast enough.
Originally posted by: g3pro
doom 3 is using openGL.
It is... but shaders are DX7/8 level (meaning quality, looking).
are you sure about that? i always thought that OpenGL was one step ahead of DirectX. because with OpenGL, you only need to add extensions for additional effects, not install a whole new DirectX version.
unless Doom is still back in the stone age with those old shaders, you say.
if doom3 has old shaders only because they look a certain way, then HL2 is using DX4/5 shaders.
unless Doom is still back in the stone age with those old shaders, you say.
if doom3 has old shaders only because they look a certain way, then HL2 is using DX4/5 shaders.
Interesting question. I was wondering the same thing about Farcry, as apparently it defaults to DX8 for NV cards (including FX). I was wondering how this affects the graphic visuals.
rage3d ? Originally posted by Hanners
In a way, it is optimised - If the demo is anything to go by, the game drops all shaders to 1.1 regardless of what settings are selected on NV3x boards, whereas R3x0 cards will run 2.0 shaders when set to the highest graphical settings in game.
Originally posted by T-Spoon
*waves to Edward2.
Yeah, it's true. I also posted this on nVnews, but they didn't seem quite impressed (or should I say 'surprised'?) by the news.
Here's the log I posted there:
R3x0 card (Radeon9700Pro)
Vertex Shaders version 2.0
Pixel Shaders version 2.0
Use Hardware Shaders for ATI R300 GPU
Pixel shaders usage: PS.2.0 and PS.1.1
Shadow maps type: Mixed Depth/2D maps
NV3x card (FX5900U)
Vertex Shaders version 2.0
Pixel Shaders version 2.0
Use Hardware Shaders for NV3x GPUs
Pixel shaders usage: Replace PS.2.0 to PS.1.1 <---- :hmm:
Shadow maps type: Mixed Depth/2D maps
GF4Ti
Vertex Shaders version 1.1
Pixel Shaders version 1.3
Use Hardware Shaders for NV2x GPU
Pixel shaders usage: Replace PS.2.0 to PS.1.1
Shadow maps type: 2D shadow maps
Dead link.
If youre referring to HL2 NVIDIA runs "mixed mode" which means it only uses DX9 level shaders when its needed. Otherwise it uses DX8.1 shaders which have far less overhead.
If youre referring to HL2 NVIDIA runs "mixed mode" which means it only uses DX9 level shaders when its needed. Otherwise it uses DX8.1 shaders which have far less overhead.
Ben, do I have to post links to every site that posted Shader Day results to prove you wrong?! The Radeon 9600 Pro has the power to run a game entirely comprised of PS2 effects in real time at 70fps minimum! It's faster than a 5950 FX!
P.S. That should have been followed by a Howard Dean "YeeeeeEEEEAAAAAAAArrrrrrgghhh!"
it isn't what ya got, it is what ya do with it.
The Snowman's quote is very, very true here. Wait until you see DooM3 running and you may find yourself quite shocked at what is capable with the very limited shader hardware of the original GeForce. The problem with the original GeForce is that it doesn't have anywhere close to enough power to use those features in the fashion that DooM3 is going to(well, not with realistic performance levels). What Carmack is pulling off with register combiners is going to blow away most of the DX9 level effects we will see in the near future.
Carmack's next engine is likely to use a ~DX9 level feature set and will likely be the first engine we see that really displays what the technology is capable of, but it will be far too intensive to be run on anything that it out now(won't be an issue, we won't see that engine until '08-'09 more then likely). Carmack is exceptional at squeezing the most out of hardware, better then anyone else in the gaming industry by a considerable margin IMO, he doesn't need to utilize the latest and greatest features to make his titles look better then anyone elses and run better too.
PS2.0 shows slightly nicer effects in Far Cry (flashlight and shiny surfaces), but nothing mind-blowing. There are some threads with screenshots in the NVNews.net forum, IIRC.
Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
it isn't what ya got, it is what ya do with it.
The Snowman's quote is very, very true here. Wait until you see DooM3 running and you may find yourself quite shocked at what is capable with the very limited shader hardware of the original GeForce. The problem with the original GeForce is that it doesn't have anywhere close to enough power to use those features in the fashion that DooM3 is going to(well, not with realistic performance levels). What Carmack is pulling off with register combiners is going to blow away most of the DX9 level effects we will see in the near future.
Carmack's next engine is likely to use a ~DX9 level feature set and will likely be the first engine we see that really displays what the technology is capable of, but it will be far too intensive to be run on anything that it out now(won't be an issue, we won't see that engine until '08-'09 more then likely). Carmack is exceptional at squeezing the most out of hardware, better then anyone else in the gaming industry by a considerable margin IMO, he doesn't need to utilize the latest and greatest features to make his titles look better then anyone elses and run better too.
carmac is a computer programming genius. Doom, Quake, Quake 2, Quake 3, Doom 3... Doom3 will blow everything else away.
Is there a difference? Yes. Will we see any games that really show it off for another couple of years? No.
Remember, most of the Doom 3 technology is DirectX 7 level features - only a few shaders, normal maps, and other features are DX9 level - they comprise maybe 10% of what is rendered. By and large, Doom3 is built on GeForce 1 era tech.
Thus, as posted above, we won't see games that are "bottom line" directx9 until about 2 or 3 years from now (much like todays games look best with DX8.1 or DX9 but are "bottom line" DX6 or DX7).
There isn't any suddenly leap with DirectX - how much a game depends on a directX version depends on how many features a developer decides to use in the game that are only supported by that version. Hence, if you play Half Life 2 with a DX8.1 card (like I do) then you'll miss a couple of the snazzy effects, but the game will still look very good - you still get about 80 - 90% of all the graphical features possible in the game.
Remember, most of the Doom 3 technology is DirectX 7 level features - only a few shaders, normal maps, and other features are DX9 level - they comprise maybe 10% of what is rendered. By and large, Doom3 is built on GeForce 1 era tech.
Thus, as posted above, we won't see games that are "bottom line" directx9 until about 2 or 3 years from now (much like todays games look best with DX8.1 or DX9 but are "bottom line" DX6 or DX7).
There isn't any suddenly leap with DirectX - how much a game depends on a directX version depends on how many features a developer decides to use in the game that are only supported by that version. Hence, if you play Half Life 2 with a DX8.1 card (like I do) then you'll miss a couple of the snazzy effects, but the game will still look very good - you still get about 80 - 90% of all the graphical features possible in the game.
those screenshots show off the pixel shader rendering of water. it's not a DX9 feature. it's also in openGL.
True, but it also takes advantage of DX8 and DX9 level cards in special ways. This is mostly a reply to the general thread, not you.
http://www.webdog.org/plans/1/
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821&p=21
There are multiple ways Doom3 can be rendered:
-generic DX7 which drops things like specular so it can run.
-generic DX9 (single pass)
-nv3x (GeForceFX) (single pass) same as generic DX9, but with fixed point where useful to get decent frame rates on cards like the 5200
-R200 (Radeon 8500-9200) (single pass)
-nv2x (GeForce3/4Ti) (two or three passes)
-nv1x (FIVE passes)
-possibly more such as a GLSL version or Matrox Parhelia version
There is only one DX7 level card that can render D3 with eventhing enabled, the GeForce. All other DX7 cards like the Radeon 7x00 can not. Some, such as the PowerVR Kyro, may not be able to render it at all!
Even if you have a GeForce everything is going to need to be drawn five times. That means every vertex needs to be computed five times while on a Radeon 8500 it only needs to be computed once! And a 9200 only has the horsepower to get 19fps at 1024x768 on medium detail! Sure, you can run it on a GeForce1 in all its glory, but it's going to be slow considering what we're seeing from the 9200.
Doom3 can be called a DX7 game, but running it on the best DX7 card it is only 20% as effecient as a DX9 card. And the DX9 card is going to produce a much better end result thanks to using floating point buffers for HDR instead of taking color bits away from the image (see Homeworld2's backgrounds to see when this can be a problem).
It's hard to call it a DX7 level game when it will take advantage of DX9 level hardware just because it also works on DX7 level cards (albeit, with the exception of the GeForce, with reduced features). I guess if you're happy calling Half Life 2 a DX6 level game (it has been claimed it will run on a TNT!) then D3 is a DX7 game for sure. Of course all those HL2 benchmarks must mean the Radeon 9500+ is really good at DX6 level games and the GeForceFX struggles with them
But the GeForce1 can run the game full featured, that's why we call it a DX7 class game. The one feature that the GF1 offers that the other DX7 boards don't is register combiners(which is the ancestor of today's shader hardware), the Kyro lacks cube maps which is a major issue for DooM3.
Not exactly, but that sentiment is true. The vertex load for the GeForce isn't going to be the sole bottleneck in DooM3(not even close) so it being forced into multipass is not going to cause nearly an 80% performance drop.
Carmack has gone on record saying there will be no discernable quality difference between INT or FP shaders.
It working with everything on is the issue. The GeForce1 can run DooM3 fully featured, you can not say the same for Half-Life2 and any pre DX9 class card, let alone pre DX8.
URL? I think that quote may be obsolete.
True. However as only one DX7 class card will run Doom3 full featured (other dx7 class cards have no specular lighting) by using special beyond DX7 features I'd say that is more of a DX8 class game. Also I don't expect dx7 class cards to get reasonable performance in full featured mod. Hard to argue the DX7 point, but the HL2 point is pretty clear.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
what do you mean by think? are you just guessing or did you see comments from Carmack that state things differently than what Ben has said? i don't have a url of hand but i can back Ben up on this one as i remember Cramack saying the same thing. i'd imagine it is in his .plan files or the interviews he did with beyond3d if you want to go diging for the info yourself.
What do you mean what do I mean? Hmm.. It obviously means "He never said that. And you are stoopid!" sigh.. Can't somebody write something without people assuming there is hidden personal flames in it?
I mean I think Carmack may have said that, but now he is saying other things. I think he also said he was going to make a D3D version of Quake or something so that the Matrox Mystique would be able to run it accelerated at one point. He later changed his mind.. He also said he didn't want D3D or OpenGL to get in his way of programming "direct to the metal" He changed his mind on that too. In the plan file I gave the link to he said "The R200 path has a slight speed advantage over the ARB2 path on the R300, but only by a small margin, so it defaults to using the ARB2 path for the quality improvements." I'm not sure what the differences are since he said the R200 version was full featured, so I am assuming the quality improvments are coming from doing all calculations in FP. Maybe it comes from the normalize fragment program instruction instead of the low precesion integer cube map?
If you have a URL where I can read him saying there is no quality difference between INT and FP shaders I'll be more than happy to admit I've assumed incorrectly about the image quality on INT and FP in Doom3.
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter