-
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.
NV40 = 12,535 3DMark03 ?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
futuristicmonkey
Golden Member
I sort of support BugsBunny1078. In any HL mod, play it at 640x480. Run around in any level. Then, up the res to something like 1152x864. Then run around in the same level taking the same path you did before. To me, when you increase the reolution, it seems like you are running a little slower.
BugsBunny1078
Banned
I think thats it its new drivers work better. I have had conversations with other gamers about this issue several times and how the heck they could play in such high resolutions and they say they get used to it. Just the fact that so many people seem to rememnber upping the res and everything getting smaller proves it.
BenSkywalker
Diamond Member
Oh man...... start with the basics.
In a 2D game you have your x and y axis which tell the computer to draw a particular pixel in a particular place. Increase the resolution and you have more pixels.
In 3D you are dealing with vertices that are mapped to an area based on camera perspective inside a virtual physical world. There are numerous different factors that need to take place to make sure images scale properly and are kept at their proper perspective, likely a bit too steep for this discussion but suffice it to say that in 3D you assign a "size" to physical objects. These objects when rendered need to have their vertex data mapped out to a 2D plane, this is what transformation does(I'm simplifying a bit to keep it simple). No matter what resolution you run a game at the physical size of the objects will remain constant inside of the 3D world, the underlying technology that drives all current real time 3D assures this. Any 2D overlay can be reduced in size, such as the console text will get tiny running certain games at a high enough resolution.
That is likely because your framerate dropped a bit.
Here is what you do, you render out a 3D image at both resolutions- then view the one that you rendered @640x480 with your screen resolution @640x480 and the one you rendered @1024x768 with your monitor set for 1024x769 because that is what is happening when you are playing a game.
If you take screenshots then you will get different sized images, but they will have the same amount of area on screen. IE if you have two building on the horizon- one to the left and one to the right that you just fit in to your view @640x480 they will still just fit in to the screen @1280x960 but the total image size will have increased by a factor of four(twice as wide and twice as high). When you view this on your monitor in 2D you need to adjust you monitor resolution to compare.
I use 2048x1536 whenever I can, my monitor pulls 85Hz at that setting. Most of the people here shell out a good deal of money for ideal, or as close as they can reasonably spend to ideal, gaming setups. Radeon9800Pro is pretty much the standard board here(or the FX5900).
In a 2D game you have your x and y axis which tell the computer to draw a particular pixel in a particular place. Increase the resolution and you have more pixels.
In 3D you are dealing with vertices that are mapped to an area based on camera perspective inside a virtual physical world. There are numerous different factors that need to take place to make sure images scale properly and are kept at their proper perspective, likely a bit too steep for this discussion but suffice it to say that in 3D you assign a "size" to physical objects. These objects when rendered need to have their vertex data mapped out to a 2D plane, this is what transformation does(I'm simplifying a bit to keep it simple). No matter what resolution you run a game at the physical size of the objects will remain constant inside of the 3D world, the underlying technology that drives all current real time 3D assures this. Any 2D overlay can be reduced in size, such as the console text will get tiny running certain games at a high enough resolution.
That is likely because your framerate dropped a bit.
Here is what you do, you render out a 3D image at both resolutions- then view the one that you rendered @640x480 with your screen resolution @640x480 and the one you rendered @1024x768 with your monitor set for 1024x769 because that is what is happening when you are playing a game.
If you take screenshots then you will get different sized images, but they will have the same amount of area on screen. IE if you have two building on the horizon- one to the left and one to the right that you just fit in to your view @640x480 they will still just fit in to the screen @1280x960 but the total image size will have increased by a factor of four(twice as wide and twice as high). When you view this on your monitor in 2D you need to adjust you monitor resolution to compare.
I use 2048x1536 whenever I can, my monitor pulls 85Hz at that setting. Most of the people here shell out a good deal of money for ideal, or as close as they can reasonably spend to ideal, gaming setups. Radeon9800Pro is pretty much the standard board here(or the FX5900).
INGlewood78
Senior member
Jesus...what kind of monitor do u have!
I think Ben has a 22" Diamondtron.
Back on topic, 12K 3DM03 sounds absolutely amazing, even if NV40 gets that score mainly through its beastly z/stencil fill rate in GT2 & 3 (as Dave intimated in a B3D thread). More shadows ain't a bad thing at all, and are in fact what I consider to be the biggest step towards increasing realism in current games. I'm still waiting for a CS update where an enemy's shadow peeking around a corner gives him away. 🙂
Back on topic, 12K 3DM03 sounds absolutely amazing, even if NV40 gets that score mainly through its beastly z/stencil fill rate in GT2 & 3 (as Dave intimated in a B3D thread). More shadows ain't a bad thing at all, and are in fact what I consider to be the biggest step towards increasing realism in current games. I'm still waiting for a CS update where an enemy's shadow peeking around a corner gives him away. 🙂
BFG10K
Lifer
Not it doesn't. 3D objects are represented internally in relative co-ordinates and are then interpolated across any resolution you are running at. As a result they are always exactly the same size.
If 2D sprites such as text and HUDs are done properly they too can also maintain a constant size, regardless of the resolution.
Yes. Crack out the ruler and measure it at 640 x 480 and 1024 x 768; both will be exactly the same size (assuming of course your monintor geometry is identical at both resolutions).
Then it must've had problems with its engine as no 3D game should ever do something like that.
JonnyBlaze
Diamond Member
thats a high ass score. its almost double my 03mark.
also, anyone who things the models get smaller at high resolutions is crazy
JB
also, anyone who things the models get smaller at high resolutions is crazy
JB
Actually BFG is correct and you sound like the n00b. Start up ANY 3D game and try it at different resolutions... no matter what res you're at you will see the same area in your field of view... With your theory everyone playing Tribes at hi res had a huge advantage because they had "bug eyed" vision allowing them to see everything around them.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
Words cannot describe the moronic display your executing here. You are not going to stand there and tell me my eyes arent seeing what their seeing. So, you have a game that doesn't do that? Excellent. BFG makes it sound like all game do that. And your the idiot that agrees with him. Keep it up boys. I just love intelligence.
BenSkywalker
Diamond Member
If Jesus was a gamer he'd probably be running the same monitor I am, a NEC FP2141SB-BK(22" Diamondtron as Pete mentioned) 😉
I got it for a bit under $700- insane monitor for gaming and not a bad price at all 😀
More then likely it is a condition of the brain. It may have been something like crack cocaine that you might have smoked too much off, perhaps serious head trauma, or it could be delusions caused by some sort of serious chemical imbalance. We can't say how your brain is comprehending anything, but we can tell you as an absolute and utter point of fact how basic 3D rendering works. Take it or leave it, but know that you are wrong.
JonnyBlaze
Diamond Member
they are just trying to tell you that your wrong. you dont see more of an area with higher resolutions. things just get clearer. now you do see more or less area when you change aspect ratios (1280x960 compared to 1280x1024).
look at these shots in q3 i just made from 640x480 up to 1920x1440. things just get more detailed.
JBlaze
640x480
800x600
1024x768
1280x960
1280x1024
1600x1200
1920x1440
What game(s) are you claiming DO do this? Run 3DMark03, Run FarCry, Run UT2k4, Run Battlefield.... that's not just ONE game that doesn't do it... it's all those. Run 3DMark's IQ test for GT1 at several resolutions and save the bitmaps.... every damn one of them at every resolution is going to show the plane the same size.. it's only going to look more or less blurry and jagged. Please post an example to prove your "observations"
Edit... Thanks JBlaze... you've proved my point with your pictures.. something I wanted to do but I don't have any webspace.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
I understand what your saying. But did you also notice that the entire screen area gets larger with every shot?
If you had a monitor that could only display 640x480 properly, then changed the resolution to somthing higher, what would you see if it only displayed the center 640x480 portion of the screen. I want you to take a look at these shots of the UT menu. This is where it is best noticable.
640x480 UTmenu
1024x768 UTmenu
1280x1024 UTmenu
There are differences in sizes that things are rendered. I'm not on crack, never have been. Just hate being told something
and the exact opposite is staring me right in the face.
Look how small the menu letters are getting as you go up. Almost cant even read them. And the "metal area" for the unreal logo is actually not big enough to fill the whole screen on top and bottom as you can start to see black showing at 1280x1024.
And the menu itself is stretching and skewing.
If we had a miscommunication here guys, I apologize. But this is what I'm talking about.
If you had a monitor that could only display 640x480 properly, then changed the resolution to somthing higher, what would you see if it only displayed the center 640x480 portion of the screen. I want you to take a look at these shots of the UT menu. This is where it is best noticable.
640x480 UTmenu
1024x768 UTmenu
1280x1024 UTmenu
There are differences in sizes that things are rendered. I'm not on crack, never have been. Just hate being told something
and the exact opposite is staring me right in the face.
Look how small the menu letters are getting as you go up. Almost cant even read them. And the "metal area" for the unreal logo is actually not big enough to fill the whole screen on top and bottom as you can start to see black showing at 1280x1024.
And the menu itself is stretching and skewing.
If we had a miscommunication here guys, I apologize. But this is what I'm talking about.
JonnyBlaze
Diamond Member
letters dont get rendered. those menu's are images and have nothing to do with what was being discussed.
the screen gets larger with every shot, but when i view them, my monitor dosent get bigger, so thats why they were comparing it with a higher dpi printer.
JB
the screen gets larger with every shot, but when i view them, my monitor dosent get bigger, so thats why they were comparing it with a higher dpi printer.
JB
keys, the UT menu is 2D, rendered using Window's fixed-pitch API. The Q3 HUD and environment is 3D, rendered using the fixed-ratio OGL API.
As for the black bars in your 1280x1024 UT screen, keep in mind 12x10 is a 5:4 x:y ratio, whereas most other PC resolutions are 4:3. 12x10 has more vertical resolution than 1280x960 (4:3)--1024-960=64 pixels more y res, to be exact--so the metal texture in the background, which is made for 4:3 ratios and maintains its ratio, doesn't cover those remaining 64 vertical pixels (32 on top, 32 on the bottom). It's the same principle with widescreen (~16:9) movies shown on a regular/"fullscreen" (4:3) TV: rather than stretching the film vertically to touch to edges of your screen, the film's original widescreen ratio is maintained by adding black bars to the top and bottom of the widescreen image. An alternative method to maintain the film's original widescreen ratio (and avoid squished or stretched people) on a regular TV is to crop the left and right part of the image that falls outside the screen when the film vertically fills the screen.
You can see the same "extra" vertical screen resolution in J Blaze's 12x10 vs. 12x9 Q3 screenshots, only this time, rather than black bars beyond 12x9's 960 vertical lines of resolution, you see slightly more sky and ground with 12x10's 1024 vertical lines of resolution.
Rendering at a higher resolution in current 3D FPS games means rendering at higher dpi/ppi (dots/pixels per inch). If you stretch all of J Blaze's pics to fill your screen, you'd see that all the 4:3 resolutions show the same amount of info, just at higher resolution.
Blech, Ben explained it better. Really, a picture is worth a thousand words. It should be obvious what's happening in 3D (fixed-ratio) space just by looking at J Blaze's screens, and in 2D (fixed-pitch) space by looking at yours. Q3's in-game geometry is fixed-ratio (the geometry proportions don't change when you change resolutions on the same monitor), whereas UT's menu "geometry" (mainly fonts) is fixed-pitch (you can stretch or squish text by showing a higher resolution on the same monitor).
Basically (let's try another tack), look at the text. In your UT menu screenshots, the menu bar text (Game, Multiplayer, Options, ...) is fixed-pitch: it takes up the same amount of pixels at all resolutions, and looks smaller at higher screen resolution because there are more pixels on-screen. In JB's Q3 in-game screenshots, the on-screen text is proportional: it takes up the same proportion of screen space, and that proportion includes more pixels at higher screen res (again, because the screen is composed of more pixels).
To put it as plainly as I can, UT's menu text is fixed-pitch (scales with screen res), and Q3's HUD is fixed-ratio (scale remains the same, regardless of screen res). On a 20" 4:3 monitor, a letter "O" that's 2"x2" (measured with a ruler) at 800x600 will be the same size at 400x300 or 1600x1200 in Q3's HUD (same scale, just higher dpi), whereas it will be 1"x1" at 1600x1200 (same dpi, just smaller scale) and 4"x4" at 400x300 (same dpi, bigger scale) in UT's menu.
Hopefully a lightbulb went off while reading one of those haphazard explanations, but they'll probably just serve to further confuse you. Really, Ben's above explanation ("start with the basics") was spot-on. You're just talking about something else than we are. Check out the UT2K4 demo menu, and you'll see it's no longer fixed-pitch, like UT, but variable-pitch/fixed-ratio, like Q3.
As for the black bars in your 1280x1024 UT screen, keep in mind 12x10 is a 5:4 x:y ratio, whereas most other PC resolutions are 4:3. 12x10 has more vertical resolution than 1280x960 (4:3)--1024-960=64 pixels more y res, to be exact--so the metal texture in the background, which is made for 4:3 ratios and maintains its ratio, doesn't cover those remaining 64 vertical pixels (32 on top, 32 on the bottom). It's the same principle with widescreen (~16:9) movies shown on a regular/"fullscreen" (4:3) TV: rather than stretching the film vertically to touch to edges of your screen, the film's original widescreen ratio is maintained by adding black bars to the top and bottom of the widescreen image. An alternative method to maintain the film's original widescreen ratio (and avoid squished or stretched people) on a regular TV is to crop the left and right part of the image that falls outside the screen when the film vertically fills the screen.
You can see the same "extra" vertical screen resolution in J Blaze's 12x10 vs. 12x9 Q3 screenshots, only this time, rather than black bars beyond 12x9's 960 vertical lines of resolution, you see slightly more sky and ground with 12x10's 1024 vertical lines of resolution.
Rendering at a higher resolution in current 3D FPS games means rendering at higher dpi/ppi (dots/pixels per inch). If you stretch all of J Blaze's pics to fill your screen, you'd see that all the 4:3 resolutions show the same amount of info, just at higher resolution.
Blech, Ben explained it better. Really, a picture is worth a thousand words. It should be obvious what's happening in 3D (fixed-ratio) space just by looking at J Blaze's screens, and in 2D (fixed-pitch) space by looking at yours. Q3's in-game geometry is fixed-ratio (the geometry proportions don't change when you change resolutions on the same monitor), whereas UT's menu "geometry" (mainly fonts) is fixed-pitch (you can stretch or squish text by showing a higher resolution on the same monitor).
Basically (let's try another tack), look at the text. In your UT menu screenshots, the menu bar text (Game, Multiplayer, Options, ...) is fixed-pitch: it takes up the same amount of pixels at all resolutions, and looks smaller at higher screen resolution because there are more pixels on-screen. In JB's Q3 in-game screenshots, the on-screen text is proportional: it takes up the same proportion of screen space, and that proportion includes more pixels at higher screen res (again, because the screen is composed of more pixels).
To put it as plainly as I can, UT's menu text is fixed-pitch (scales with screen res), and Q3's HUD is fixed-ratio (scale remains the same, regardless of screen res). On a 20" 4:3 monitor, a letter "O" that's 2"x2" (measured with a ruler) at 800x600 will be the same size at 400x300 or 1600x1200 in Q3's HUD (same scale, just higher dpi), whereas it will be 1"x1" at 1600x1200 (same dpi, just smaller scale) and 4"x4" at 400x300 (same dpi, bigger scale) in UT's menu.
Hopefully a lightbulb went off while reading one of those haphazard explanations, but they'll probably just serve to further confuse you. Really, Ben's above explanation ("start with the basics") was spot-on. You're just talking about something else than we are. Check out the UT2K4 demo menu, and you'll see it's no longer fixed-pitch, like UT, but variable-pitch/fixed-ratio, like Q3.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
Why is there an argument about 1024x768 anyways? Who cares if you get certain % larger viewing area vs. 1600x1200 (which i personally havent noticed) Just take Unreal Tournament 1 and play the game and i bet any $$$ you wont think anything go smaller in the actual game while you are playing it; but the game sure does look 2x better.
Besides, anyone who is a true gamer and has the videocard and a nice monitor will never play at 1024x768 because it just doesn't make sense to if your system performs fast enough at higher res.
and one more thing, if you are going to compare 3dmark03 scores or any type of 3dmark score to real world performance you should think twice. Let's take my Radeon 8500 for example which gets about 1500 poitns and RAdeon 9800 Pro gets 5500+. Now if someone told you that Radeon 9800Pro is 3.5 times faster in games vs. 8500 you can just laugh in their face....but wait wait they'll show you the 3dmark score!!! And then they'll try to brag that their 4600 hits 16000+ in 3d01 overclocked which is SOOO close to 18000 points of 9800Pro......come on people get real.....like someone already mentioned what matters is real world performance like 100FPS in FAR CrY 😉
Dont get me wrong 3dmark scores are acceptable but much more so for your own system performance increases and tweaking and for comparison of a similar system setup with same components or otherwise they tend to deviate from the real world performance.
Besides, anyone who is a true gamer and has the videocard and a nice monitor will never play at 1024x768 because it just doesn't make sense to if your system performs fast enough at higher res.
and one more thing, if you are going to compare 3dmark03 scores or any type of 3dmark score to real world performance you should think twice. Let's take my Radeon 8500 for example which gets about 1500 poitns and RAdeon 9800 Pro gets 5500+. Now if someone told you that Radeon 9800Pro is 3.5 times faster in games vs. 8500 you can just laugh in their face....but wait wait they'll show you the 3dmark score!!! And then they'll try to brag that their 4600 hits 16000+ in 3d01 overclocked which is SOOO close to 18000 points of 9800Pro......come on people get real.....like someone already mentioned what matters is real world performance like 100FPS in FAR CrY 😉
Dont get me wrong 3dmark scores are acceptable but much more so for your own system performance increases and tweaking and for comparison of a similar system setup with same components or otherwise they tend to deviate from the real world performance.
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
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
