PS2 PS3 clarification

[f11]

<continuation of an older thread, my username was gauravsharma311 before>

From Gamersdept.com quote:

GD: A lot of attention has been paid to NVIDIA's support of Pixel Shader 3.0 - can you specifically think of anything PS 3.0 can be used for that can't be done in PS 2.0?

Rowan: I can not think of any effects that can be done in PS 3.0 that can't be done in PS 2.0. Under PS 2.0 they might take some extra passes, or maybe a few more instructions, but the final result should exactly match the equiv PS 3.0 Shader.

 

[SexyK]

From the same article:

GD: A lot of attention has been paid to NVIDIA's support of Pixel Shader 3.0 - can you specifically think of anything PS 3.0 can be used for that can?t be done in PS 2.0?

Mark: Absolutely! The ability to perform dynamic flow control opens the door for many new things, such as true per-pixel ray tracing, and support for arbitrary numbers of light sources at the per-pixel level. Also, shaders can be greatly optimized by careful usage of conditionals and predicates (partially available in 2.x but not at all 2.0).

Also the enhanced register counts and indexable constants will allow developers to create even more complex shaders. Each of these enhancements brings us one step closer to doing in real time what was once only possible offline in Renderman and the like.
:roll:

 

[Marsumane]

This is stupid. First off, look at Toy Story. Can you render this today? Why/why not? How would we be able/ are we able to render this? A: Through progression of the microarchetecture in the hardware in our systems.
Basically I'm saying that PS3.0 enables our hardware to be more efficient in displaying the same thing. Therefore, games can be made more complex and visually appealing due to the increased availability of resources which is only possible by technologys such as those that enable PS3.0 .

 

[f11]

I think you're confusing it with the type of capabilties that will come with DX10. PS3 is pretty much an extention of programmability originally present in DX9. When Unreal3/NextDoom are released, *they will require* DX10 cards to run as intended, a DX9 card, PS3 or not, just won't matter. I think ATi have taken the right approach again - the biggest games this year will likely run faster on their DX9-basic oriented hardware, give and take some *very* minor "PS3 add-on" effects tacked on at the last minute.

 

[f11]

Obviouslly for programmers it's great to be able to buy a PS3 card now to experiment, but for 90%+ of us it just doesn't make sense to buy a card based on something that's aimed, well, nowhere. HL2 = probably biggest online gaming title for next 5 years = will run fine on DX9 PS2 hardware which it was designed on/for. The fact that ATi is keeping 24bit accuracy means they can use slower memory again and still come out faster in bandwidth limited situations.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: f11
Obviouslly for programmers it's great to be able to buy a PS3 card now to experiment, but for 90%+ of us it just doesn't make sense to buy a card based on something that's aimed, well, nowhere.  HL2 = probably biggest online gaming title for next 5 years = will run fine on DX9 PS2 hardware which it was designed on/for.  The fact that ATi is keeping 24bit accuracy means they can use slower memory again and still come out faster in bandwidth limited situations.

ati fanboi extrordinaire?

 

[JonnyBlaze]

Originally posted by: f11
When Unreal3/NextDoom are released, *they will require* DX10 cards to run as intended,

umm, doom uses opengl so why would it need a dx10 card?

JB

 

[g3pro]

Originally posted by: f11
<continuation of an older thread, my username was gauravsharma311 before>

From Gamersdept.com quote:

GD: A lot of attention has been paid to NVIDIA's support of Pixel Shader 3.0 - can you specifically think of anything PS 3.0 can be used for that can't be done in PS 2.0?

Rowan: I can not think of any effects that can be done in PS 3.0 that can't be done in PS 2.0. Under PS 2.0 they might take some extra passes, or maybe a few more instructions, but the final result should exactly match the equiv PS 3.0 Shader.

that's interesting cuz the other 8 developers said that PS3.0 can be used for many many many different things.

 

[f11]

I think my argument has sufficient reasoning. Probably best to wait for anand's write-up on X800xt and then read this thread again, it'll make more sense I'd imagine.

 

[BFG10K]

PS3.0 can be used for many many many different things.

Such as?

 

[f11]

umm, doom uses opengl so why would it need a dx10 card?

JB


- i didnt say they would. what i mean is that by the time such games are out the gf6800 will fall in price by a factor of 10 and there will be other cards out.

 

[Dman877]

Why so much fuss about ps3.0? Personally, I see it as a nice feature, but I don't think its a deal-breaker. When all the cards are on the table, I'm gonna buy the best bang-for-buck offering. If the situation arises that an nvidia card and ati card are similarly priced and perform similarly, then I'll go with the nvidia card because of ps3.0. However, if the ati card has a significant performance advantage at a lower price-point, ps3.0 doesn't mean squat to me.

For me, its speed first, features and image quality second.

 

[CrystalBay]

AIW Guru take notice.

 

[f11]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15502

 

[f11]

original thread here
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=27&amp;threadid=1292344&amp;STARTPAGE=1&amp;FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: f11
Obviouslly for programmers it's great to be able to buy a PS3 card now to experiment, but for 90%+ of us it just doesn't make sense to buy a card based on something that's aimed, well, nowhere.  HL2 = probably biggest online gaming title for next 5 years = will run fine on DX9 PS2 hardware which it was designed on/for.  The fact that ATi is keeping 24bit accuracy means they can use slower memory again and still come out faster in bandwidth limited situations.

ati fanboi extrordinaire?

9800 Pro at 15min fps must be fine for him

 

[Keysplayr]

Not for anything guys, but if your not a programmer or develoloper specific to what is being discussed here, nobody needs to hear from you. So you know a little bit about this and that. Wonderful.

 

[Acanthus]

I dont see whats so hard to understand really.

They are both fully programmable, one is more efficient than the other.

Wheres the problem?

 

[Regs]

Just give me more games that look like Far Cry and I'll be happy.

If it looks better on Nvidia hardware, Ill get Nvidia. If it looks better on ATI, I'll get ATi.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: f11
<continuation of an older thread, my username was gauravsharma311 before>

From Gamersdept.com quote:

<FONT face=Verdana>GD: A lot of attention has been paid to NVIDIA's support of Pixel Shader 3.0 - can you specifically think of anything PS 3.0 can be used for that can't be done in PS 2.0?

<FONT color=#3399ff>Rowan:</font><FONT color=#3399ff> </font>I can not think of any effects that can be done in PS 3.0 that can't be done in PS 2.0. Under PS 2.0 they might take some extra passes, or maybe a few more instructions, but the final result should exactly match the equiv PS 3.0 Shader.</font>

Errr, Cyndi, (oops... I mean "F11") you do realize that if PS2 requires extra passes, the PS2 card will be slower, right?

 

[UlricT]

ummm Rollo, won't it be slower at the same clock speed? we are getting a fast core with the R420 right?

 

[f11]

ive given up trying to explain.
it's great to try using your own logic and reasoning once in a while, rather than soak up whatever a big name tells you. i do work in industry, and was clarifying something i have come across and spent a lot of time around. apparently, i'm not working for valve or id, so what i say means little. point taken, i'll try and hold back on future posts like this, and let you believe what you want.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: UlricT
ummm Rollo, won't it be slower at the same clock speed? we are getting a fast core with the R420 right?

I don't know Ulric- you tell me. I don't know the retail specs of the R420, or the 6800. I also don't know how many extra passes will be required.

My point was this looked to be one of those all too common ATI fanboy posts, and that other things being equal, more passes is not a good thing.

 

[f11]

<yawn>
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjA5

 

[f11]

and before i get more "ati fanboy" calls from little shits pretending to wise, i'd like to say the sole aim of my reasoning was to say that it's *not* necessary to move to PS3 model hardware because the visual difference is small. anyone with a radeon 9800 / x800 will be pretty much be able to run the game with *similar* visual features virtually indistinguishable from those on a gf6800. I am not just making claims, these are statements backed by sources i've given and that will be backed in anand's write up I presume. thanks for reading.