PS2 PS3 clarification

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: 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.

But a Radeon 9800 will **NOT** be able to run full blown PS2.0 games at acceptable res/aa/af. And wont run PS3.0 at all.

Hell use your precious Half Life 2 for a performance comparison. How well does it run at 16x12 with PS2.0 enabled?

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: 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.

:roll: so don't act like a fainboi if you don't like those types of resonses.

bottom line is you are making lots of presumptions, and the fact is while it's an important feature it's probably not going to be a huge issue in THIS generation -- tho this is a presumtion as well, i don't think it's a reach. so what? in that way it's not so different than the ps2 performance the r3xx was praised for, which has only recently become an issue, and will perform much faster in the next (upcoming) generation. is that cause to go out of your way (selectively choosing only those quotes that support your position, and ignoring the developers whose statements are contrary) to trash it and create a big ruckus?

 

[g3pro]

wait, f11 = cyndi = future proofing whore? hahahaha. i think the 6800 is more future proof according to your logic. :laugh:

 

[quikah]

Thanks for the link F1, the SM 3 screens look A LOT better than the SM 2 screens.

 

[f11]

That's SM1 compared to SM2. SM3 gives almost identical output to PS3 in these specific demos. The nvidia tech VP in the techreport.com interview even stated that. I give up.

 

[Jeff7181]

Down with new technology! Technology is evil and nVidia is the devil!

Ok, now that that's out of my system, let me get back to my Apple IIe...

 

[Genx87]

Think it is pretty obvious to me at least that graphically if you fed the same shader through a GPU but used SM2 or SM3 the output will be no different. But what you seem to get with SM3 is the ability to lop off parts of the shader you wont need which should either

A. Speed up your current shader
B. Allow you to add in more effects using the time saved due to flow control.

I also think having the ability to do displacement mapping in the VS will make this a much more used feature.

SM3 from what I can tell is a developer friendly model. I honestly will not be surprised if SM3.0 takes off faster than PS2.0 did due to this fact. Developers enjoy making their applications run at thier best and from what I can tell SM3.0 allows then to do this compared to PS2.0

This can also explain the basic total lack of PS2.0 titles in the channel in the 18+ months since the 9700 Pro release. They were all waiting on a SM3.0 GPU to come into the market place.

I guess the next 12-18 months will prove me wrong or right. But if SM3.0 takes off and there are real performance gains to be had. This could be bad for ATI.

 

[bpt8056]

Originally posted by: f11
<yawn>
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjA5

Seriously, you need to understand that HardOCP missed the point about SM 2.0 and 3.0 in FarCry. The Crytek implemented most of the SM 3.0 profiles to achieve the same effect as my Radeon 9800 Pro could do. Instead of comparing IQ, H should have been measuring the efficiency of SM 3.0 compared to 2.0 and make conclusions from that. While the statue showed "more details", there aren't any "new" effects exposed in FarCry other than acheiving shaders more efficiently. Don't be so quick to lay down your verdict about SM 3.0 when you haven't seen any game make heavy use of it yet in a visual sense.

 

[Jeff7181]

Don't be so quick to lay down your verdict about SM 3.0 when you haven't seen any game make heavy use of it yet in a visual sense.

This is true. We're talking about Far Cry, a game that wasn't specifically designed to use SM 3.0, rather had some SM 3.0 features thrown in. When you see games completely designed around SM 3.0 I have a feeling the quality of the effects will be greater than SM 2.0. The difference in the number of instructions allowed should tell you that. PS 2.0 can just make multiple passes to achieve the same results as PS 3.0... what effect does that have on performance? Simple logic would tell me if it has to make multiple passes it would be slower than if it could process more instructions in a single pass.

To me, displacement mapping is a big enough deal to make me chose a SM 3.0 capable card over a SM 2.0 capable card. Nevermind any differences in shader quality or performance. Displacement mapping is HUGE as I stated before. No longer will you look at a rock at an engle and see a flat surface when the texture give the appearance of roughness. That ads a ton of realism to the gaming experience. The only question I have is how displacement mapping effects performance. I assume the more "modificaton" to the model it needs to make, the more GPU intense it will be, and the lower the frames per second will be. The question is how big of a performance hit will you take?

 

[Genx87]

That is a good question and in the Unreal3 video they had what I would call a pretty good looking displacement map on the stone wall and it appears smooth.

This is only the tip of the iceberg but Unreal3 looks stunning from what I can tell and I look very forward to the games that will be coming out over the next 3-5 years. Farcry is the beginning and will look like Quake II compared to some of these games.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
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.

And since you added absolutely NOTHING of relevence to the discussion we didn't really need to hear your sarcasm either, did we?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
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.

And since you added absolutely NOTHING of relevence to the discussion we didn't really need to hear your sarcasm either, did we?

And since you added absolutely NOTHING of relevence to the discussion we didn't really need to hear your sarcasm either, did we?

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
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.

And since you added absolutely NOTHING of relevence to the discussion we didn't really need to hear your sarcasm either, did we?

And since you added absolutely NOTHING of relevence to the discussion we didn't really need to hear your sarcasm either, did we?

:beer:

- M4H

 

[quikah]

F11, I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. I never said anything about the SM 1 shots. Let me state my point again, with a little more eplanation for you. The shots LABELED SM 3 look better than the shots LABELED SM 2. Look at the statue comparison, the SM 3 pic looks A LOT better. The statue looks like it is actually made of stone instead of wet shiny plastic like the SM 2 pic.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: quikah
F11, I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. I never said anything about the SM 1 shots. Let me state my point again, with a little more eplanation for you. The shots LABELED SM 3 look better than the shots LABELED SM 2. Look at the statue comparison, the SM 3 pic looks A LOT better. The statue looks like it is actually made of stone instead of wet shiny plastic like the SM 2 pic.

The problem is that -- and this has been discussed before -- those pictures are actually comparing SM3.0 to SM1.1. There are no pictures "LABELED" SM2.0. I have a 9800Pro, and I have the FarCry demo, and I'll tell you right now that there's no way those are SM2.0 pictures. And, if you look at the rest of the scene (and the statue), it seems like they set all the texture details to the lowest possible settings in the SM1.1 shots (I mean, you can see the individual pixels on the floor and wall textures!) So it's not exactly a 'fair' comparison.

 

[Jeff7181]

Where's the buddah? I want to take some screen shots with my FX5900 and compare to those.

 

[Vernor]

What does the claim that PS 3.0 is more efficient, have to do with the bogus screenshot comparison put out by Nvidia ?

 

[quikah]

Argh, YES, THERE ARE PICTURES LABELED SM 2! http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA4Mjc0ODY3M0szQ2kwQU9QejlfMV84X2wuanBn

See the note that says SM 2?? Clearly the SM 3 pic looks MUCH better.

 

[Blastman]

Originally posted by: quikah
Argh, YES, THERE ARE PICTURES LABELED SM 2! http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA4Mjc0ODY3M0szQ2kwQU9QejlfMV84X2wuanBn

See the note that says SM 2?? Clearly the SM 3 pic looks MUCH better.

Those SM3.0 and SM2.0 pictures are not of the same statue.

 

[Matthias99]

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the SM1.1 pictures (as plenty of people did last week).

My problem with *those* pictures, of course, is that they're looking at totally different statues, from different angles! Also, right in their article, it says:

So when you move right up to it you can see that physically the texture is flat. The illusion of bumpiness only occurs when you are some distance away from the statue.

ie, it looks basically the same unless you're right next to it.

Also:

Another comparison we wanted to point out that is a basic scene with little discernable difference between SM3.0 and SM2.0.

image

Gee golly, that just looks incredible, don't it? Let me run out and spend $500 so I can see the EXACT SAME THING unless I'm two feet away from a statue in Far Cry.

And from the end of the article:

UPDATE: Tech Report posted an interview with Tony Tamasi of NVIDIA and they comment on the FarCry SM3.0 screenshots and they make some statements that might lead you to beleive that no real SM3.0 operations are being done in the "PS3.0 Screenshots" from NVIDIA. We are a bit familiar with Virtual Displacement Mapping and Parrallx Mapping, but we were not lead to believe by our NVIDIA contacts that is what is going on in the screenshots from NVIDIA. And quite frankly it is not really that important. This seems to simply further our thoughts that SM3.0 is not bringing much in terms of Image Quality to the table currently that cannot be done in SM2.0 and that is what will be important to the gamers buying the video cards. (emphasis added)

Going back and reading exactly what we asked NVIDIA, "What exact PS 3.0 features are (Crytek) using?" They responded, "As stated earlier, displacement mapping is used for the walls and stone textures like the Buddha." Funny enough, as noted earlier, Displacement Mapping is a Vertex Shader feature not a Pixel Shader feature. So all in all, I would have to believe what Tamasi is quoted as saying in the TR interview as true.

It seems that once again getting the exact truth out of NVIDIA can be a painstakingly complex exercise.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: quikah
Argh, YES, THERE ARE PICTURES LABELED SM 2! http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA4Mjc0ODY3M0szQ2kwQU9QejlfMV84X2wuanBn

See the note that says SM 2?? Clearly the SM 3 pic looks MUCH better.

Can someone tell me where are the identical pictures to compare?
I see only different pictures compared and pictures with "flashlight on" in SM3 and off in SM2
What I see it's obvious, is that you obviously haven't played the game

 

[NYHoustonman]

To me, displacement mapping is a big enough deal to make me chose a SM 3.0 capable card over a SM 2.0 capable card.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that part of DX9? I remember viewing, and just reviewed for this post, the DX9 demo at ATI's website, and they clearly put forth displacement mapping as a feature.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman

To me, displacement mapping is a big enough deal to make me chose a SM 3.0 capable card over a SM 2.0 capable card.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that part of DX9? I remember viewing, and just reviewed for this post, the DX9 demo at ATI's website, and they clearly put forth displacement mapping as a feature.

Not to my knowledge... but I've been wrong before...

 

[BFG10K]

This can also explain the basic total lack of PS2.0 titles in the channel in the 18+ months since the 9700 Pro release.

Another possible explanation is nVidia's lackluster performance in that area and developers' reluctance to fully exploit a feature that couldn't even be used on their cards. I've seen a few developer comments saying they were really pissed off at nVidia and the lengths they had to go through to get any kind of reasonable performance.

I remember viewing, and just reviewed for this post, the DX9 demo at ATI's website, and they clearly put forth displacement mapping as a feature.

They might've been using Truform for that.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Acanthus: But a Radeon 9800 will **NOT** be able to run full blown PS2.0 games at acceptable res/aa/af. And wont run PS3.0 at all.

Hell use your precious Half Life 2 for a performance comparison. How well does it run at 16x12 with PS2.0 enabled?

Why not compare apples to apples...?? The 98xx is equal to a FX59xx and it's well established it will run your example even worse. Plus, I don't think any 98xx owners planned on running HL2 at 16x12 with any decent frame rate anyway. I've got a 9800NP flashed to pro and I got it to play *current* games at a great framerate and to be able to check out the future games without a complete slideshow.

Any hardcore gamer wanting to run HL2 or D3 with all the eye candy and a good frame rate is going to need a top end system and the latest ATI/Nvidia hardware. The Nvidia card isn't available to the public and the ATI card isn't even out of NDA yet. I think all the debate/arguement should wait until ATI gets their new card in the hands of hardware reviewers and some *real* benchmarks can be compared.