SM 3.0

[rivan]

Why do I see so many people talking about SM3 and buying vid cards based on whether or not they support it?

Is there that big a difference? Screenshots, please.

 

[Powermoloch]

ohhhh gawd not AGAIN. Use the search feature to fulfill your mindly needs or something.

 

[rivan]

Yeah, I've read the debate that's happened in 3 or 4 threads threads, but seen no screenshots. Just no screenshots yet.

Thanks for your help, PM.

 

[Powermoloch]

I'm sure that are screenies in some other tech sites ( especially here in anand's)

 

[moonboy403]

i think it doesn't necessarily look better...but it's a somewhat more efficiency shader path???

 

[johnnqq]

www.hardocp.com

search at that site or go pm rollo...

 

[Wreckage]

There are screen shots for Far Cry, Pacific Fighters, AOEIII, UT3, SC:CT, and several other games. Use google.

 

[forumposter32]

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

Well, since the previous posters were so traumatized by your request, I put up a link. There ya go.

 

[hans030390]

go to google and search for "Shader Model 3.0"

read.

Also, look up "displacement mapping" on google (a feature only in SM3). That's the MAIN source of improved graphics, plus other stuff that likely wont be touched for a while.

So, I recommend you not be lazy, don't post about Sm3 here, and read up on google, and it will likely answer your questions

 

[Pete]

Displacement mapping is not the "main source" of SM3's improved graphics, mainly because only one game on the market even uses it (Pacific Fighters, and you can see screenshots at Nvidia.com)! The main visible improvement is HDR, b/c only SM3 cards support the FP frame buffers required for simpler and higher-performing HDR effects. And HDR isn't even a required part of SM3 spec--it's a bonus!

SM3 mainly makes life easier for developers, allowing them to use less code to achieve the same effects. Its increased instruction space can also allow for fewer passes and thus faster code.

But, yeah, seriously, there are plenty of other very recent threads on the subject. If you want pics, hit up nVidia.com, or look at a Far Cry patch 1.2/1.3 article, or check some Age of Empires previews.

Edit: Fairly extreme example here (found in another AT thread).

 

[hans030390]

Oh yeah, HDR....crap i forgot about that.

Well, once displacement mapping is used, then it will be more important.

Hmmm....displacement mapping+water....

 

[Powermoloch]

Don't forget that x8xx series can perform HDR...just FYI

 

[Koudelka]

I love watching msot people get so uptight about certain questions. Best thing people can do.. is either ignore it and not post.. or boost their post count with irrelevant useless text not worth reading.

If i knew the specifics of SM3, i'd tell ya. Best bet is to use search feature, or google it.

 

[forumposter32]

Originally posted by: Koudelka
I love watching msot people get so uptight about certain questions. Best thing people can do.. is either ignore it and not post.. or boost their post count with irrelevant useless text not worth reading.

If i knew the specifics of SM3, i'd tell ya. Best bet is to use search feature, or google it.

I googled just to help out this guy and found various crap whatever that had nothing to do with the darn screenshots I was looking for.

Anyway, I believe Shader Model 3 is backwards compatible. I think BF2 is the only game that won't show on a Ti4200 (sm 1.4).

BTW, the screenshots from Nvidia.com compare sm 1.1 to 3.0, not a fair comparison (at all).

 

[WhipperSnapper]

As I see it, the big issue is, will it improve an SM 3.0 card's frame rates over a card that doesn't have it?

 

[Sonikku]

Shader 3 is vastly superior to Shader 2, sporting it's super fiber injected pixie dust of magical doom.

 

[Kogan]

SM3 only improves framerates (from what I've seen). That's it. I've personally recently took screenshots of Black & White 2 with ps 1.4, 2.0 and 3.0 and saw no difference at all between 2.0 and 3.0. But for some reason, it ran much slower with 3.0 (software bug maybe?)

I'd post screenshots, but really there's no difference at all. 1.4 of course looked terrible with no bump mapping or whatever other advanced features it's missing.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: rivan
Yeah, I've read the debate that's happened in 3 or 4 threads threads, but seen no screenshots. Just no screenshots yet.

Thanks for your help, PM.

That's because there are no screenshots - you need to reread some of those threads.

The difference and SM 3.0's value is not visual - it does the same thing. What it does is give a performance benefit to SM 3.0 supporting games.

This is not really a big deal now - the games that do support SM 3.0 also support SM 2.0 or SM 2.0b (what's on ATI's X800 series of cards) with minimal performance hit.

However, several future games are designed to be built from the ground up with SM 3.0, such as Unreal 3. If buying for the future, you should be very cognisant of Unreal 3's demands, because it is already the most licensed engine for next-gen games, as Unreal 2 was before.

Nonetheless, Unreal 3 and games based on that engine are still 1-2 years away, so the issue has been, and will continue to be blown out of proportion.

Until games require SM 3.0, it's not a big drawback having a card that is only SM 2.0.

 

[forumposter32]

...yeah, and by next year, we'll see shader model 4 video cards.

My brother is not the kind of person who would upgrade every year. So, for him, I recommended a 6600 GT. I knew I would replace my card next year so I got a cheaper one.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
That's because there are no screenshots - you need to reread some of those threads.

The difference and SM 3.0's value is not visual - it does the same thing. What it does is give a performance benefit to SM 3.0 supporting games.

http://developer.nvidia.com/object/using_vertex_textures.html

Screenshot showing the visual difference between SM2.0 and SM3.0 using VTF.

 

[meelk]

SM3 makes stuff look shiney. *jerking motion with hand

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
That's because there are no screenshots - you need to reread some of those threads.

The difference and SM 3.0's value is not visual - it does the same thing. What it does is give a performance benefit to SM 3.0 supporting games.

http://developer.nvidia.com/object/using_vertex_textures.html

Screenshot showing the visual difference between SM2.0 and SM3.0 using VTF.

It's all marketing. VTF by the way, is the feature that ATI omitted from their SM 3.0 cards. Here's what they have to say about VTF:

No, vertex texture fetch is not supported. However, since the X1000 family does all pixel shader calculations with FP32 precision, just like the vertex shader, it is possible to get the same results using the render to vertex buffer capability. Basically, you do a quick pre-pass where you render to a special linear buffer in which each pixel represents a vertex. Textures can be used to modify each vertex through the pixel shader, and the result is then read back into the vertex shader. The result is fast vertex texturing with full filtering support, without requiring any special hardware in the vertex shader engine.

Note that render to vertex buffer is possible in R4xx as well, but is limited to FP24 which could cause precision issues in some cases.