SM3 Thread

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: hans030390
So don't get mad at me...the Video section has been quite peaceful for a while without needless SM3 posts (aside from me recommending it ) and then this comes up with a rather interesting OP..."SM3 cannot generate effects that are not possible on SM2; it just can do them faster"...

Sometimes people make me chuckle

Dude there is nothing wrong w/ my original statement; other people here have backed me up on it too.

Welcome back to the thread tho.

Saying that SM3 has NO IQ improvements is wrong, but i will agree with you that there are a few things added, most which aren't noticable...a couple (displacement mapping) do play a big role in next gen graphics though...so in a way you are both wrong and right.

And yes, welcome back indeed...if we can keep this in a nice discussion i'm open to talk

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: hans030390
So don't get mad at me...the Video section has been quite peaceful for a while without needless SM3 posts (aside from me recommending it ) and then this comes up with a rather interesting OP..."SM3 cannot generate effects that are not possible on SM2; it just can do them faster"...

Sometimes people make me chuckle

Dude there is nothing wrong w/ my original statement; other people here have backed me up on it too.

Welcome back to the thread tho.

Saying that SM3 has NO IQ improvements is wrong, but i will agree with you that there are a few things added, most which aren't noticable...a couple (displacement mapping) do play a big role in next gen graphics though...so in a way you are both wrong and right.

And yes, welcome back indeed...if we can keep this in a nice discussion i'm open to talk

Well, I will agree that SM3 is definately *better* than SM2, and it is definately preferrable to have a card that supports that feature. That said, when I can get an X800GTO2 (moddable to X850XTPE) for $150 less than a 6800GT, SM3 is definately not worth $150 to me.

It has IQ improvement only in that it will score a higher framerate at equal settings.

 

[hans030390]

Yeah, in a case like you just mentioned, it really comes down to if you want SM3 or not....in your case, no, so i'd recommend the x800gto2. (which is a crazy deal)

Oh, and to everyone, i fixed my OP...sorry about that

and i know this is old... http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/03/09/news_6120126.html
but if you read, they claim that the 6600gt will run UE3 games easily....probably low settings, but hey...its pretty credible since its coming straight from the devs mouths.

Not sure what the purpose of me posting that was...just for those who think that your lower end cards will be useless in next gen

Now this is just guessing...but it is odd that he mentioned the 6600gt...he could have easily said x800...is it possible that he said 6600gt because of Sm3 capabilities? Just a guess, and it does make some sense...

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Well, the point of this thread is really to list any games that use SM3 to do things that the best SM2 cards cannot do. I can only think of Far Cry as an example, but I'd like to hear of others.

Just so that people are aware, SM3 cannot generate effects that are not possible on SM2; it just can do them faster.

To put this in a nicer form (and sorry for the original form):

There are some IQ improvements that it does offer, which plays a big role in next gen graphics. For now, no, there are no real IQ improvements. Next gen, yes, it is used.

:thumbsup:
:beer:

 

[Pocatello]

I don't care much for SM3 myself, but by tomorrow, ATi will announce that its SM3 is better, and all the ATi fans will start piping how important SM3 has become all the sudden.

 

[hans030390]

Oh....had to make a new post for this...i thought this was interesting

http://www.1up.com/do/download?cId=3138759

those are supposedly GDC demo movies...which, were ALL run on a 6600gt....that's what some have said or...at least off of some forums (search google for 6600gt unreal engine 3)...IF this is true...I'm happy

Not sure how it applies to SM3 directly...but oh well.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Now this is a good Video Card thread!!!!! :beer: for Sickbeast.... IIRC you have been away for a while before these past 2 weeks.

People have made some very good points but i have to comment on one of hans:

Looping 65,356 shader instructions (compared to a sm2's 96)

Name one game that comes ANYWHERE remotely close to exceeding SM2 spec. Ill give ya a hint....there isn't one . While a theoretical 65K maximum is nice, we are still a ways away from using SM2's 96 shader instructions.

-Kevin

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Now this is a good Video Card thread!!!!! :beer: for Sickbeast.... IIRC you have been away for a while before these past 2 weeks.

People have made some very good points but i have to comment on one of hans:

Looping 65,356 shader instructions (compared to a sm2's 96)

Name one game that comes ANYWHERE remotely close to exceeding SM2 spec. Ill give ya a hint....there isn't one . While a theoretical 65K maximum is nice, we are still a ways away from using SM2's 96 shader instructions.

-Kevin

Yeah....i'm well aware of that. I was just putting down what was on my box
Still, you do have to consider that if anyone ever uses those instruction lengths...it'd be very very detailed.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Now this is a good Video Card thread!!!!! :beer: for Sickbeast.... IIRC you have been away for a while before these past 2 weeks.

Yeah, I'm usually very busy with work and stuff, but I lost my job a couple of weeks ago.

I have two interviews this week tho so I have my fingers crossed.

Oh yeah, thanks by the way. :beer:

 

[BenSkywalker]

we are still a ways away from using SM2's 96 shader instructions.

id and Crytek both had issues with that already IIRC(I recall Carmack talking about it a decent amount, I think Crytek was the other dev). It really isn't a huge issue on SM2 parts as they are far too slow for it to be a major issue(single or multi pass, you aren't going to be pushing many 100 instruction shader passes on hardware that slow).

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: hans030390
So don't get mad at me...the Video section has been quite peaceful for a while without needless SM3 posts (aside from me recommending it ) and then this comes up with a rather interesting OP..."SM3 cannot generate effects that are not possible on SM2; it just can do them faster"...

Sometimes people make me chuckle

Dude there is nothing wrong w/ my original statement; other people here have backed me up on it too.

Welcome back to the thread tho.

Saying that SM3 has NO IQ improvements is wrong, but i will agree with you that there are a few things added, most which aren't noticable...a couple (displacement mapping) do play a big role in next gen graphics though...so in a way you are both wrong and right.

And yes, welcome back indeed...if we can keep this in a nice discussion i'm open to talk

Well, I will agree that SM3 is definately *better* than SM2, and it is definately preferrable to have a card that supports that feature. That said, when I can get an X800GTO2 (moddable to X850XTPE) for $150 less than a 6800GT, SM3 is definately not worth $150 to me.

It has IQ improvement only in that it will score a higher framerate at equal settings.

Your thread isn't about an ATI card vs. an nVidia card, it's about SM 3.0. I don't care about price or other features. Saying SM 3.0 doesn't add anything that SM 2.0 can't do is completely false. Just one feature, displacement mapping, makes this entire statement...

Just so that people are aware, SM3 cannot generate effects that are not possible on SM2; it just can do them faster.

... completely false.

 

[Topweasel]

Originally posted by: Captain_Howdy

Originally posted by: Topweasel
I think People that misunderstand why people wer a fan of getting SM3 cards. Its not about using the feature now, it is about the Idea that purchasing one that can do SM3 would eliminate the need to purchase a new card when they can use that card at a lower setting and still be able to get their choice of enabled eye candy. With SM2 cards its like admitting defeat before you purchase knowing that if you keep the card you might not be able to use any of the new toys (very few if any) and might not be able to use your current features that seperate SM2 from SM1.x (butt loads).

When I heard here and a couple of other places that SM3 games might not be coded for SM2 because its the same graphical look but harder to program and is less efficient, I knew that a X8** wasn't a real option for me. I expect my 7800GTX to last me three years even if I have to run my games at 800x600.

By the time SM3 games rock the world and deffiniately by the time SM2.0 is completely stopped being coded for, ATI will have a SM3 card. This is an issue for people who have already purchased their cards (even as far back as a year ago) or are looking for a card right now. People who constantly purchase the new cards or are looking for a vid purchase in the short term future the choice of going SM3 won't be an issue and they will all be ready.

Kind of like the whole GF4 PS 1.3(4?) battlefield 2 debacle?

Exactly I would have hated spending $400 on a Geforce4 4600 not have been able to play BF2 when a slightly slower card that was out at the same time could. What is 4-5 FPS on the high end if it could posibly impact your future game playability.

 

[Pete]

Jeff, I was just clarifying that Far Cry uses virtual, not "real," displacement mapping, and my comment about it being a function of the pixel shader was in reference to virtual DM. (I wasn't exactly clear with the Crytek SM2 & 3 statement, though. Obviously HDR via FP blends isn't possible on SM2 cards, and FC supports it. I was referring to virtual displacement mapping and geometry instancing. I actually forgot if Crytek showed off HDR at the GF6 launch.)

BTW, I recall Parhelia touted ("real"?) displacement mapping way back when. I'm guessing it was limited compared to SM3's definition, but I'm almost positive it produced a similar effect. Alls I remember is canyons, so it's quite likely that version of DM wouldn't have allowed for deformable geometry as I believe SM3's DM does, just easier world creation (e.g., canyon floor texture + displacement map texture = Grand Canyon, but with limits such as only one z coordinate per x,y coordinate [so, no caves]). Either that, or my brain's failed me again. Wouldn't be the first time, and won't be the last. I should probably stop talking now, before I swallow more of my foot.

dunno, yep, I was referring specifically to the parallax (virtual displacement) mapping in FC 1.3 and other recent and current games, not hardware capabilities.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Pete
Jeff, I was just clarifying that Far Cry uses virtual, not "real," displacement mapping, and my comment about it being a function of the pixel shader was in reference to virtual DM. (I wasn't exactly clear with the Crytek SM2 & 3 statement, though. Obviously HDR via FP blends isn't possible on SM2 cards, and FC supports it. I was referring to virtual displacement mapping and geometry instancing. I actually forgot if Crytek showed off HDR at the GF6 launch.)

BTW, I recall Parhelia touted ("real"?) displacement mapping way back when. I'm guessing it was limited compared to SM3's definition, but I'm almost positive it produced a similar effect. Alls I remember is canyons, so it's quite likely that version of DM wouldn't have allowed for deformable geometry as I believe SM3's DM does, just easier world creation (e.g., canyon floor texture + displacement map texture = Grand Canyon, but with limits such as only one z coordinate per x,y coordinate [so, no caves]). Either that, or my brain's failed me again. Wouldn't be the first time, and won't be the last. I should probably stop talking now, before I swallow more of my foot.

dunno, yep, I was referring specifically to the parallax (virtual displacement) mapping in FC 1.3 and other recent and current games, not hardware capabilities.

Ok... makes sense then. For anyone interested, there's a mod that adds parallax mapping to Doom 3 as well. Looks like crap though in my opinion...

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Your thread isn't about an ATI card vs. an nVidia card, it's about SM 3.0. I don't care about price or other features. Saying SM 3.0 doesn't add anything that SM 2.0 can't do is completely false. Just one feature, displacement mapping, makes this entire statement...

Just so that people are aware, SM3 cannot generate effects that are not possible on SM2; it just can do them faster.

... completely false.

Fair enough; I stand corrected.

 

[dunno99]

BTW, I recall Parhelia touted ("real"?) displacement mapping way back when.

Yep, I remember that too. I never saw the canyon thingy, so I can't comment on that. But the demo I saw was with two steel ball-like thingies. One had bump map, and the other had displacement map. The bump mapped one looked like a ball with grooves on it, and the displacement mapped one had chunks protruding very far out.

 

[Pete]

I kind of remember that too, but that would probably ruin my 'one z value per x,y coordinate' theory. Anyway, Anandtech's Parhelia intro had two pages on its DM functionality (complete with canyon, but no sphere), for those interested in history kind of repeating itself.

Edit: Heh, it was, in fact, the Grand Canyon.

 

[SickBeast]

Displacement mapping is in fact a great 3D feature that can produce individual blades of grass as opposed to just a bump map that looks like grains of dust/dirt. I feel silly for not having known that SM3 could do this and SM2 could not. Everything I had read stated that SM2 could do whatever SM3 could.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Rollo
The SM3 games I have are Far Cry, Lego Star Wars, Painkiller, and Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory.

AFAIK the only "SM3 effect" that cannot be done in SM2 is displacement mapping, and that is not used yet, also AFAIK.

BTW- if you have little kids, Leggo Star Wars is awesome. My 5 year old loves it.

My 5 year old too....:thumbsup:

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Displacement mapping is in fact a great 3D feature that can produce individual blades of grass as opposed to just a bump map that looks like grains of dust/dirt. I feel silly for not having known that SM3 could do this and SM2 could not. Everything I had read stated that SM2 could do whatever SM3 could.

Actually blades of grass and leaves would more likely be rendered using geometry instancing (like in Far Cry)... which can, and is done using SM 2.0b. Unless of course you're talking about a football field where the grass is short, and displacement mapping would just give the field a rough look, but not actually render individual blades of grass.

I think this is where unified shaders would be useful. A shader unit could either do pixel shading or something like displacement mapping. The reason displacement mapping isn't being used now, I believe, is because with the 6800 Ultra there's only 6 vertex shaders... not a lot of power to spare in that area. The 7800 has more... 8 I think? But that's still not quite enough. Unified shaders will allow the game to allocate shader units dynamically depending on what the scene requires. If it requires more power for displacement mapping than pixel shading, it'll be available... if it requires more power for pixel shading than displacement mapping, it'll be available.

 

[Pete]

SB, Jeff is right. You can read that link I posted to the Parhelia review to get an idea of what displacement mapping does. It can't do blades of grass, unless you like your grass blades standing straight up and stock still. You're thinking of geometry instancing, which itself is kind of a misnomer as it relates to replicating blades of grass (which are usually alpha textures on polygonal fans, not individual "blades" of geometry). It's more obvious to associate it with trees and their trunks, IMO.

An article on the Far Cry 1.3 patch or possibly the 6800U launch should explain instancing in more detail, if you're curious.

(Edit: and tho I believe geo instancing isn't part of the SM2 spec, apparently ATI has supported it since the 9700P, so it doesn't seem to be an advantage the GF6 series holds over the RX or even R9 [9500+] series.)

 

[Pete]

Interesting that we focused on displacement mapping, as apparently R520 doesn't (yet? per B3D's page on R520's VS) support vertex texturing (which appears to be a requirement for DM as done in SM3, per dunno's post), and yet the R520's Toy Shop demo had a cobblestone effect that I was convinced was DM but turns out to be parallax occlusion mapping. It looks amazing. Download the Toy Shop video and check it out.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Pete
Interesting that we focused on displacement mapping, as apparently R520 doesn't (yet? per B3D's page on R520's VS) support vertex texturing (which appears to be a requirement for DM as done in SM3, per dunno's post), and yet the R520's Toy Shop demo had a cobblestone effect that I was convinced was DM but turns out to be parallax occlusion mapping. It looks amazing. Download the Toy Shop video and check it out.

I still can't quite get over the realism of the water effects in that demo, especially the droplets that streak downward along the Toy Store glass. The cobblestones were very cool too, along with just the overall package; that has to be TONS of polygons and must have taken some pour souls a LONG time to create. It seems like such a waste; they should make mini-games out of these things at least!

 

[Pete]

Heh, yeah, raindrop Plinko. There are ~300 shaders for the water effects, according to an ATI slide I saw somewhere (edit: here). BTW, as I said in my post, the cobblestones aren't using real displacement mapping or lots of geometry, but are basically "faking it" with parallax occlusion mapping (which seems to be a more advanced form of virtual displacement mapping, aka parallax mapping, in that there's also occlusion--I believe the occlusion part is what made me think I was looking at tons of geometry, but I could be wrong).

Edit: Almost certainly occlusion.