The Ultimate SM3.0 Game Thread

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Bar81
You came to a conclusion without a logical argument in support of SM3.0 being a deciding factor in a purchasing decision. I fail to see how you made a point.

You asked a question: " Is SM3.0 a feature you should consider when buying a video card?" and i gave my opinion, "yes, SM 3.0 IS a feature you should consider when buying a videocard." I also added the supporting argument that "ATI considers it important enough to add it to their new cores - This Spring."

Any further "failure to see" is yours.

 

[Bar81]

Apparently logic is not your forte. We'll leave it at that.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Bar81
Apparently logic is not your forte. We'll leave it at that.

clearly it isn't yours
:roll:

you are looking for agreement for your ridiculous premise. . . . . all the "agreers" and fanboys have already posted and all you have left is "dissent" . . . . without it your thread gets the lack of attention it deserves.

:thumbsdown:

i won't "contribute" further

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: ZobarStyl
"Unfortunately for nVidia?" Why, because a game is written that can take advantage of their hardware, but it's their fault that HDR in Far Cry disables AA?

Though I'm not sure it's nV's "fault," it is because of nV that using FP buffers precludes AA. Apparently, they didn't include that capability b/c FP buffers were slow enough as is (and perhaps b/c the core was complicated/large enough as is).

Just a minor correction. I'm not ragging on nV for this quirk, either. FP buffers are a bonus above and beyond SM3, so not getting AA on top of that isn't a negative, in my book. I have no first-hand experience with FC's HDR, so I can't offer an informed opinion on whether it's preferable to AA. I do think the bloom effect in most of the screenshots is overdone, though apparently it's very configurable.

 

[Tab]

This is retarded...

Lets get back on topic...

Will and if so how much will 3.0 SM games suffer (visually) when run in 2.0 SM hardware?
Will it even run in the first place? Will we have to spend a couple minutes in a config file?

 

[otispunkmeyer]

my smoke detector just went off

oh n i think i prefer HDR in farcry over AA, i judt dont seem to notice any jaggies at all
max settings, 4xAF, and 12x10 res....plays like a champ and looks wicked

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: ZobarStyl
It's just the wording Bar, the reiterated "Unfortunately for nVidia" thing, as if any card doing 3.0 wouldn't have the same problem. Post the facts, I'm all for it, but watch the wording as it almost makes it out to be negative feature, whereas what I think you're trying to say is that it's not as positive a feature as nV would like you to believe. I think we can both agree that in it's current incarnation, 3.0 is benign at best.

Well, just to make this comment in all of the relevant threads, I guess... how would you classify the existance of hardware support for DX9 shader features in NV FX5900-series cards? If the games that you are playing on it, really only utilized DX7/8.1 features, then the presence of hardware support for DX9 shaders (no matter how slow they might be), would be "benign".. until the game software actually started using them, and demanding support for them in hardware, at which point you would find out how those features really perform. I think that SM3.0 support is at the same point, right now, the "calm before the storm". A useful thread, this will help keep track of which games impliment support for/require support for SM3.0-capable hardware. Then we can all find out for ourselves how NV's current SM3.0-supporting cards perform, as well as next-generation cards from both ATI and NV (assuming that they also will support SM3.0 features).

Based on some of my recent thoughts, I am indeed curious if the current hardware level of "SM3.0 support" is a "negative feature" or not, considering the data thus far from Chronicles of Riddick in "2.0++" mode. Is that level of performance what we should expect to see, in all games that impliment "real SM3.0" features? Ugh!

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: Rollo
and I'd be here in the same capacity if it was anti ATI in some inaccurate way.

But 99% of anti ATI stuff is accurate.

 

[BFG10K]

FarCry - SM2.0b (on X800 cards) does everything SM3.0 can do

No, it doesn't. It has geometry instancing but doesn't support looping or branching.

Painkiller - SM3.0 enabled but for what exactly? Game does not look better or play faster than on ATI hardware.

One of the benchmarks doubled in speed on my 6800U after 1.6.1.

 

[McArra]

Sprinter Cell 3 is ONLY sm30 and 1.1... ATi is out here.

Farcry's HDR

 

[fstime]

SM 3.0 is nothing special to me.

 

[McArra]

Have used Farcry's HDR and/or Sprinte Cell 3 demo 3.0 path with HDR??

 

[fstime]

Farcry, yes, thats all.

 

[Lonyo]

By the time games will "need" SM3.0 to look stunning (ie: when it's heavily used), current cards will be to poor to play in anything high anyway, and you will be more concerned with the resolution than the shader model (ie: Unreal Engine 3)
It's useful to have the tech here so developers use it, but I don't see it becoming widely used until engines are built for it (eg: UE3 again), by which time cards will need upgrading anyway.

 

[Bar81]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
By the time games will "need" SM3.0 to look stunning (ie: when it's heavily used), current cards will be to poor to play in anything high anyway, and you will be more concerned with the resolution than the shader model (ie: Unreal Engine 3)
It's useful to have the tech here so developers use it, but I don't see it becoming widely used until engines are built for it (eg: UE3 again), by which time cards will need upgrading anyway.

That's what I'm seeing. To date, there isn't anything with SM3.0 that makes the feature stand out and I don't see anything on the horizon that's going to change that. nvidia's comparison shots a while back between SM1.1 and SM3.0 pretty much makes me think that there's just not going to be a significant between SM2.0 and SM3.0 for quite a while.

 

[Bar81]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

FarCry - SM2.0b (on X800 cards) does everything SM3.0 can do

No, it doesn't. It has geometry instancing but doesn't support looping or branching.

Painkiller - SM3.0 enabled but for what exactly? Game does not look better or play faster than on ATI hardware.

One of the benchmarks doubled in speed on my 6800U after 1.6.1.

As to FarCry, two things: (1) Please provide a link supporting your statement? and (2) What graphical effect does looping and branching have on the game?

As to Painkiller, again please provide a link showing the doubling of speed and a comparison of that new speed to the X800.

 

[Bar81]

Originally posted by: Tabb
This is retarded...

Lets get back on topic...

Will and if so how much will 3.0 SM games suffer (visually) when run in 2.0 SM hardware?
Will it even run in the first place? Will we have to spend a couple minutes in a config file?

Right now, it doesn't seem like there's a way to run SM3.0 on SM2.0 hardware although it's an interesting point you bring up. Technically, I would think it would be possible to code a wrapper to take SM3.0 commands and convert them into SM2.0 commands.

 

[Bar81]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Bar81
Apparently logic is not your forte. We'll leave it at that.

clearly it isn't yours
:roll:

you are looking for agreement for your ridiculous premise. . . . . all the "agreers" and fanboys have already posted and all you have left is "dissent" . . . . without it your thread gets the lack of attention it deserves.

:thumbsdown:

i won't "contribute" further

That's a relief. Your "contributions" to this thread are just a notch below Rollo's.

 

[BenSkywalker]

The list of SM 3.0 games surprises me mainly for how long it it. A year and a half after the launch of SM 2.0 we didn't have close to that many PS 2.0 supporting titles. I still consider SM 3.0 to be a non essential feature- it would be much better IMO if one of the IHVs would allow users to enable some proper texture filtering(with the resultant performance it) instead of pimping features that only give them a slight edge in a few games(although obviously SM 3.0 is an essential technology, its real impact won't be felt for a long while yet).

 

[ScrewFace]

I agree with BenSkywalker. By the time all games coming out must be SM 3.0-compatable we'll all have R520's or nV50's. Only these cards will be able run them with acceptable framerates.

 

[CHfan4ever]

SM 3.0 in Splinter Cell Chaos Theory take 50 % more juice.My frame rate is between 15-25fps.

You know what? I think today's video card are just not ready for SM 3.0.They can do it, but just to give you a little taste of what is comming next.The next line of video card from nvidia/ati will have full support and run smoothly with this option enable..and with even a bonus, with AA enable.

 

[Bar81]

Originally posted by: ifesfor
SM 3.0 in Splinter Cell Chaos Theory take 50 % more juice.My frame rate is between 15-25fps.

You know what? I think today's video card are just not ready for SM 3.0.They can do it, but just to give you a little taste of what is comming next.The next line of video card from nvidia/ati will have full support and run smoothly with this option enable..and with even a bonus, with AA enable.

:Q It's Riddick all over again it seems

 

[ZobarStyl]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Well, just to make this comment in all of the relevant threads, I guess... how would you classify the existance of hardware support for DX9 shader features in NV FX5900-series cards? If the games that you are playing on it, really only utilized DX7/8.1 features, then the presence of hardware support for DX9 shaders (no matter how slow they might be), would be "benign".. until the game software actually started using them, and demanding support for them in hardware, at which point you would find out how those features really perform. I think that SM3.0 support is at the same point, right now, the "calm before the storm". A useful thread, this will help keep track of which games impliment support for/require support for SM3.0-capable hardware. Then we can all find out for ourselves how NV's current SM3.0-supporting cards perform, as well as next-generation cards from both ATI and NV (assuming that they also will support SM3.0 features).

Based on some of my recent thoughts, I am indeed curious if the current hardware level of "SM3.0 support" is a "negative feature" or not, considering the data thus far from Chronicles of Riddick in "2.0++" mode. Is that level of performance what we should expect to see, in all games that impliment "real SM3.0" features? Ugh!

Very good point Larry, that's what I was saying earlier, that I bought a 6800GT and if I choose never to turn on SM3.0 then it's a feature that doesn't hurt me at all, however if I bought the 6800GT with doing SM3.0 in mind and found out it just plodded along in 3.0 mode, then I'd be rightfully pissed.

Yes, this is analogous to the 5xxx series of nVidia GPU's and their DX9 support, except we as of yet don't know how good or bad the SM3.0 is on 6xxx cards. In the same manner, if you bought a 5900 with no intention of playing DX9, then you got what you paid for, whereas there's a thread every other day from some kid saying "I need a 5200 cuz I want DX9 enabled" and the point of course is just moot (too slow to do the job). Mainly, Anand's original SM3.0 Far Cry benches makes me think that we will see either little or no increase in performance in most cases, but I doubt (with Far Cry as my basis) that SM3.0 in 6xxx cards is the same as DX9 in 5xxx cards, or we would've seen a massive downturn in performance in Anand's review. My two cents.

 

[stnicralisk]

Bar you say you want to inform people of the facts but you dont seem to understand the facts themselves anyways.

SM3.0 does not have a visual impact on games.

Let me say it again

SM3.0 does not have a visual impact on games.

Is it true that HDR in FC requires an Nvidia card? Yes, but it has nothing to do with SM3.0.

SM3.0 allows for improved programmability of shaders - NOT more shaders.

Eventually SM3.0 is going to be running certain effects at a much greater speed than that of 2.0. At this time has a game significantly taken advantage of it? No, but theyre starting to. The 3.0 features in FC at the moment can also be done by 2.0b. However this will not always be the case because 2.0b does not handle as many instructions as 3.0.

It is ridiculus to start a thread when you obviously dont have the information you need. All of your talk about 2.0++ and HDR is useless because it doesnt even involve SM3.0. Next time you should name the thread according to what you really want to talk about "Hey buying Nvidia is pointless right now!" because most of the things you are talking about have nothing to do with SM3.0.

And in splinter cell i think you must be talking about HDR. SM3.0 is simply supposed to make shaders faster in certain circumstances.

ATi makes great cards and I am not trying to get involved in your little camp fire flaming. I am only trying to help you understand SM3.0. There are plenty of reads on it Anandtech has had them posted several SEVERAL times I would suggest reading them.

Nvidia is trying a new technology. ATi can bash it all they want, come this time next year they will be preaching about how good it is (bc theyll have that feature also.)

 

[Munky]

I'd also like to add that if you still dont's have a current gen card, then don't bother buying one. With next gen cards close to release, if you want sm3 that bad, get something that actually stands a chance at running those features without sacrificing speed and/or other features. As it stands right now, there's no real benefit from having sm3 in current games.