I haven't posted a. or b. and would not. The person I was replying to asked me to "get a life", I responded that I had one, no different than most people's.
I didn't say "My week beats your year" only that I've had a pretty standard issue middle class "life".
The main point is, "Why did you start another thread on the same issue?" The underlying current of your picking on ATI and rooting for nV is secondary, but it's also why people are picking on the thread itself rather than R520's lacking VT out of the gate.
I went to the work to find this inconsistency in ATIs position, I'm allowed to start a thread about it. I felt it merited it's own thread, haven't been told I'm only allowed three a year yet.
This thread, a vendor saying one thing and doing another, has more value than half the threads in video IMO. "Card X is gonna rock!" or "ATI or nVidia, which should I buy?"
People shouldn't "pick on the thread" because it's news. The same as every one of those threads about the nV40 advertising WMV acceleration or "brilinear" threads? Or do you just not care when it's nVidia Pete? My own agenda on this topic is irrelevant as long as the information provided is accurate and useful and provided in a straightforward way.
I'll put it this way: You might not like Bushs politics or political agenda, but if he tells you the country is being invaded tomorrow and you should stock up on food, you should probably head to the store.
Wow, another anti-ATi thread from Rollo. Who woulda guessed...
Most people in the know, dont think this is even an issue. ATi is, and likely NV will be going unified very soon, making this moot. As it will be done in software anyways. May I suggest you read up on the subject, before making more post in which you dont know what you're talking about.
Most people in the know, dont think this is even an issue. ATi is, and likely NV will be going unified very soon, making this moot. As it will be done in software anyways. May I suggest you read up on the subject, before making more post in which you dont know what you're talking about.
Originally posted by: Rollo
I haven't posted a. or b. and would not. The person I was replying to asked me to "get a life", I responded that I had one, no different than most people's.
I didn't say "My week beats your year" only that I've had a pretty standard issue middle class "life".
Just because you didn't post something verbatim doesn't mean that people are idiots and can't draw implications out of your posts. It's not a stretch, Rollo, that between the lines on most of your posts is an air of superiority. Why do you think so many people flock to your threads? Consider the possibilities...
Wow, another anti-Rollo thread from Ackmed, who'd have guessed?
Have anything to say about the topic, or just here to tell us for the 1,983rd time you don't like me, because we all know that is valuable information.
Really? I wasn't aware you had access to the opinions of "most people in the know"? Or should you more accurately have said "some people think this is an issue, some don't"?
It won't be moot for the R520, and this post is about that. Do you have anything on topic, or just comments about future cards?
Will it be done in the software of developers who choose not to work around ATIs hardware limitation Ackmed? It's nice you've chosen to personally attack me in direct violation of the sticky about such things, but the fact of the matter is back in March ATI thought this was an important feature. Now it's nowhere to be seen. We know the original R520 was taped out in November of last year, and can presume this feature was on it if ATI was putting it in their presentations. A couple respins and it's gone? I'm thinking they couldn't get it to work.
I think it's sad when people make assumptions about other people's thoughts and motivations when they have no possible way of knowing them.
I think it's sadder yet when people use their assumptions about a persons motivations to draw a negative characterization about the person they don't even know.
If you think the "life" I posted there (went to college/have a family/got a job) is some attempt to establish "superiority" I suggest you take a look at the statistics of the country I live in. Most people have had vocational training of some sort, work, and have a family of some sort.
By definition, this is what "having a life" here is, and that is all I said. No more, no less. While you may be correct this would be "having a really great life" compared to the 3rd world, I've never been there and lack frame of reference.
If you're saying "many people flock to my threads" because I am like some "rock star" of video cards, I seriously doubt it.
If you're saying "many peopleflock to my threads" because I'm pompous, I'd think that would drive them away.
I think "many people flock to my threads" because:
1. Occasionally I get some inside info
2. I really work pretty hard to bring valid info to the board on our hobby
Those who think I'm pompous don't have to read my posts.
BTW- this whole superiority thing is pretty laughable, I'm about as "mainsteam American" as it gets.
Look who's talking. The person who automatically assumes that people here will talk about nothing more important than modding their cards and then jumps to the conclusion that they will break those cards and then goes further to conclude that they will commit warrant fraud.
If you really had a life you'd really have better things to do than to get involved in what people do with their cards and how they deal with their conscience. Further you'd have better things to do than to go and whine like a cry baby in "Forum Issues" when things aren't going your way.
As for your life, I'm not really impressed. There are people here more educated and distinguished than you here who don't have the need to write about it.
Supposedly the RV2B method is actually faster than the texture lookups because the hardware to run it just doesnt have enough power to use it.
Also with unified architecture coming along this is when nVidia and ATi will start using the texture lookups in their proper form as the hardawre has enough power to use it.
What i dont seem to get is that the vertex texture is actually OPTIONAL. It doesnt need to be enabled or even there to be SM3 compliant!
Also with unified architecture coming along this is when nVidia and ATi will start using the texture lookups in their proper form as the hardawre has enough power to use it.
What i dont seem to get is that the vertex texture is actually OPTIONAL. It doesnt need to be enabled or even there to be SM3 compliant!
Link to where I've said this? (Hint: Good Luck) Off topic.
This thread is about vertex texture fetch, this is off topic.
Like you, who jumps into other people's threads to post off topic references to other threads? I can see how that is a preferable "life". Off topic.
Off topic. Should I come here and whine like a cry baby like you are instead?
Apparently you're not one of them. You've failed to post one thing in this post that was on topic.
You came into the thread and attacked me as a person instead. Don't like me? Gee, nuts, I don't like you either so I guess we're even. Difference is I don't come into your threads and post off topic drivel that wastes everyones time.
Whether some people care about the vertex texture fetch being missing from the R520 is a relevant issue or not, ATI did think it was relevant in March, and left it out in September.
This thread is about that, if we could please stick to discussing that issue, I'm sure the people who do wish to know the ramifications of the omission will be happier.
If you wish to flame me, send a PM. I'll tell you what I think of your thoughts, and we won't be wasting people's time who are concerned about this issue.
Seems fair to me, and reasonable.
Maybe ATi left it out because they found it just had too much of a performance hit to use it at reasonable FPS?
rbV5
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2000
- 12,632
- 0
- 0
Its probably because its fully supported in software:
Link
Even the so-called "Correct" usage in Pacific Fighter appears to be problematic in actual usage Link so I'm not so sure that ATI didn't make a smart move...it appears to be not worth it. I'd say the issue itself has not fully played out to if it truely is an issue or misstep by ATI, at this point, I don't see anything other than rhetoric to show that is in-fact an issue that and end-user would have to worry about.
Well, the issue is that ATI is kind of lying about it right now, in that they say they support it but they actually don't, and MS' compliance test apparently only checks if a card *says* it supports VT, not if it actually does. So, that's lame.
Equally lame is that ATI can apparently support it with a workaround, but haven't yet implemented it, thus keeping video forums everywhere alive and well fed.
Rollo, my point is that not only has this been mentioned in generic R520 threads, but RajunCajun started a thread specifically on this hypocrisy/lie/technicality, yet you chose to start a new one (much like we have a jillion threads on why X sucks, or how to pronounce something, etc.). Sure, obviously no one's going to stop anyone from starting whatever thread they want, but it's curious that you started this one when there's a perfectly good thread on the subject just down the page. As for going through the trouble of discerning ATI's position, did you really? And did you yourself look up that ATI presentation? Or did you read about this on another site? Yes, I'm a bit skeptical about your motives, but I'm sure I look like I'm defending ATI a bit much, too, being so contrary.
I'm not quite sure what the second half of your reply means. Are you saying nV told ppl about this, and (per your Bush analogy) even if I dislike nV I should heed their warning? I'm not ignoring it b/c nV brought it up, but there's no need to blow things out of proportion. I see one game using this feature, and a potential solution on the horizon. Even if I don't give ATI the benefit of the doubt (which I'm leaning toward, given that most features not available at launch aren't made available later--see stochastic AA with the 8500, F-buffer, etc.), I'm not losing any sleep over one game in a couple of years.
So, another (minor) hit to ATI's rep for me, which can be mostly reversed if they use R2VB to implement black box VT functionality.
I have to say that, besides DM only being used in PF, I've also heard too much fluff about it and seen too little for it to think it's realistic at this point. It's been touted since Parhelia! Even Carmack said he was aiming for reduced geometry--offset (ha-ha) by the appearance of greater geometry--for shadow performance's sake with D3 models. UE3 does the same with its multi-million poly character models reduced to multi-thousand poly models in-game, compensating with lots of bump/normal mapping. And take a look at the pseudo-DM in the ToyShop demo. I honestly thought ATI was using DM (thus, VT) for the cobblestones in the street. Turns out it's an effect that just looks like DM and done on the pixel shaders, called parallax occlusion mapping.
Equally lame is that ATI can apparently support it with a workaround, but haven't yet implemented it, thus keeping video forums everywhere alive and well fed.
Rollo, my point is that not only has this been mentioned in generic R520 threads, but RajunCajun started a thread specifically on this hypocrisy/lie/technicality, yet you chose to start a new one (much like we have a jillion threads on why X sucks, or how to pronounce something, etc.). Sure, obviously no one's going to stop anyone from starting whatever thread they want, but it's curious that you started this one when there's a perfectly good thread on the subject just down the page. As for going through the trouble of discerning ATI's position, did you really? And did you yourself look up that ATI presentation? Or did you read about this on another site? Yes, I'm a bit skeptical about your motives, but I'm sure I look like I'm defending ATI a bit much, too, being so contrary.
I'm not quite sure what the second half of your reply means. Are you saying nV told ppl about this, and (per your Bush analogy) even if I dislike nV I should heed their warning? I'm not ignoring it b/c nV brought it up, but there's no need to blow things out of proportion. I see one game using this feature, and a potential solution on the horizon. Even if I don't give ATI the benefit of the doubt (which I'm leaning toward, given that most features not available at launch aren't made available later--see stochastic AA with the 8500, F-buffer, etc.), I'm not losing any sleep over one game in a couple of years.
So, another (minor) hit to ATI's rep for me, which can be mostly reversed if they use R2VB to implement black box VT functionality.
I have to say that, besides DM only being used in PF, I've also heard too much fluff about it and seen too little for it to think it's realistic at this point. It's been touted since Parhelia! Even Carmack said he was aiming for reduced geometry--offset (ha-ha) by the appearance of greater geometry--for shadow performance's sake with D3 models. UE3 does the same with its multi-million poly character models reduced to multi-thousand poly models in-game, compensating with lots of bump/normal mapping. And take a look at the pseudo-DM in the ToyShop demo. I honestly thought ATI was using DM (thus, VT) for the cobblestones in the street. Turns out it's an effect that just looks like DM and done on the pixel shaders, called parallax occlusion mapping.
rbV5
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2000
- 12,632
- 0
- 0
I agree that satisfying a "test" without actually supporting the feature is less than good. Why does MS compliance test allow for unsupported features to be counted as supported in the first place? Or is that what it is even saying?
What exactly is the DX9 and SM3.0 features that constitute a compliant card vs one that doesn't meet the specifications? I've not been able to locate a specific list of DXcaps that "must" be supported in hardware to qualify (or even seen a checkbox feature list) The latest DX chart (October 05) I got from MS doesn't show ATI's latest cards, and I've not seen a DXcaps viewer list from ATI's new cards either, so I'm not sure realy what is supported on the cards yet.
I do know that MS states:
Link
It sure sounds to me like MS expects that applications may use a mix of of hardware and software vertex processing, and that different levels of hardware support should be expected. All of vertex processing is available via software (as opposed to PS processing) so the programmer should be checking for the vertex processing support, and allow for either/or in their application.
Is that why ATI's passes the compliance test, because the feature is available whether it is supported by hardware outright or not?
Wreckage
Banned
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
It looks like (from the ATI pdf) that ATI wanted to do SM3.0 right, but maybe could not get it working. It seems to boil down to, VTF is in the spec and ATI does not support it. Although, they should have made mention of this at the Game Developers Conference, as many companies may be planning to release games with this feature.
The R580 was developed separate from the R520 so it may yet still show up in ATI cards. It's a shame they tried to got it there own way and require game developers to write a separate code path. This may be because their previous generation did not support it either.
The R580 was developed separate from the R520 so it may yet still show up in ATI cards. It's a shame they tried to got it there own way and require game developers to write a separate code path. This may be because their previous generation did not support it either.
nV released the first MSAA part(which was after the finalized spec was handed down from MS)- 3dfx's parts had better quality then anything we had seen until very recently and ATi's first truly useable AF was released a few days ago.... what are you talking about?
Apologies for bumping an ald thread (must have missed it before), but this post had to be addressed.
If nVidia's drivers didn't have this feature (VTF) currently enabled in their drivers, they would have a rather hard time running the clear sailing demo, and Abba Zabba's Vertex Displacement Mapping demo, don't you think? (To say nothing of Pacific Fighters...)
I think you trolling my threads sucks too Mega, I doubt either of us will change. I posted this back in October because it was news then that ATI had reversed their position on VTF for this generation of products after not including the feature.
If you don't think that is news, feel free not to read?
BTW- try as I might, I have a hard time believing you'd be posting "Rollo sucks" if this post was about nVidia. I think you know that as well as I, so how are you any different?
U know what, Trollo, besides all the bashin in your stupid threads (which i highly enjoy, cuz i think u deserve it) there are still alot of informative postings by smart ppl who know how to evaluate the info ur coming up with. and this is why i have to say: stay the troll that u are, it helps to shed light on the issues, indirectly though
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,002
- 126
From the other thread:
nVidia's vertex texturing cannot run any other mode of filtering other than point filtering natively. nVidia states you can do bilinear if you implement it yourself on the vertex shader, discourages the use of trilinear due to performance reasons and make no mention that it's possible to do AF.
If AF is causing a performance hit then VT is either not enabled or the benchmark runs over sections that are not running VT (such as land). Either that or the developer has implemented AF on the vertex shader which I doubt as the performance hit would be massive on top of an already slow VT.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter