What in the world is up with Nvidia?!?!

[BFG10K]

You mean besides the entire lighting engine, shadows and normal maps which between them cover pretty much every pixel on screen in the game? I suppose not much, since it doesn't have water and all.

Uh...what? Given the game looks basically identical on non-shader hardware I really to fail how that's possible. Normal maps and stencil shadows don't even require shaders and apart from the haze effects there is nothing that requires shaders in the lighting part.

This is the point I'm making: run FC on non-shader hardware and see the difference.

You have been saying D3's shaders are just for multi-texturing, the V2 can do that with no problem so you shouldn't have any issue gettting the game to run on a R100 at all.

Except it can't do stencil shadows or bump mapping though, nor does it even have a path in the game. Whoops. There goes that (rather obtuse) theory.

I'm assuming you have twisted your mind to read me commenting on the nV3x parts running as fast as R3x0 in 'shader' games to read that the nV3x is comparable- the reality is that those numbers should show you the games are NOT as shader intensive as you may want to believe.

Shader "intensity" is something you keep harping on about, not anyone else. I'm simply illustrating the painfully obvious performance gaps in games like Far Cry which you've been dismissing since the dawn of time.

Heavy or not heavy, the NV3x gets blasted in Far Cry and most other games that have any reasonable degree of shaders. Your definition of "heavy" is quite irrelevant.

You mention JKII/JKIII as shader games where the NV3x kills the R3x0

I mentioned them only because I was giving you the list you requested. The NV3x being better in JK2/JA doesn't disprove the rest of the situation.

I brought up Halo as another 'shader' game where the NV3x and R3X0 are neck and neck.

The consistent pattern to your agrument is to bring up Halo and Doom III and deny everything else. If you can't see that you really need to take a step back for a moment.

I'm pointing out how useless shaders have been.

I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken. It's also interesting how you used to trumpet T&L much the same as way as the "fanatics" are trumpeting shaders now. I suspect it's simply because nVidia had the best hardwired T&L around but now the tables have turned for shaders so in typical pro-nv fashion you dismiss them as irrelevant.

Not to mention that you continually ignore my comments about DEIW and T3 requiring shader hardware to run. What excuses have you dreamed up that makes those games irrelevant? Crap games perhaps? Don't fit your definition of shaders? You don't have those games?

No, I'm pointing out that JKII/JKIII are not shader intensive at all.

What is it with you and JA/JK2??? Those aren't the only games I listed.

If D3 wasn't so heavy on the stencil fill and if its' shaders were altered a bit the R3x0 would be killing the NV3x0 there too.

Stencil fill. In otherwise no little/shader involvement, as per above. So much for the "every pixel has shaders applied to it" comment you were making above.

There is roughly parity right now in terms of shader performance(NV4x v R420)- it has nothing to do with being partisan.

That's probably the only comment I agree with although I still believe the R420 has the edge and nVidia needs SM 3.0 and shader substitution to narrow the gap.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Uh...what? Given the game looks basically identical on non-shader hardware I really to fail how that's possible. Normal maps and stencil shadows don't even require shaders and apart from the haze effects there is nothing that requires shaders in the lighting part.

Which non shader hardware? Normal maps are using shader hardware in D3 and the lighting engine relies pretty much entirely on shader hardware.

This is the point I'm making: run FC on non-shader hardware and see the difference.

No more pretty water or shiny pipes.

Except it can't do stencil shadows or bump mapping though, nor does it even have a path in the game. Whoops. There goes that (rather obtuse) theory.

That would be a good point except it is completely wrong. The R100 can do both stencil shadows and it supports bump mapping(more methods then the NV1x too).

Shader "intensity" is something you keep harping on about, not anyone else.

I'm pointing out the obvious- some people are too thick to get it.

I'm simply illustrating the painfully obvious performance gaps in games like Far Cry which you've been dismissing since the dawn of time.

I've told you, quote me. Try and do it. The archives are here, and according to you I've done it in this thread. Quote me.

Heavy or not heavy, the NV3x gets blasted in Far Cry and most other games that have any reasonable degree of shaders. Your definition of "heavy" is quite irrelevant.

No sh!t the NV3x gets killed in FC, is there anyone that didn't know this? Hell I've brought up other games where the R3x0 is comparable/ahead of the NV4X- WTF does that have to do with what I've been talking about? Link them together, and use my actual quotes.

I mentioned them only because I was giving you the list you requested. The NV3x being better in JK2/JA doesn't disprove the rest of the situation.

If they were using anything remotely resmebling a decent shader load then the R3x0 should be killing the nV3x- that is the reality of the situation.

The consistent pattern to your agrument is to bring up Halo and Doom III and deny everything else. If you can't see that you really need to take a step back for a moment.

Quote me.

I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken. It's also interesting how you used to trumpet T&L much the same as way as the "fanatics" are trumpeting shaders now.

Not really. I was right on hard T&L, and I've been right on shaders. Within two years of the introduction of hard T&L the majority of shipping games supported it. Shaders we are still well under 1%. Like I said, I'm on the side of reality.

I suspect it's simply because nVidia had the best hardwired T&L around but now the tables have turned for shaders so in typical pro-nv fashion you dismiss them as irrelevant.

Again, try and quote me. After the launch of the R100 I was reccomending people go that route over the GeForce DDR. I've had this discussion with other people who have extremely poor memories also, I will dig up the quotes from the archives if you insist.

Not to mention that you continually ignore my comments about DEIW and T3 requiring shader hardware to run. What excuses have you dreamed up that makes those games irrelevant? Crap games perhaps? Don't fit your definition of shaders? You don't have those games?

Haven't purchased them yet- I can't reasonably comment on them as I don't own them yet(from everything I've read they utilize no DX9 level shaders). DEIW- Couldn't stand the first one- good example of horrific coding(might have been a decent game, unplayable the way it shipped) and from what I hear the same is true about the second. Thief3 is a sneak around game- not something I'm interested in although when they hit the ~$20 range I'll pick them up just to take a look at them.

What is it with you and JA/JK2??? Those aren't the only games I listed.

They are two where the NV3X kills the R3x0- that gives a pretty clear indication that they are NOT shader bound at all.

Stencil fill. In otherwise no little/shader involvement, as per above. So much for the "every pixel has shaders applied to it" comment you were making above.

So much for my comment? Carmack has repeatedly discussed the shaders in D3 and the game itself very clearly refutes every implication you have tried to make about it. The lighting engine isn't using shader hardware, what part of their hardware is it handling all of the vector ops then? Particularly the interaction between the normal maps and the dynamic lights?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Show me a pic different than the shadows in the game.

come on Ben, lets see one.

 

[BFG10K]

Normal maps are using shader hardware in D3 and the lighting engine relies pretty much entirely on shader hardware.

If it relied on it then it wouldn't run on the GeForce at near-identical IQ as shader hardware.

That would be a good point except it is completely wrong.

No, I meant the Voodoo. As for the Radeon in theory you could force it into the ARB path though it would be lacking some features as the path is incomplete.

Quote me.

It's pretty hard to quote a video forum.

Not really. I was right on hard T&L, and I've been right on shaders

Given hard T&L is completely emulated by vertex shaders these days it would seem that we have just exposed a mutha of all contradictions in your arguments.

Haven't purchased them yet-

And that has what to do with shader adoption? Are you saying a game can't be classed as having shaders unless you own it?

They are two where the NV3X kills the R3x0- that gives a pretty clear indication that they are NOT shader bound at all.

Where did I ever say they were shader bound? I even listed them in the "light" section for heaven's sake. You're using a strawman to argue on a completely irrelevant tangent.

Carmack has repeatedly discussed the shaders in D3 and the game itself very clearly refutes every implication you have tried to make about it.

Carmack has repeatedly stated shaders are mainly only used for collapsing multiple passes into one, and the only thing he mentioned that required shaders is some of the haze effects.

Now take a look and see what Far Cry does when shader hardware is present.

 

[BenSkywalker]

If it relied on it then it wouldn't run on the GeForce at near-identical IQ as shader hardware.

Register combiners are shader hardware; they are programmable. The R100 is incapable of handling D3 despite that it also has shader capabilities because it can't handle the particular functions that the game requires.

It's pretty hard to quote a video forum.

Use quotes of mine where I say what you repeatedly state that I have been saying.

Given hard T&L is completely emulated by vertex shaders these days it would seem that we have just exposed a mutha of all contradictions in your arguments.

Not at all. Hard T&L was obviously a feature that would gain quick adoption as the core functions were already being used in every 3D game out and dedicated hardware was faster then processors even when it was all they were running not to mention it freed the CPU for more cycles. It was all upside and no downside- take a game like MDK2 and switch it from soft T&L to hard T&L and you saw a big boost in framerate. Vertex shaders are still hardware T&L, they just aren't fixed function anymore.

Where did I ever say they were shader bound? I even listed them in the "light" section for heaven's sake. You're using a strawman to argue on a completely irrelevant tangent.

No- it is completely relevant to the discussion I've been having all along. I've been saying that games have almost nothing for shaders to date- any game the NV3x whips the R3x0 that is clearly the case.

And that has what to do with shader adoption? Are you saying a game can't be classed as having shaders unless you own it?

You asked why I haven't commented much on them. How can I comment on them without owning them? I'll look for a demo and try to check them out that way, but it isn't like I can make any concrete observations without a decent amount of hands on time with the game.

Carmack has repeatedly stated shaders are mainly only used for collapsing multiple passes into one, and the only thing he mentioned that required shaders is some of the haze effects.

The more advanced the shader hardware the more he can collapse passes- without programmability the game can't be run. He is able to collapse the passes further when he can bump the instruction count up high enough- he made comments that he ran into the instruction limit on the R300 core boards during development.

Now take a look and see what Far Cry does when shader hardware is present.

Makes pretty water and shiny pipes. D3 won't run at all without the proper shader capability.

 

[kylebisme]

Hey Ben, Can't answer my question without destroying your arguement so you just ignore it, eh? That is alirght though, I didn't expect anything more; That is why I made a poll to test your your "painfully obvious render" theory over at B3D. Currently, 46 out of the 49 who voted would obviously argue that you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about. So I suppose it isn't even worth you attempting to back up your arguments with facts, you would probably loose that 6% as well.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Hey Ben, Can't answer my question without destroying your arguement so you just ignore it, eh?

Keep reading the thread, those that are familiar with the game don't seem to be agreeing with you. Read the actual comments.

You know, I was going to let you keep going with your comments and build it up as I figured you certainly wouldn't bother to check for yourself, but to he!l with it-

1.3 Hardware specific options
1.3.1 Is hardware anti-aliasing supported?


No. Halo renders everything to multiple off-screen surfaces instead of directly to the D3D back buffer and hardware anti-aliasing is applied on the back buffer only. For Halo, we have to do this because some of the effects (such as the active camouflage or the zoom scope) require the back buffer as source data.

As I said, why don't you tell the developers as they agree with me.

 

[kylebisme]

You mean the guy who thought the shot of timberland was an xbox development kit shot?

 

[BenSkywalker]

You mean the guy who thought the shot of timberland was an xbox development kit shot?

That 'screenshot' dates to the launch of the XBox version of the game actually. I know the map didn't make it in, but like it all really matters. Get yourself a 100% poll at B3D agreeing with you, I have the developers on my side(let me rephrase that, I'm on their side as they are the ones that indicated how the game was being rendered in the first place which you would have known if you bothered to honestly look for yourself).

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

You mean the guy who thought the shot of timberland was an xbox development kit shot?

That 'screenshot' dates to the launch of the XBox version of the game actually.

Timberland is one of the "the six new maps Gearbox Software has created specifically for the port." :roll:

 

[BFG10K]

Register combiners are shader hardware; they are programmable.

They are not fully fledged shaders.

Hard T&L was obviously a feature that would gain quick adoption as the core functions were already being used in every 3D game out

Now that is rubbish and you know it. Back in the Quake 3 days only a handful of games supported T&L (in fact the list was smaller than the shader list I gave you, and my list is incomplete too) but you were already stating the Voodoo5 was obsolete because it didn't have it.

Vertex shaders are still hardware T&L, they just aren't fixed function anymore.

Exactly. Therefore by extension all games use shaders.

How can I comment on them without owning them?

Owing the game has absolutely no bearing on the fact that they require shader hardware to run. And they won't run on GeForce cards either I might add, unlike Doom III.

The more advanced the shader hardware the more he can collapse passes- without programmability the game can't be run.

Exactly - the bulk of the job of the shaders is to collapse the rendering into single passes. In terms of actual effects the shaders produce very little new effects except a few haze effects.

D3 won't run at all without the proper shader capability.

It will run, on GeForce cards, unlike DEIW/T3 which requires genuine shader hardware. Whatever arguments you put forwad for Doom III are eclipsed by the latter two games because they are even more advanced.

 

[BenSkywalker]

They are not fully fledged shaders.

It is a matter of degrees. As I stated earlier, most of D3's shaders are very simplistic, it just uses a lot of them.

Now that is rubbish and you know it. Back in the Quake 3 days only a handful of games supported T&L (in fact the list was smaller than the shader list I gave you, and my list is incomplete too)

Every 3D game supported T&L, they didn't support dedicated hardware T&L. When Quake3 launched the GeForceDDR had yet to debut- it isn't like we are talking about years later- and that years later is just talking about PS 2.0 hardware.

but you were already stating the Voodoo5 was obsolete because it didn't have it.

The V5 didn't have hard T&L, didn't support Dot3, didn't support EMCM or EMBM and it didn't support anisotropic filtering. There were numerous games that had to have a great deal of features turned off to run on the V5 within six months of its launch. Not because it was too slow- because they couldn't run at all.

Exactly. Therefore by extension all games use shaders.

You mean all games use shader hardware, that is something else.

Owing the game has absolutely no bearing on the fact that they require shader hardware to run. And they won't run on GeForce cards either I might add, unlike Doom III.

I can't comment on the shader load without owning them- that has been what I've been saying. I picked up every DX9 level shader title that I've been aware of, when they hit the bargain bin I'll check them out.

Exactly - the bulk of the job of the shaders is to collapse the rendering into single passes. In terms of actual effects the shaders produce very little new effects except a few haze effects.

Shiny water isn't a new effect either, nor are shiny pipes. D3 is running shaders, albeit it simple ones, for pretty much every pixel on screen and frequently multiple shaders per pixel.

It will run, on GeForce cards, unlike DEIW/T3 which requires genuine shader hardware. Whatever arguments you put forwad for Doom III are eclipsed by the latter two games because they are even more advanced.

I heard you make comparable claims about the physics engine in Painkiller and was shocked how antiquated the physics engine in that title was, I'll have to look around for a good deal on DEIW or T3 before I make any solid comments though.

 

[BFG10K]

The V5 didn't have hard T&L, didn't support Dot3, didn't support EMCM or EMBM and it didn't support anisotropic filtering.

So? How many games required these features and wouldn't launch on a Voodoo?

I can't comment on the shader load without owning them- that has been what I've been saying.

Shader load is irrelevant, the point is that they require shader hardware to run. How many years did it take before games wouldn't launch on non-T&L cards?

Shiny water isn't a new effect either

New as in "something non-shader hardware can't do in that same game".

I heard you make comparable claims about the physics engine in Painkiller and was shocked how antiquated the physics engine in that title was,

Antiquated? The havoc engine is one of the best physics engines around if not the best.

D3's physics are practically non-existant because they're so castrated. The bulk of its objects don't even react at all to the laws of physics.

 

[BenSkywalker]

So? How many games required these features and wouldn't launch on a Voodoo?

I stated the V5 was obsolete when it launched, it was.

Shader load is irrelevant, the point is that they require shader hardware to run. How many years did it take before games wouldn't launch on non-T&L cards?

Argue with yourself over that one, that certainly has nothing to do with what I've been saying. The argument you are flipping around now can claim to have hardware dating back to 1999 if you look at it the way you are- so its five years and three games by those standards.

New as in "something non-shader hardware can't do in that same game".

Can't or can?

Antiquated? The havoc engine is one of the best physics engines around if not the best.

Painkiller's implementation is comical at best(or quite sad depending on how you look at it). A shotgun blast from twenty feet away sands a ~300lb enemy flying forty feet or so...... yeah. Of course, this goes back to how you prefer Looney Tunes to reality in terms of physics and gets way off of the shader topic.

 

[LocutusX]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Antiquated? The havoc engine is one of the best physics engines around if not the best.

D3's physics are practically non-existant because they're so castrated. The bulk of its objects don't even react at all to the laws of physics.

I hope you don't think the DEIW physics are all that either, though. I'm playing it right now - in the first room you start off in, there's a basketball nearby. Try throwing that around the room and you would think you were on a space station with low-g or something. While other objects respond a bit better to the physics model, one of the first things I noticed when playing (along with the horrible graphics) was the poor physics in comparison to current games (granted, DEIW is a 2003 title).

 

[BFG10K]

I stated the V5 was obsolete when it launched, it was.

Much like the NV30 really. Even nVidia couldn't get rid of the thing fast enough.

Argue with yourself over that one, that certainly has nothing to do with what I've been saying.

Actually it has everything to do with it. You constantly shift your goal-post whenever it suits you; everything needed T&L in 1999 and any card that didn't have it was obsolete. Now in 2004 nobody needs shaders because you have deemed that shader loads aren't "heavy" or some such nonsense.

The only thing in common with both arguments is that nVidia comes out looking the best, as per usual.

Can't or can?

I've already explained at least five times to try Far Cry yet your retort is "water and shiney pipes". I'm not going to bother anymore.

Painkiller's implementation is comical at best(or quite sad depending on how you look at it).

See, there you are trying to pass opinion as fact again, much like your "shader load" and "I don't like those games" arguments.

The fact is PK is using one of the best physics engines available (there was a dev talking about Havoc at Ars actually) and the things it can do are astonishing. Look at the docks demo and prepare to be amazed.

D3 OTOH has decided that on a Mars facility the bulk of the crates are glued to the floor.

 

[BFG10K]

I hope you don't think the DEIW physics are all that either, though

I'll admit Havoc's parameters are a bit overdone in DEIW but the point is that most objects do react when you do something to them. Also being based off the Unreal 2 engine you also get its ragdoll effects too.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Much like the NV30 really. Even nVidia couldn't get rid of the thing fast enough.

Certainly was from a PR stance.

Actually it has everything to do with it. You constantly shift your goal-post whenever it suits you; everything needed T&L in 1999 and any card that didn't have it was obsolete. Now in 2004 nobody needs shaders because you have deemed that shader loads aren't "heavy" or some such nonsense.

Nonesense? Why don't you list these shader heavy games? Go ahead and list every single one of them off. Out of the lists I've seen nearly half of the titles are as fast on the NV30 as they are on the R300. Now, either pull a 180 and say that the NV30 is about as fast as the R300 in 'shader intensive' titles or admit to the painfully obvious facts that shaders have not been very important at all for the past couple of years. I also have never stated nobody needs shaders, again your attempt at twisting things in your mind to suit what you feel like arguing against. I've stated repeatedly the reality of the situation that shaders haven't been a major factor in gaming.

The only thing in common with both arguments is that nVidia comes out looking the best, as per usual.

You could go back and check the forums from the early 2K timeframe so you won't look like a fool to find out what I actually was reccomending back then. When the V5, NV10 and R100 were squaring off I was telling people to pick up a R100. You want to know the interesting thing about that? The NV10 was considerably faster in T&L bound situations but the reality was that as long as it supported the feature the performance difference was insignificant as both of them were too slow to ramp significant geometry loads(you can go ahead and check, that was my stance then). Sounds a lot like what I've been saying since then too in terms of feature support. Actually, I have been departing a bit as currently I am of the mind that SM 3.0 is going to be pretty much a non factor this gen and isn't worthy of consideration. Normally I tend to support boards at least having the core level of functionality even if the performance isn't quite up to par.

I've already explained at least five times to try Far Cry yet your retort is "water and shiney pipes". I'm not going to bother anymore.

I've done what you stated, checked it out running the DX7 path, the game still looks better then almost anything else out.

See, there you are trying to pass opinion as fact again, much like your "shader load" and "I don't like those games" arguments.

Not really. Me saying I don't like particular types of games is quite clearly stating in and of itself that it is my opinion, I don't see how even you on your most obtuse day could debate that. The shader load is also factual as is PK's laughable physics implementation.

The fact is PK is using one of the best physics engines available (there was a dev talking about Havoc at Ars actually) and the things it can do are astonishing. Look at the docks demo and prepare to be amazed.

I know what Havok can do, I've seen it do a whole he!l of a lot better then what you see in PK(U2 as an example).

 

[BFG10K]

Why don't you list these shader heavy games?

Irrelevant.

Out of the lists I've seen nearly half of the titles are as fast on the NV30 as they are on the R300.

My list perhaps, by virtue of the bulk of the games being OpenGL titles using minute amounts of shaders. Collate the D3D titles mentioned in this thread using moderate/heavy shaders and you'll see something very different.

Now, either pull a 180 and say that the NV30 is about as fast as the R300 in 'shader intensive' titles or admit to the painfully obvious facts that shaders have not been very important at all for the past couple of years.

I'm afraid your false dilemna fallacy will get you nowhere. Again your definition of "shader heavy" has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the R3xx tools the NV3x in the bulk of shader based games, regardless of what spin you put on it. Likewise repeatedly mentioning Halo and Doom 3 while ignoring everything else will get you nowhere.

I've stated repeatedly the reality of the situation that shaders haven't been a major factor in gaming.

And that statement is nonsense.

You could go back and check the forums from the early 2K timeframe so you won't look like a fool to find out what I actually was reccomending back then. When the V5, NV10 and R100 were squaring off I was telling people to pick up a R100.

I'm well aware of what was happening back then. Recommending a Radeon once or twice doesn't make one impartial, especially not after the comments you've been making in the last 12 months.

I've done what you stated, checked it out running the DX7 path, the game still looks better then almost anything else out.

It also looks a hell of a lot different than the SM 2/3 path. Doom 3 on a GeForce doesn't look that different.

The shader load is also factual as is PK's laughable physics implementation.

The former is irrelevant and the latter is opinion.

I know what Havok can do, I've seen it do a whole he!l of a lot better then what you see in PK(U2 as an example).

To my knowledge UT2003/2004 and Unreal 2 use Karma, not Havoc.

 

[lordtyranus]

Ben:

Judging by this
link

It looks like the 9800 beats the 5900 in:

Halo
DEX2
Farcry
HL2
Tomb Raider
Thief 3
Colin Mcrae

I'm not sure what other games there include shaders. We see the NV30 being equal or faster at a small handful of games, none of which are shader titles.

You can define "shader heavy" and your rhetoric that all cards suck at shaders, but when one of them is 3x faster than the other it is quite irrelevant really.

There's 7 games out there I just mentioned that use shaders to some degree.

 

[BFG10K]

In addition to the 7 games above where ATi wins: COD (no more AA excuses for you Ben), UT2004, Painkiller, Splinter Cell 2 and Max Payne 2.

So that's a dozen games already where shader performance is making a clear impact on gameplay. I'm not 100% sure about the rest but there could be a lot more in there.

 

[BenSkywalker]

LT-

Ben:

Judging by this
link

It looks like the 9800 beats the 5900 in:

Gunmetal, Halo, X2, JKIII, Aquamark, SplinterCell, and Call of Duty to name a few games that use shaders that don't quite agree with what you are implying(and nothing at all like what BFG has been swearing up and down about).

Besides those- FarCry where the 9800XT bests the 5950, but the 5900U bests the R9800Pro and titles like Painkiller where the lead depends on the setting.

BFG-

COD (no more AA excuses for you Ben)

Check the CoD numbers I just linked to(or all the numbers for that matter). Didn't I say about half? I think I did. All of the numbers I linked to are from games with 'shaders' and yet the incredibly crippled NV3x manages to some how edge out or be neck and neck with the vastly superior R3x0. Simply explain how the he!l is that possible if you are remotely close to being correct. It's that easy.

 

[lordtyranus]

Old reviews with old drivers, Ben? You should know better. In the last link you posted for painkiller, interestinly enough, you can find:

Halo
Splinter Cell
CoD

 

[BFG10K]

and titles like Painkiller where the lead depends on the setting.

The 5950 has 50% more memory bandwidth than the 9800 Pro. Taken into this context it's astonishing that it's not coming out further ahead.

Simply explain how the he!l is that possible if you are remotely close to being correct.

Again, you're the only one complaining about the definition of shader loads and attempting to drop that onto me is simply a strawman. All I'm saying is that those games have some shaders in there and the R3xx architecture runs them better than NV3x architecture.

 

[imported_Locutus]

I don't know if this has already been mentioned or not, but way back before the FX had first been released, there was a number of facts about the cards that were harped on by Nvidia which apply to this topic. It is my opinion that the reason these facts quickly disappeared from Nvidia marketing was that they were found to be the cause of the unfavorable performance of the FX line.

Feature || Radeon 95xx-98xx || GeForce FX 5xxx
=================================================
Color Calculations || 96-bit || 128-bit
Shader Instruction Width || 24-bit || 32-bit
DX 9.0 Compliance || YES || YES

The GeForce FX was the first line to be designed by both NVidia and 3DFX engineers. 3DFX engineers, if you remember the Voodoo5 debacle, had a habit of going beyond expectations as far as features and capability. The FX series went further than required by DirectX 9.0 and thus had to work harder for everything.

***The very fact that the FX line was competitive at all, given this information, is commendable***

Now that their 128-bit color and 32-bit shaders were established by the FX line (quite possibly at a loss), NVidia has established technology in an area that ATI hasn't even yet touched. This is why the 6xxx series soundly trounces anything ATI has released to date, even in games that are designed to run better on ATI hardware. *cough*Half-Life2*cough* Excuse me... <== Also an opinion, whether or not there are facts to back it up.

I have a bottomless well of pity for ATI with upcoming generations of their video cards as they have fully received their 15 minutes of fame by taking the easy road and are unlikely to be competitive in the near future.

---Edit---
Changed 92xx to 95xx as per LocutusX== Reason: 9200 series was not dx9 compliant.
Added comment about subjectivity of statement as per LocutusX== Reason: Opinion was not clearly stated.