|
Aquamark 3 *again*
http://www.driverheaven.net/articles...rk3/index2.htm
If you look at the differences in jumps between the various nvidia card drivers you really do have to wonder what they are cutting back on. Look at Ati, it jumped only 1000 points between cat 3.6 and 3.7, now look at the equivalnet nvidia card driver jumps, between 44.03 drivers and 45.23 it jumped by 11,000 POINTS!!! theres no way that they aren't skimping on features, you just can't do that without really "optimising" drivers to such an extent that something is bveing cut back on. Ansd then the jump between 45.23 and 51.75 drivers is another 8,000 points so in total between 2 driver releases an astonishing jump of 19,000 points, sureley this speaks volumes in itself???? |
"methylenedioxy" wrote in message
... http://www.driverheaven.net/articles...rk3/index2.htm If you look at the differences in jumps between the various nvidia card drivers you really do have to wonder what they are cutting back on. Look at Ati, it jumped only 1000 points between cat 3.6 and 3.7, now look at the equivalnet nvidia card driver jumps, between 44.03 drivers and 45.23 it jumped by 11,000 POINTS!!! theres no way that they aren't skimping on features, you just can't do that without really "optimising" drivers to such an extent that something is bveing cut back on. Ansd then the jump between 45.23 and 51.75 drivers is another 8,000 points so in total between 2 driver releases an astonishing jump of 19,000 points, sureley this speaks volumes in itself???? Or the 44.03's were that **** poor... |
I don't think that's the case. NV has allot to loose and an ego to protect.
My guess it that they will cheat and lie in order to appear winners. ATI is being gracious and has begun a policy that assures that no current or future driver will be optimized for a specific benchmark. Its a positive beginning. If Nvidia would just come clean and be honest they would gain much more fan support. But they continue to be deceiving. It really ruins my opinion of them. Very sad. "not me" wrote in message ... "methylenedioxy" wrote in message ... http://www.driverheaven.net/articles...rk3/index2.htm If you look at the differences in jumps between the various nvidia card drivers you really do have to wonder what they are cutting back on. Look at Ati, it jumped only 1000 points between cat 3.6 and 3.7, now look at the equivalnet nvidia card driver jumps, between 44.03 drivers and 45.23 it jumped by 11,000 POINTS!!! theres no way that they aren't skimping on features, you just can't do that without really "optimising" drivers to such an extent that something is bveing cut back on. Ansd then the jump between 45.23 and 51.75 drivers is another 8,000 points so in total between 2 driver releases an astonishing jump of 19,000 points, sureley this speaks volumes in itself???? Or the 44.03's were that **** poor... |
methylenedioxy wrote:
http://www.driverheaven.net/articles...rk3/index2.htm If you look at the differences in jumps between the various nvidia card drivers you really do have to wonder what they are cutting back on. Look at Ati, it jumped only 1000 points between cat 3.6 and 3.7, now look at the equivalnet nvidia card driver jumps, between 44.03 drivers and 45.23 it jumped by 11,000 POINTS!!! theres no way that they aren't skimping on features, you just can't do that without really "optimising" drivers to such an extent that something is bveing cut back on. Ansd then the jump between 45.23 and 51.75 drivers is another 8,000 points so in total between 2 driver releases an astonishing jump of 19,000 points, sureley this speaks volumes in itself???? Well ... as I have understood nVidia has done the FX GPU-s with different pixel shader code than the DX9 spec says. That would mean that when raw DX9 code path is used the card will perform not too well. Now if they write a wrapper that will rewrite the pixel shader data to the nVidia specific format then the hardware will run the code a lot faster. Now if the nVidia written code is superior to the DX9 code (just let's make an assumption). Then it would be possible to actually increase the performance of games just by driver upgrades and not just 5% but 50% or so. So why do you always assume that nVidia has to downgrade some other options to optimize some game specific code in the drivers? Maybe they just have to write in some converters that will give you the same output (quality way) but with some additional work from the driver. Now if there would be a game that uses directly the nVidia supported paths then it might be a lot faster than using standard DX9 paths with ATI. You don't know that. Noone knows that (excpet nVidia and some spies maybe). So just keep an open mind regarding driver optimization and don't bitch around. Mario |
fish wrote:
I don't think that's the case. NV has allot to loose and an ego to protect. My guess it that they will cheat and lie in order to appear winners. ATI is being gracious and has begun a policy that assures that no current or future driver will be optimized for a specific benchmark. Its a positive beginning. If Nvidia would just come clean and be honest they would gain much more fan support. But they continue to be deceiving. It really ruins my opinion of them. Very sad. Dont go demonising one company and praising another, both seem to have a detachment between what they say and what they do. |
I assume you meant demonizing which is a strange word to describe my
comments and is incorrect, in my opinion. "Chimera" wrote in message ... fish wrote: I don't think that's the case. NV has allot to loose and an ego to protect. My guess it that they will cheat and lie in order to appear winners. ATI is being gracious and has begun a policy that assures that no current or future driver will be optimized for a specific benchmark. Its a positive beginning. If Nvidia would just come clean and be honest they would gain much more fan support. But they continue to be deceiving. It really ruins my opinion of them. Very sad. Dont go demonising one company and praising another, both seem to have a detachment between what they say and what they do. |
"Mario Kadastik" wrote in message ... Well ... as I have understood nVidia has done the FX GPU-s with different pixel shader code than the DX9 spec says. That would mean that when raw DX9 code path is used the card will perform not too well. Now if they write a wrapper that will rewrite the pixel shader data to the nVidia specific format then the hardware will run the code a lot faster. Nvidia CHOSE to ignore the standard, they instead wrote their own and now complain that companies like valve wont redo it for their "special" method so they don't score as well. The idea behind a standard is that EVERYONE (end user, Card makers and Game Makers) can rely on it which isnt the case here. Its great if Nv's implementation works as well or better but when your going to sell a card and tout its DX9 conformity/ability its a tad dishonest if it really only does it well if programs do NOT use the standard. Heck I think every card out there would run games better if each company makeing a game made custom running instructs based on each card out there but that isnt what standards are supposed to require as I understood things. Using a "wrapper" to make a card thats supposed to be dx9 part out of box run DX9 features just seems wacked to me. Just my 2 cents Just Jess |
Nvidia CHOSE to ignore the standard, they instead wrote their own and now
complain that companies like valve wont redo it for their "special" method so they don't score as well. The idea behind a standard is that EVERYONE (end user, Card makers and Game Makers) can rely on it which isnt the case here. Its great if Nv's implementation works as well or better but when your going to sell a card and tout its DX9 conformity/ability its a tad dishonest if it really only does it well if programs do NOT use the standard. Heck I think every card out there would run games better if each company makeing a game made custom running instructs based on each card out there but that isnt what standards are supposed to require as I understood things. Using a "wrapper" to make a card thats supposed to be dx9 part out of box run DX9 features just seems wacked to me. Just my 2 cents Just Jess My point to, game makers should just be able to write RAW DX9 code and ofcourse DX8 code for the older cards. And NviDia should JUST follow that DX9 standard so that games can run normally. Now they FORCE game makers to invest time and money in Nvidia's Standard....because the performance in STANDARD DX9 is hell...sluggish... |
Nvidia can't run the standard Dx9 path..Microsoft made the requirement at least
24bit, which is ATI hardware. So basically Nvidia basically ends up running at 32bit, it support 16 and 12..The peroformance of the shader is very slow at 32bit. So they basically make everything run the 16bit path, which isn't really dx9 but it's almost there. Dark Avenger wrote: Nvidia CHOSE to ignore the standard, they instead wrote their own and now complain that companies like valve wont redo it for their "special" method so they don't score as well. The idea behind a standard is that EVERYONE (end user, Card makers and Game Makers) can rely on it which isnt the case here. Its great if Nv's implementation works as well or better but when your going to sell a card and tout its DX9 conformity/ability its a tad dishonest if it really only does it well if programs do NOT use the standard. Heck I think every card out there would run games better if each company makeing a game made custom running instructs based on each card out there but that isnt what standards are supposed to require as I understood things. Using a "wrapper" to make a card thats supposed to be dx9 part out of box run DX9 features just seems wacked to me. Just my 2 cents Just Jess My point to, game makers should just be able to write RAW DX9 code and ofcourse DX8 code for the older cards. And NviDia should JUST follow that DX9 standard so that games can run normally. Now they FORCE game makers to invest time and money in Nvidia's Standard....because the performance in STANDARD DX9 is hell...sluggish... |
Tim wrote in message ...
Nvidia can't run the standard Dx9 path..Microsoft made the requirement at least 24bit, which is ATI hardware. So basically Nvidia basically ends up running at 32bit, it support 16 and 12..The peroformance of the shader is very slow at 32bit. So they basically make everything run the 16bit path, which isn't really dx9 but it's almost there. Dark Avenger wrote: Nvidia CHOSE to ignore the standard, they instead wrote their own and now complain that companies like valve wont redo it for their "special" method so they don't score as well. The idea behind a standard is that EVERYONE (end user, Card makers and Game Makers) can rely on it which isnt the case here. Its great if Nv's implementation works as well or better but when your going to sell a card and tout its DX9 conformity/ability its a tad dishonest if it really only does it well if programs do NOT use the standard. Heck I think every card out there would run games better if each company makeing a game made custom running instructs based on each card out there but that isnt what standards are supposed to require as I understood things. Using a "wrapper" to make a card thats supposed to be dx9 part out of box run DX9 features just seems wacked to me. Just my 2 cents Just Jess My point to, game makers should just be able to write RAW DX9 code and ofcourse DX8 code for the older cards. And NviDia should JUST follow that DX9 standard so that games can run normally. Now they FORCE game makers to invest time and money in Nvidia's Standard....because the performance in STANDARD DX9 is hell...sluggish... Well this time atleast a reasonable anwser. Yes indeed, nvidia CAN run DX9...but then the performance is rather slughish and that is where game programmers fall over. Why should game programmers have to program ways around problems just because the card makers make a low performance card at a high price. Hell, with nv40 ....we probably see 2x8 shaders...now..at that moment...performance will not be a problem anymore. The FX serie though.....well....lets say don't expect any fireworks of them under DX9. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:17 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HardwareBanter.com