Carmack speaks on Hl2

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: Pandaren

But i find it hard to understand why some ppl use phrases like NVIDIOT

Owning an nVidia card doesn't make one an nVidiot any more than owning an ATI card makes one a fanATIc.

I would define an nVidiot as someone who steadfastly maintains that nVidia is kicking ATI's @ss in performance despite all the evidence to the contrary.

I vote this new member become "diamond" for this post alone!

 

[skace]

Ok Rollo, you are having some problems comprehending. Here is a quote from the Nvidia website:

Microsoft® DirectX® 9.0 Optimizations and Support
Ensures the best performance and application compatibility for all DirectX 9 applications. (Source)

The 5900 was marketed as a Directx9 card that would be capable of running the games of today and the games of tomorrow. But as we can see, the cards are having a massive ammount of problems running actual DX9 titles. Not only do the cards not meet the specs required for basic DX9 path, they don't even run good on their own customized DX8.1 / DX9 butchered path.

This card was meant to run DX9 titles, bottom line. And now you are saying "oh ok lets just wait for the next card". Well thats great, unless you already bought an Fx5900 and expected it to actually run dx9 titles.

 

[Regs]

I fully agree with skace. You pay 400 dollars for a video card, it better work like a 400 dollar card. I think rollo is concentrating on defending Nvidia's name and ingenuity skills, other than the thousands of FX owners who just made a budget braking decision in buying it.

Don't get me wrong, Nvidia still has time to pull off a miracle.

 

[OmegaRedd]

I try to buy the best game card period for the last 2 generations that been ati (I bought a 5900pro but returned it) and I looked at the pro and cons realisticaly. One of the biggest factors in my choice has been reading forums along with the mounting proof (don't make me repeat it) in game sites. If any truly objective person make a list of pros and cons I belive they will come to the same conclution. Is it over for nvidia hell no but only if they spend less on pr and more on meeting the new standard set by ati. (can anyone tell me how to make paragraphs in this forum HELP)

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

My point was that there is no reason the 5900 should be equal at everything when they are competing brands trying to get a performance edge. ATI just won this round as far as DX9 goes. They've been pretty much equal solutions at DX8.1, but when the DX9 games start coming out, ATI will have the upper hand.

And like I said, nVidia has pretty much owned ATI for 4-5 years before that. It didn't stop people from buying ATI cards, this probably won't stop people from buying nVidia cards.

For example, why would anyone buy an 8500 128 that ran UT2003 at 57fps when the 4600 ran it at 94fps, almost twice as fast?

[L=http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=8]http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=8[/L}

UT2003 was by far the best shooter of the time, but I don't remember ATI going out of business or not selling cards due to this.

^ It seems you're missing another factor which strongly influences purchases: PRICE!!! The 8500 was always known to be slower than the Ti4600, that's why it had a lower price. Duh! The 8500 found it's niche when it was priced cheaper than the Ti4200, and offered similar (albeit a tad slower) performance.

Why would someone ever buy an FX5600 instead of an FX5900, which is faster in everything? Perhaps because they can't afford the 5900.

Idiotic...

 

[nRollo]

I fully agree with skace. You pay 400 dollars for a video card, it better work like a 400 dollar card. I think rollo is concentrating on defending Nvidia's name and ingenuity skills, other than the thousands of FX owners who just made a budget braking decision in buying it.

So a $350 Parhelia should perform like a $350 9800Pro, or 5900, right? Price is often not indicative of performance at one thing or another. We live in a free market economy, where supply/demand set the price. (which is why the price of the 5900s is dropping like a rock)

They haven't made a budget breaking desion either. If they've got $450 for a vid card, they should be able to afford to sell it for $350, take a $100 loss, and buy an ATI 9800 Pro if that's what's important to them. The difference in playing HL2 this year in DX9 vs DX8.1, wouldn't be worth it to me, but if shinier water and clearer reflections are worth $100 to you, there is your solution.

 

[Jeff7]

Isn't this how it usually works? A new card comes out to take advantage of the latest DirectX/OpenGL technologies, but it is just barely able to show off the effects. It can't actually run the games that use those technologies. It's usually the next generation that can play those games well. So I'm guessing that if you want to play DirectX 9 games at good framerates, with the eye candy turned up, FSAA and Anisotropic filtering enabled, you'll need the next Geforce card, or ATi's next gen card.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Isn't this how it usually works? A new card comes out to take advantage of the latest DirectX/OpenGL technologies, but it is just barely able to show off the effects. It can't actually run the games that use those technologies. It's usually the next generation that can play those games well. So I'm guessing that if you want to play DirectX 9 games at good framerates, with the eye candy turned up, FSAA and Anisotropic filtering enabled, you'll need the next Geforce card, or ATi's next gen card.

no you need to flip out because current generation cards have trouble running games that arent coming out for months and months

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: Rollo

I fully agree with skace. You pay 400 dollars for a video card, it better work like a 400 dollar card. I think rollo is concentrating on defending Nvidia's name and ingenuity skills, other than the thousands of FX owners who just made a budget braking decision in buying it.

So a $350 Parhelia should perform like a $350 9800Pro, or 5900, right? Price is often not indicative of performance at one thing or another. We live in a free market economy, where supply/demand set the price. (which is why the price of the 5900s is dropping like a rock)

They haven't made a budget breaking desion either. If they've got $450 for a vid card, they should be able to afford to sell it for $350, take a $100 loss, and buy an ATI 9800 Pro if that's what's important to them. The difference in playing HL2 this year in DX9 vs DX8.1, wouldn't be worth it to me, but if shinier water and clearer reflections are worth $100 to you, there is your solution.

Once again you forget the fact that Perihelia wasn't Bs'ing anybody that it could run 3D DX anything faster then the competitors.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Rollo

I fully agree with skace. You pay 400 dollars for a video card, it better work like a 400 dollar card. I think rollo is concentrating on defending Nvidia's name and ingenuity skills, other than the thousands of FX owners who just made a budget braking decision in buying it.

So a $350 Parhelia should perform like a $350 9800Pro, or 5900, right? Price is often not indicative of performance at one thing or another. We live in a free market economy, where supply/demand set the price. (which is why the price of the 5900s is dropping like a rock)

They haven't made a budget breaking desion either. If they've got $450 for a vid card, they should be able to afford to sell it for $350, take a $100 loss, and buy an ATI 9800 Pro if that's what's important to them. The difference in playing HL2 this year in DX9 vs DX8.1, wouldn't be worth it to me, but if shinier water and clearer reflections are worth $100 to you, there is your solution.

Hey!!! I found Rollo!!!

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~bahill2/Rollo.jpg

 

[bluemax]

umm... Look at my new sig! It sure fits these days....

 

[ElFenix]

just like nvidia to say they support something but it be sub-par.

(see: riva 128 and 3d
tnt and 32 bit color
geforce2 and fsaa)

 

[nRollo]

Hey!!! I found Rollo!!!

LOL that rocks. I'm genuinely amused.
I have no love for nVidia this year, after my 5800 experience, but you ATI promoters should be careful what wish for.
No nVidia, ATI has no reason to keep moving forward, and the price of Radeons stays high.

As a side note, it's interesting how you guys all think I'm a "nVidiot" when I spend more on ATI than a lot of you:
2003: 9800Pro retail
2002:8500retail, 9700Pro retail
2001: Radeon VIVO, Radeon 32DDR
2000: Rage MAXX, 2 Rage 32s
etc.

So who do you think ATI wants for a customer more? "nVidiot Rollo" who trots over to Best Buy and buys a couple of their cards every year, or most of you who've bought 1 or 2 and think you own the company?

(btw - I bought as many or more nVidia cards those years as well, so I'm not a fanATIc either- just like to play with video cards)

 

[Cesar]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Hey!!! I found Rollo!!!

LOL that rocks. I'm genuinely amused. I have no love for nVidia this year, after my 5800 experience, but you ATI promoters should be careful what wish for. No nVidia, ATI has no reason to keep moving forward, and the price of Radeons stays high. As a side note, it's interesting how you guys all think I'm a "nVidiot" when I spend more on ATI than a lot of you: 2003: 9800Pro retail 2002:8500retail, 9700Pro retail 2001: Radeon VIVO, Radeon 32DDR 2000: Rage MAXX, 2 Rage 32s etc. So who do you think ATI wants for a customer more? "nVidiot Rollo" who trots over to Best Buy and buys a couple of their cards every year, or most of you who've bought 1 or 2 and think you own the company? (btw - I bought as many or more nVidia cards those years as well, so I'm not a fanATIc either- just like to play with video cards)

no Rollo I'm very sure that you're an nVidiot the way you defend the FX series. And I'm also sure that you work for nvidia to

 

[nRollo]

And I'm also sure that you work for nvidia to

LOL
I'd be happy enough to work for nVidia, but they don't have a lot of big facilities here in the Midwest. (or probably much use for guys whose main IT/IS experience is with business software)

 

[Jeff7181]

I just bought an FX5900, waiting for it to come... I didn't buy it for DX9 Compatability... that would be idiotic since there's not many DX9 games available right now. It would have been stupid to buy a 9800 Pro for it's DX9 compatability also, because based on HL2 and D3 preliminary benchmarks, it doesn't perform at an acceptable level anyway.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I just bought an FX5900, waiting for it to come... I didn't buy it for DX9 Compatability... that would be idiotic since there's not many DX9 games available right now. It would have been stupid to buy a 9800 Pro for it's DX9 compatability also, because based on HL2 and D3 preliminary benchmarks, it doesn't perform at an acceptable level anyway.

Of course you didn't buy it for DX9 compatibility...it's ISN'T DX9 compatible

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I just bought an FX5900, waiting for it to come... I didn't buy it for DX9 Compatability... that would be idiotic since there's not many DX9 games available right now. It would have been stupid to buy a 9800 Pro for it's DX9 compatability also, because based on HL2 and D3 preliminary benchmarks, it doesn't perform at an acceptable level anyway.

You know he's right. Even if the 9800 Pro outperforms the 5900, it still doesn't manage sufficient speed in HL2.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I just bought an FX5900, waiting for it to come... I didn't buy it for DX9 Compatability... that would be idiotic since there's not many DX9 games available right now. It would have been stupid to buy a 9800 Pro for it's DX9 compatability also, because based on HL2 and D3 preliminary benchmarks, it doesn't perform at an acceptable level anyway.

You know he's right. Even if the 9800 Pro outperforms the 5900, it still doesn't manage sufficient speed in HL2.

57.3 FPS @ 1280x1024 is plenty enough for me on my 18.1" LCD in Half-Life 2. Besides, HL2 isn't a really fast paced game...you sorta stroll along

 

[yhelothar]

1) On non DX9 games, the Radeon 9800 Pro and the GeForceFX 5900 Ultra pretty much run neck and neck. They either run pretty close together or they trade top spots back and forth between games. But the difference is never THAT dramatic...until you crank out DX9 titles...

2) When I said skimped on the specs, I meant the actual architecture of the chip compared to what a DX9 card SHOULD be/have. The FX's internal structure is not to kind to DX9. That's why Gabe Newell and John Carmack had to make conessions to get proper performance out of the card (the NV30/35 can't run the standard ARB2 code as fast as the R300/350, so Carmack had to make a special version for the FX cards):


Carmack on Doom III

"The NV30 runs the ARB2 path MUCH slower than the NV30 path.
Half the speed at the moment. This is unfortunate, because when you do an
exact, apples-to-apples comparison using exactly the same API, the R300 looks
twice as fast, but when you use the vendor-specific paths, the NV30 wins.

The reason for this is that ATI does everything at high precision all the
time, while Nvidia internally supports three different precisions with
different performances."

Gabe on FX (what Anand wrote)

- Half-Life 2 has a special NV3x codepath that was necessary to make NVIDIA's architecture perform reasonably under the game
- even with the special NV3x codepath, ATI is the clear performance leader under Half-Life 2 with the Radeon 9800 Pro hitting around 60 fps at 10x7. The 5900 ultra is noticeably slower with the special codepath and is horrendously slower under the default dx9 codepath

The reason for having standards like OGL and DX9 is so you don't have to do vendor specific optimizations...at least that's what I thought

Read... keyword.. "because NVIDIA does everything at a higher precision" thus it's slower...
run them at the same precision.. and they'll be pretty much neck to neck...

only except you can run nvidia at a lower precision, and run faster than the competition without losing much image quality...
I'm surprised at your ignorance.. "mr ace reporter"

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

1) On non DX9 games, the Radeon 9800 Pro and the GeForceFX 5900 Ultra pretty much run neck and neck. They either run pretty close together or they trade top spots back and forth between games. But the difference is never THAT dramatic...until you crank out DX9 titles...

2) When I said skimped on the specs, I meant the actual architecture of the chip compared to what a DX9 card SHOULD be/have. The FX's internal structure is not to kind to DX9. That's why Gabe Newell and John Carmack had to make conessions to get proper performance out of the card (the NV30/35 can't run the standard ARB2 code as fast as the R300/350, so Carmack had to make a special version for the FX cards):


Carmack on Doom III

"The NV30 runs the ARB2 path MUCH slower than the NV30 path.
Half the speed at the moment. This is unfortunate, because when you do an
exact, apples-to-apples comparison using exactly the same API, the R300 looks
twice as fast, but when you use the vendor-specific paths, the NV30 wins.

The reason for this is that ATI does everything at high precision all the
time, while Nvidia internally supports three different precisions with
different performances."

Gabe on FX (what Anand wrote)

- Half-Life 2 has a special NV3x codepath that was necessary to make NVIDIA's architecture perform reasonably under the game
- even with the special NV3x codepath, ATI is the clear performance leader under Half-Life 2 with the Radeon 9800 Pro hitting around 60 fps at 10x7. The 5900 ultra is noticeably slower with the special codepath and is horrendously slower under the default dx9 codepath

The reason for having standards like OGL and DX9 is so you don't have to do vendor specific optimizations...at least that's what I thought

Read... keyword.. "because NVIDIA does everything at a higher precision" thus it's slower...
run them at the same precision.. and they'll be pretty much neck to neck...

only except you can run nvidia at a lower precision, and run faster than the competition without losing much image quality...
I'm surprised at your ignorance.. "mr ace reporter"

He illiterate man, READ that again!!!!!!!!!!

It says:

"The reason for this is that ATI does everything at high precision all the
time, while Nvidia internally supports three different precisions with
different performances"

Thank you come again! BUH BYE! Carmack had to write a special routine for NV3x cards b/c they can't do default ARB2 code fast enough. What's the point in having standards like OGL and DX9 if manufacturers don't follow the specs and make developers waste time creating special routines?

 

[yhelothar]

and?
nvidia is still running on 32bit precision.. while ati is doing 24bit..
how do you make an apples to apples comparison like that?
while when you run nvidia on 16bit precision.. you guys start saying nvidia' 16bit is illegitimate..

 

[Nebor]

NVIDIA is capable of a better image quality, higher 32bit precision.... But at a slower speed.

I don't really trust what NSF4 has to say, because he really seems biased towards ATI. And while I understand that he has the right to express his opinion just like anyone else.... Now that I see how strong his opinion is, it makes me think that his reviews might be effected.

But then, the only reviews I take seriously are the ones by real users.

You're an ATI fanboy if ever I've seen one.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Nebor
NVIDIA is capable of a better image quality, higher 32bit precision.... But at a slower speed.

I don't really trust what NSF4 has to say, because he really seems biased towards ATI. And while I understand that he has the right to express his opinion just like anyone else.... Now that I see how strong his opinion is, it makes me think that his reviews might be effected.

But then, the only reviews I take seriously are the ones by real users.

You're an ATI fanboy if ever I've seen one.

I don't write reviews Nebor. What ever gave you that idea?

It's not my fault that everyone and their grandma is against NVIDIA these days. You have a problem take it up with Carmack, Newell and the enthusiast community. Hell, why don't you even go over to NVNews. The NVIDIA fans over on the site are ready to bring out their pitchforks over the whole fiasco to spear NVIDIA.

The fact of the matter is, both Newell and Carmack are saying the SAME thing about the FX series. It was played out in 3DMark03. It was played out in the HL2 benches, and it's playing out in every other DX9 benchmark. It's not that hard to see.

 

[Nebor]

I'm not against nvidia. Nor am I against ATI.

I don't feel that either of them offer an adequate DX9 solution, and I feel that nvidia offers a better DX8 solution.

I don't think Nvidia has done anything horribly wrong.

People are overreacting, they're dorks.

I wish Sapphire made a 5900 'Ultimate'. My computer is loud enough.