Shader model 4.0 is ready to go.

[DRavisher]

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: DRavisher
If you dont want you stuff to get outdated, go console

Consoles simply get outdated but arent upgradeable, pfft

Ah. True true...

 

[hans030390]

Oh well, no one had even thought of SM4 when the 6 series was out, and since i got my 6600gt way back when, i wasn't concerned about SM4, and I still could care less about it for now. when its out, then i'll look into upgrading.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: hans030390
Oh well, no one had even thought of SM4 when the 6 series was out, and since i got my 6600gt way back when, i wasn't concerned about SM4, and I still could care less about it for now. when its out, then i'll look into upgrading.

THUD (sound of me hitting the floor)

Whoda thunk! Hans not caring about a new shader model

 

[Cooler]

It will be at least two years before they will use SM4 in a game and by that time SM5 will be out. The shader model is no reason to get a video card these days since most today still use 2.

 

[Munky]

Well, there goes the whole future-proof plan of sm3.

 

[ronnn]

I certainly learned alot about sm 4.0 in this thread. :music:

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: munky
Well, there goes the whole future-proof plan of sm3.

Yep, and now people with SM2.0 cards are even more out of date.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy

Originally posted by: n7
Ahahahahahaa!


This just makes me laugh even harder at all teh idiots who felt they were safe getting SM 3.0...

Exactly. As long as morons keep shelling out dough for the bigger, better technology; the more they're going to keep trying to make the current stuff obsolete.

Errr, we want the current stuff to get obsolete? So the games get better?

LOL .... and what sort of time scale do you have in mind .. evey couple of months

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: munky
Well, there goes the whole future-proof plan of sm3.

I'll quote myself...

Originally posted by: nitromullet
I don't think that anyone ever said (or implied) that progress would stop, or that they were "safe" with sm3.0. The only argument I heard was that it was better to have sm3.0 capabilities than to not have them. Did you really think Microsoft wasn't going to upgrade DirectX again?

 

[ddogg]

Originally posted by: munky
Well, there goes the whole future-proof plan of sm3.

noone said SM3 was future proof....it always better to have newer tech rather than sticking to old outdated tech. those with SM2 who criticized SM3 will find themselves more out of date!!

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Errr, we want the current stuff to get obsolete? So the games get better?

I have an inside source that tells me that pipes will be 10X shinier with SM 4.0. Reliable source too .


From the article:

It's a great decision as both Nvidia and ATI Shader Model 4.0 parts are expected sometimes toward the middle of 2006, before Longhorn arrives. We don't have any idea what it is going to be called but DirectX 9.something sounds like a reasonable guess.

I think they meant 'Nvidia and ATI Shader Model 4.0 parts are expected to be paper launched sometimes toward the middle of 2006. But I do bet that ATI and Nvidia will have their SM 4.0 cards out probably before Longhorn arrives. Whether Longhorn actually comes out in 2006 at all, is another matter...

Originally posted by: munky
Well, there goes the whole future-proof plan of sm3.

Seeing as how the Unreal 3 engine (among others) is built upon SM 3.0, and that's at least a year off (and licensed U3 engine games even farther off), I'd say SM 3.0 still has a lot of gas left in the tank. Nobody was expecting it to last forever...

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Anyone who says "future proof" deserves to be punched in the face (ok maybe I?m being harsh, I just strongly disagree with that term or line of thought). "Future resistant" is the best you can do.

Example; the Radeon 8500 can play BF2, but the faster GeForce Ti 4600 cannot. Yet would you even want to play BF2 on an 8500? I wouldn?t...you can run it, but you can?t ?play? it, because I play to have fun, and blurry slide shows aren?t that fun. I expect those for classes and presentations where I?m learning, not playing.

The same will probably be true for the GF6 line. There may be a few obscure games (Future ?BF2?ers, BF3 maybe ) where you could run a game a 6600GT, but not ?play? it.

I guess all I?m saying is that I buy for the here and now, or at most a month or two into the future. If you bought a 6600GT for fear that we might get a game that supports only SM3 and you wouldn?t want to miss out on it, then I feel sorry for you because you won?t get to enjoy the game as I and many others will who have a more recent card that can actually play the game (at least a midrange card from the G80/R600 generation)

 

[R3MF]

Originally posted by: compgeek89
So... what advantages will SM 4.0 have? More speed gains? Or more capabilities?

it will introduce unified pixel and vertex shaders, which heralds the advent of the GPU becoming a general processing unit, and thus useful for many processing tasks other than pure gaming.

it might even benefit games by providing a more flexible graphics programming environment too.

 

[Ackmed]

As with SM3, SM4 will mean nothing without games. SM3 has barely any game support, Im not getting excited about this news, its its true. Here we are well over a year after the SM3 capable cards are out, and I dont play one single game with SM3 support. Hopefully that will change by the end of the year though.

 

[impemonk]

Whoa the times of change are a-comin'! I wonder what will be next after SHADER MODEL'in.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Based on all of the information I have seen, this article by the Inquirer is less then accurate. The move to WGF 2.0 is supposed to change several elements of how the GPU-Driver-OS interact and additional functionality and issues will evolve out of this. Without the new graphics driver model of Vista- this will not work.

The biggest shift moving to SM 4.0 would be exposing unified shader hardware however this shouldn't be an issue that needs exposed functionality to 'work' under WindowsXP. With the level of access drivers have under current Windows versions the driver itself should be able to assign resources based on the fly without issue. Much of what has been talked about in terms of the upcoming DX10(WGF 2.0 or whatever you want to call it) has to do with increasing some fundamental performance issues that DX has that are only solveable through a major overhaul. With Vista the talk seems to be revolving around them mapping all legacy DX code on top of the overhauled DX10 native ones. This isn't viable under WinXP as the display driver has too much low level access to be able to pull this odd without serious issues.

In terms of additional features I would mainly expect SM 4.0 to improve flexibility in terms of utilizing already existing features in more flexible ways(improved HDR functionality etc). The next big move in DirectX isn't going to be due to a new shader model- it will be fixing the long standing issues that the API has had for years that couldn't reasonably be fixed using the old driver model.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Anyone who says "future proof" deserves to be punched in the face (ok maybe I?m being harsh, I just strongly disagree with that term or line of thought). "Future resistant" is the best you can do.

Example; the Radeon 8500 can play BF2, but the faster GeForce Ti 4600 cannot. Yet would you even want to play BF2 on an 8500? I wouldn?t...you can run it, but you can?t ?play? it, because I play to have fun, and blurry slide shows aren?t that fun. I expect those for classes and presentations where I?m learning, not playing.

The same will probably be true for the GF6 line. There may be a few obscure games (Future ?BF2?ers, BF3 maybe ) where you could run a game a 6600GT, but not ?play? it.

I guess all I?m saying is that I buy for the here and now, or at most a month or two into the future. If you bought a 6600GT for fear that we might get a game that supports only SM3 and you wouldn?t want to miss out on it, then I feel sorry for you because you won?t get to enjoy the game as I and many others will who have a more recent card that can actually play the game (at least a midrange card from the G80/R600 generation)

You're absolutely right Fubbles!! That's why I like to use the term "future resistant".

I also heard that the WGF (Windows Graphics Foundation) has bit the dust. Anyone else hear this? Microsoft is continuing with DX for a good bit longer.

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: hans030390
Oh well, no one had even thought of SM4 when the 6 series was out, and since i got my 6600gt way back when, i wasn't concerned about SM4, and I still could care less about it for now. when its out, then i'll look into upgrading.

THUD (sound of me hitting the floor)

Whoda thunk! Hans not caring about a new shader model

hahaha, yeah seriously. Of course, i do feel pretty stupid for supporting Sm3 so heavily now that SM4 is coming up, but i thought it was a good while off.

But then again, that almost makes a 7800gtx or R520 a weird decision because the Sm3 will be outdated within a year....ugh. and then everyone will want the uber Sm4 cards.

Oh well, next gen games are set on SM3 for now, so maybe within 2 years (?) Sm4 will be a standard. my guess. By then i'll be ready for college, so new computer for me

Besides, before anyone makes fun of me and my 6600gt, i am 15...no money...that was all from B-day and christmas savings...and i still was about....um....$100 short...so it was partially a present too. So naturally, i wanted my card to be as "future resistant" as possible, and it was the best card for $200 at the time. So before you point fingers at me and say something about my 6600gt, remember that most of you are adults who can spend money more often than I

...but...I am looking forward to what SM4 can do. Then again, Inq is off sometimes...so yeah, i am not concerned as of now!

 

[EightySix Four]

Delays to R520 = SM4? Probably not but it would be cool.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Note to self: Never buy a video card for the future.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy

Originally posted by: n7
Ahahahahahaa!


This just makes me laugh even harder at all teh idiots who felt they were safe getting SM 3.0...

Exactly. As long as morons keep shelling out dough for the bigger, better technology; the more they're going to keep trying to make the current stuff obsolete.

Yup... it's called progress. It's good. Don't be bitter because you can't afford top of the line stuff.

 

[videoclone]

Sorry i dont have SM3 or SM2.0b but i do have a Hot girlfriend

Me = i win.

 

[Fardringle]

Originally posted by: videoclone
Sorry i dont have SM3 or SM2.0b but i do have a Hot girlfriend

Me = i win.

And of course she probably has 'software' T&A and texture bump mapping, but does she support pixel shading and hardware lighting, or does she just go for "old school" environmental candle lighting?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: videoclone
Sorry i dont have SM3 or SM2.0b but i do have a Hot girlfriend

Me = i win.

That girl you talk to on the internet who you call your girlfriend is actually a 48 year old fat man who hasn't bathed in months. You loose.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I also heard that the WGF (Windows Graphics Foundation) has bit the dust.

If it has it is an issue of nomenclature- the fundamentals of what they are doing haven't changed.

Of course, i do feel pretty stupid for supporting Sm3 so heavily now that SM4 is coming up

SM3 will be a sticking point. All of the consoles support it this generation. It will be the target dev platform for most titles for years to come. It will be the same as SM1.0 was.