Shader model 4.0 is ready to go.

[gtx4u]

Originally posted by: TerracideDK

Originally posted by: munky
The 5-series people must have not cared about performance, period, because even in the dx8 games available at the time the fx cards lagged behind. And there was a dx9 game - TR:AOD in which the fx cards performed abysmally. And in late 2004/early 2005 when dx9 games became more abundant, those with a 9800p could run them at decent settings and fps, unlike your fx cards.

And now - how many sm3 games are there? Not much, and from the few that exist like Chaos Theory and Farcry, sm3 capability is still not enough to give the 6-series a performance lead. And 10x7 no AA is hardly a setting that can utilize features like HDR "well". I never expect the first generation card to utilize it's latest features well, because software usually lags behind the hardware, and by the time the software catches up there's already newer hardware.

Games that support SM3.0 (current and comming)

FarCry (v1.3)
Driver 3
Grafan
Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle-Earth
Madden NFL 2005
Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault
Painkiller: Battle Out of Hell
Splinter Cell 3
STALKER: Shadows of Chernobyl
Tiger Woods 2005
Vampire: Bloodlines
Pacific fighters
LEGO Star Wars
Stronghold 2
Trackmania Sunrise
Juiced
Unreal Tournament 2007
Unreal 3


Terra - Sorry if I forgot any...

Aren't u forgetting the most popular tittle of all time? Half Life2, and Counter-strike Source that will support HDR which uses S.M. 3.0

 

[Turtle 1]

The only reason A purchasing decision should be made with SM4 inmind is thats the shader model that is required to run in Vista. The DX9L Patch allows G70 R520 and R580 to operate in vista it well not function the same as DX10 . So YES it is important that people know and understand that right now today . So they can make smart purchasing decisions today. If the public played it smart no one would buy the short lived R520-R580-G70 . These are just TO much $$$ for their life span.

 

[swatX]

a big wow! i see couple of games that are barely using the full potential of SM 3.0 let alone a SM 4.0 being released next year.

So Will ATI support this feature because last time ATI said " We didnt support SM 3.0 because it wasnt mainstream yet"

 

[niggles]

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

but they aren't getting better, they're just becoming more technically advanced while the output of half decent games gets smaller and smaller. Check this out: http://www.gamespot.com/reviews.html?ty...latform=pc&order=desc&time=threemonths
I refuse to buy some pap console with lowest common denomenator games, but I'm becoming less and less interested in shelling out big bucks for hardware that I can barely use because there are so few good games.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Genx87

One thing that will stimy DXNext support is it sounds like Microsoft is cutting off XP users at DX9. Thus the only people who will be able to even use SM4 will be required to have Vista as their OS. I bet this next incarnation of DX will take years to finally become popular just due to the amount of legacy systems out there.

I've wondered about this. Now that the computers are so powerful that they manhandle Internet surfing, multimedia, and office applications, it seems that the only reason to spend money on upgrading is for gaming, in which case only the serious gamers will be doing it, leaving the more casual gamers with outdated rigs and software. Will the game makers really want to leave a huge portion of the gaming population behind? Some people (especially lower middle class hot dealer/fat walleter tightwads like myself) like to build nice rigs and keep them for five years or more yet still enjoy buying a game now and then..

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: dunno99
All the arguments aside, anyone know where this ethereal "Shader Model 4.0"'s specification/feature list is? What differences are we talking about here compared to Shader Model 3.0?

Check Beyond3D for an article titled "DirectX Next." It offers some clues. SM4 is also supposed to reduce the apparently large current penalty for small batches of triangles (I think this was referenced by the dev way back when as a reason for Halo's "low" performance).

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: niggles
but they aren't getting better, they're just becoming more technically advanced while the output of half decent games gets smaller and smaller. Check this out: http://www.gamespot.com/reviews.html?ty...latform=pc&order=desc&time=threemonths
I refuse to buy some pap console with lowest common denomenator games, but I'm becoming less and less interested in shelling out big bucks for hardware that I can barely use because there are so few good games.

As far as Unreal Tournament goes, many people who tried UT 2004 uninstalled it and kept playing the original (UT '99). They said that the eye candy and the graphics were nice but that the game play paled in comparison. I wonder what UT 2007 will bring. The screenshots are pretty, but who knows what the game play will be like.

Perhaps less focus on eye candy and more focus on playability and quality would be welcome. The video card vendors wouldn't like that, though.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
u think SM4.0 will be out before any games even support SM3.0?

LOL

SM3 was pretty much out before many games supported SM2 soooo who knows

 

[apoppin]

3 YEARS after DX 10 is released, we will see the first PC games - built from the ground up with DX10 .. . .

and r600/g80 as the first GPUs to run them

no hurry or need to "prepare" now

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
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.

ROTFLMAO! Teh winnar!

 

[BenSkywalker]

Your impling that Xbox 2 is SM3 .

I'm not implying it- I'm saying it flat out.

We now for fact its SM3+ .

In some elements the NV2x exceeds what is possible under SM 3.0 too(along with every nV part since then). In any realistic term the R500 is a SM 3.0 part.

But were talking about Bill Gates . I am thinking Gates has a Xbox SM4 and the fact that ATI has already fielded a unified Tech with the R500 I am betting ATI already has SM4 a gift from uncle Bill.

Unified shaders are a hardware resource level issue- not a major DX one by any means. Moving to a unified shader programming interface makes things slightly easier to handle and that is all. The R500 is not a full DX10 based part, all indications point to it not being a 'full' DX9 level part either(not that anything out is).

I don't believe that R520 has SM4 .

We already know it isn't.

 

[Regs]

Last time I checked, most games include an option where you can select SM 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 and so forth. So If you are stuck choosing 1.1 or 2.0 all the time....then you are really out of date.

 

[Turtle 1]

Nvidia got Microsft to give them a Pass ON SM3 it did not pass the microsoft compliancy test . But microsoft certified it anyway. The same thing happened with nvidia and SM2.0b.
were nvidia has never gotten this right.

The fact that ATI R 500 is a fully unified GPU with 2 cores . indicates that it is much more than SM3. The fact that Xbox does not need the full WGF2.0 should come as no surprize as it operates in a consol enviroment so the full WGF2.0 is not present but what is there in the form of unified tech is infact WGF2.0.

Here is 1 source that backs what I said to be fact

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/5388/Xbox-2-Specs-Leaked-Update-

This article deals a bit with all things Shader model .

http://techreport.com/ja.zz?id=90367

As anyone can see the Xbox 360 has SM3+ . The+ means it has WGF2.0 but NOT the full instructions as its not required in a gaming consol

The Graphic Chip

The graphic chip will be based on the R520 (codenamed Fudo). This VPU has been in design at ATI?s Marlborough, Mass. office. It'll be fully compatible with DirectX 9's PS and VS 3.0 and the next version of DirectX: DX10, the same suite of APIs that will be used in Longhorn.
What nobody is telling you and you'll know about this first, here on TeamXbox, is the revolutionary approach of the Xbox 2 to deal with today's biggest problem in graphics chips: memory bandwidth.

The graphic chip will contain not only a graphics rendering core but up embedded DRAM acting as a frame buffer that is big enough to handle an image that is 480i and can be 4 times over sampled and double buffered. Yeah, we all remember Bitboys but this time you can bet this is for real. This solution will finally make possible HDTV visuals with full screen Anti-Aliasing on.

The technology also supports up to 512 MB of external memory on a 256-bit bus. However, current specs plan to use 256 MB RAM, big enough for next-generation visuals which are all about computational power rather than large storage.

We'll have more on the Xbox 2 specs soon. Stay tuned. We'll update throughout the day

Skywalker if you have LINKS that shows this to be false show them. As I for one would love to be enlightened

 

[Turtle 1]

Originally posted by: Pete

Originally posted by: dunno99
All the arguments aside, anyone know where this ethereal "Shader Model 4.0"'s specification/feature list is? What differences are we talking about here compared to Shader Model 3.0?

Check Beyond3D for an article titled "DirectX Next." It offers some clues. SM4 is also supposed to reduce the apparently large current penalty for small batches of triangles (I think this was referenced by the dev way back when as a reason for Halo's "low" performance).

Pete punch in Vista beta in google it will take you to articles that will ans. all your questions.

Pete this might help you

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1841223,00.asp

 

[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.

See my sig.

 

[Pete]

Thanks, Turtle. I believe I was referring to reduced state change penalty when I mentioned small batches of triangle. But I was trying to answer dunno's Q, not ask one of my own, and that's a good article for him to read.

 

[Marsumane]

Originally posted by: Regs
Last time I checked, most games include an option where you can select SM 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 and so forth. So If you are stuck choosing 1.1 or 2.0 all the time....then you are really out of date.

SM 3.0 wasnt available until like a little over a yr ago and that was just the most expensive Geforce cards. Based on that, you would have either had to fork out alot of money or have recently upgraded within the last yr to have an sm3.0 card. For example id call a 9800p a "somewhat" out of date card but still a good performer overall.

 

[Turtle 1]

Originally posted by: Marsumane

Originally posted by: Regs
Last time I checked, most games include an option where you can select SM 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 and so forth. So If you are stuck choosing 1.1 or 2.0 all the time....then you are really out of date.

SM 3.0 wasnt available until like a little over a yr ago and that was just the most expensive Geforce cards. Based on that, you would have either had to fork out alot of money or have recently upgraded within the last yr to have an sm3.0 card. For example id call a 9800p a "somewhat" out of date card but still a good performer overall.

Up above is a link that well tell you the differances between SM2 and SM3 . After reading that article go the link in that article titled SimHQ tested and you will see just how much ATI cards are outdated (not)

 

[johnnqq]

if we were all rich we wouldn't have stupid arguements like these...

 

[BenSkywalker]

Turtle- the articles you linked are grossly inaccurate. That article covers some of the basic features of Xenos- it certainly is not a R520 based part, nor is it a SM 4.0 part. There is tons of viable information available currently although your best course of action is to talk to developers that have their hands on final dev kit hardware.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: johnnqq
if we were all rich we wouldn't have stupid arguements like these...

Or if people weren't bitter...