Take DX9 labeling off of fx chips?

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: sodcha0s
Jeff is obviously a salesman, and most likely a republican.... LOL

:beer:

 

[Jeff7181]

Well if you wanna be picky about the requirements to be able to put "DX9 Compatible" on the box... the 9700 Pro shouldn't be considered DX9 Compatible because there's some DX9 features that it doesn't support. That's a more valid argument than "it's slow."

 

[solofly]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The only thing Gabe Newell has had enough of is the cheeseburgers that 8 million dollar check ATI wrote out to him bought.

lol!

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Genx87
John Carmack appears to be doing it just fine and getting good results from te NV3.x cards. So what is wrong with Valve? I cant honestly believe after all this rucus they really tried to get Nvidia cards up and running to their potential.

Carmack does fine because he too writes specific codepath for NV-hardware! For some reason NV cards runs the standard codepath like crap! He needs to specially tweak the codepath to NV in order to get acceptable framerate.

Hell, every sinlge DX9-banchmark has shown that NV sucks! 3DMark03 showed that NV sucks, TRAOD showed that NV sucks, HL2 showed that NV sucks, Halo showed that NV sucks! WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: spam
Do you think Nvida would regain some customer trust if it corrected the labelling of 5200 and 5600 as DX9 compatible? It should be changed to DX8.

Do you think ATI would gain customer trust if they put a sticker on their products saying "not guaranteed to run your software correctly due to our crappy drivers!"?

How does feel to live in the year 2000?

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: DefRef
Serious point: In all the hoohaw about full-precision DX9 calculations, why is everyone ignoring the fact that ATI is calculating 24-bits while Nvidia uses 32-bits? Isn't the higher bit count responsible for slower performance on it's own and couldn't it be said that ATI is sacrificing precision for speed? (Not that the drooling Fanboys who pop a chubbie at the sound of the number "9800" would admit it.) If ATI converted all textures to 16-bit and ran faster, the Fanboys would hoot and holler and proclaim that this was proof that Nvidia hardware was inferior, right?

To my knowledge: FP24 is perfectly within DX9-spec, so is FP32. FP16 is NOT.

Ati uses FP24 which is perfectly OK for DX9. If NV uses FP16 it is NOT OK for DX9

 

[sodcha0s]

Well if you wanna be picky about the requirements to be able to put "DX9 Compatible" on the box... the 9700 Pro shouldn't be considered DX9 Compatible because there's some DX9 features that it doesn't support. That's a more valid argument than "it's slow."

Hey Jeff, just havin a little fun there.... I see your point, but I also see the other side of the argument. It's like saying the FX5600 is DX9 compatible is only "half" true. A totally true statement would be... "The FX5600 is DX9 ready, but don't get the idea that you'll actually be able to play a DX9 game on it with any of the benifits of DX9, because our drivers by-pass most of those features anyway."

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
its still DX9 compliant, its slow, but its still DX9

True.

 

[McArra]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Well if you wanna be picky about the requirements to be able to put "DX9 Compatible" on the box... the 9700 Pro shouldn't be considered DX9 Compatible because there's some DX9 features that it doesn't support. That's a more valid argument than "it's slow."

What is missing 9700pro not to be DX9?

 

[spam]

Hi Jeff7181,

One more time we are not disputing your point that technically you are correct. But practically, 5600 or 5200 are not DX9. Do you agree so far? Yes or no?

Its analogous to calling a Moped a motorcycle it's got a motor but really its a bicycle with an engine strapped to it. FX 5600 and 5200 are DX8 parts with some Dx9 functionality jury-rigged to them. You could put on your riding leathers, you could go to a Harley Davidson weekend gathering on your Moped and you could say, ?Hey look it my motorcycle!?

You could do that- but would you???????????????

Calling these FX cards DX9 is just as laughable.

 

[spam]

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: spam
Hi Jeff7181,

One more time we are not disputing your point that technically you are correct. But practically, 5600 or 5200 are not DX9. Do you agree so far? Yes or no?

Its analogous to calling a Moped a motorcycle it's got a motor but really its a bicycle with an engine strapped to it. FX 5600 and 5200 are DX8 parts with some Dx9 functionality jury-rigged to them. You could put on your riding leathers, you could go to a Harley Davidson weekend gathering on your Moped and you could say, ?Hey look it my motorcycle!?

You could do that- but would you???????????????

Calling these FX cards DX9 is just as laughable.

What type of license plate do you get for a moped? Same type for a "real motorcycle" huh?

I know exactly what you're saying... that the 5200 and 5600 are so slow, there's no point in them even having DX9 instructions included. But regardless of their performance THEY ARE DX9 COMPATIBLE. So there's no need to change the labeling.
Should Toyota not call their "sporty" cars sports cars just because they only have half an engine and don't handle half as well as a Corvette?
Should Honda's Ultra Low Emission cars not be called low emission because there's vehicles out there that create less emissions?
Should the Duramax Diesel engine not be called Duramax because it's not as durable as a Cummins?

 

[Confused]

Dasm people, let me spell this out for you nice and slowly.


All
nVidia
FX
cards
are
DX9
compatible.


The
speed
they
run
at
is
irrelevent.


The
fact
that
they

DO

run
DX9
code
is

ALL

that
matters
to
be
able
to
say
it's
DX9
compatible.



Again, to summarize if you're too lazy to read that:

It runs DX9 stuff, therefore it can be labelled as DX9.


Confused

 

[BoomAM]

Just to further throw something into the mix;
If i remember correctly, the nV3x`s couldnt do Displacement Mapping in Hardware. Which is needed in the basic DX9 spec, and the R3x0 does.
Now...Discuss!!!

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: McArra

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Well if you wanna be picky about the requirements to be able to put "DX9 Compatible" on the box... the 9700 Pro shouldn't be considered DX9 Compatible because there's some DX9 features that it doesn't support. That's a more valid argument than "it's slow."

What is missing 9700pro not to be DX9?

So...whats missing. AFIAK the 9700pros support all the basic DX9 spec, to be called a DX9 accellerator, and most of the other DX9 stuff as well, if not all of it.

 

[BenSkywalker]

So...whats missing.

PS/VS 3.0. None of the boards are really that close to full DX9 specs.

 

[McArra]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

So...whats missing.

PS/VS 3.0. None of the boards are really that close to full DX9 specs.

You're wrong. That's more than DX9 specs!! Why should they have 3.0 when 2.0 is all they need?

 

[Crapgame]

The only thing Gabe Newell has had enough of is the cheeseburgers that 8 million dollar check ATI wrote out to him bought.

You can tall Gabe loves ATI, even his body uses "Tru-Form", it's all round and puffy.

 

[BenSkywalker]

You're wrong.

If I was wrong then you would be correct.... but I'm not wrong

 

[McArra]

DX9 requires 2.0 shaders, not 3.0

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

So...whats missing.

PS/VS 3.0. None of the boards are really that close to full DX9 specs.

DX9 only needs PS/VS 2.0
The 3.0 spec is for DX9.1 or DX10, whichever MS decides is best(prob DX10 though).