Why go with SM3.0 today?

[imported_X]

Beyond3D has a nice comparison of SM3.0 with SM1.1 here. What I find interesting is that 3.0 is touted as being more efficient. However, if you enable all of its additional features, you end up being unable to render them at an acceptable frame rate with today's technology.

So why get SM3.0 today when cards aren't fast enough to take advantage of its features? Not to say there aren't other reasons to choose Nvidia over ATI (I've had both and have no particular brand loyalty). I just don't understand why people advocate SM3.0 as an advantage of the 68 series, given that that today's cards can't take advantage of it. Am I missing something?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

B3D posting something that is unflattering to nV?!? Say it isn't so! </sarcasm>

 

[McArra]

I play Farcry with everything max and HDR and Sprinter cell with SM3.0 and HDR. Both of them 1280x1024 8xAF and it is smooth if not using fraps @the same time... so it is fast.... or at least smooth.

 

[Munky]

While I agree that the usefulness of sm3 is questionable at the moment with current hardware, there will always be people (and you know who you are) that will keep touting sm3 as the next big thing, and nothing will convince them otherwise. Just ignore them.

 

[imported_X]

Also, what do you think about the visual quality of 1.1 vs. 3.0. I actually see no difference, or prefer the look of 1.1 when it comes to Shader Profile, HDR Rendering, Tone Mapping, and Parallax Mapping. The only feature I like better in 3.0 is High Quality Soft Shadows.

Maybe the examples in the Beyond3D article could be better, or maybe it would look better on my gaming system...but does anyone else feel the visual differences are less than impressive?

 

[McArra]

Ok, ignore me, but I can't ignore the quality I can experience in-game. If you don't want to see it don't... and of course it is the next big thing... people like you should return to DX5.... wouldn't you be happier with it?

 

[McArra]

Originally posted by: X
Also, what do you think about the visual quality of 1.1 vs. 3.0. I actually see no difference, or prefer the look of 1.1 when it comes to Shader Profile, HDR Rendering, Tone Mapping, and Parallax Mapping. The only feature I like better in 3.0 is High Quality Soft Shadows.

Maybe the examples in the Beyond3D article could be better, or maybe it would look better on my gaming system...but does anyone else feel the visual differences are less than impressive?

You have to see it moving, there's a nice difference, screenshots make it look worse than it really is.

 

[imported_X]

McArra, but I assume you aren't running FSAA, since as the article notes:

It is worth noting that on current hardware that supports such features, FSAA cannot be used at the same time as the HDR Rendering option.

 

[McArra]

Of course, I can't use it, but some jaggies are worth the enhanced quality overall

 

[Munky]

Hey if you already have an sm3 card and it plays fine, then good for you. I'm not saying sm3 is bad to have, but I would not pay $50-100 more for a video card just to have it.

As far as visual features go (like HDR and soft shadows), I've already mentioned it before that most if not all of them can be done using sm2 if the developer choses to do so. And having HDR at the expense of AA doesn't seem like a good trade off.

 

[McArra]

Well, that's money. You know... the way it is meant to be played etc. I don't think that's a good situation, but maybe sm2 can't do it fast enough, I don't know. But I really enjoy the experience, jaggies as I said before are worth for me

 

[Amplifier]

Oh boy, another SM3.0 thread.

 

[imported_humey]

munky, P.S 3.0 is the next big thing, this is april 2005, all new games will be using it soon, some are now and Nvidia will have 2nd gen cards using their 2nd gen P.S 3.0, whats up with that, you think cards makers and game makers are gonna go back the way or forward, adding more and more support to cards and games for new features.

Remember the tech is already 1 year old publically.

Them pictures on website do nothing for a game, ive ran FarCry 1.3 patch and Splinter Cell CT with both and i see improvents and i notice no FPS diff, but obv Fraps will but i cant with my eyes.

Fraps is known to add to making a game laggy anyhow.

Ive said it before that screen captures on a website look sh1t normally compared to being infront of you.

FarCry pics on box look crappy, games prob the best outdoor pictures ever seen on pc today, HL2 comes close but its more real indoors like the houses you are in with pealing paint on walls of corridors looking very real.

 

[Creig]

It should also be noted that SC:CT is the only title announced so far that won't support SM2.0 as well. This article only compared SM3.0 to SM1.1 whereas comparisons of SM3.0 to SM2.0 show only minor differences in image quality.

 

[Keysplayr]

SM3.0 will not matter until the very day ATI releases a card that is branded SM3.0 compliant.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
SM3.0 will not matter until the very day ATI releases a card that is branded SM3.0 compliant.

What does that have to do with anything? SM3.0 is an incremental step forward, not a giant leap. Yes, it will eventually be universally adopted and become the defacto standard, but it's not currently a "must have" feature.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
SM3.0 will not matter until the very day ATI releases a card that is branded SM3.0 compliant.

Not if it turns out the same way as the FX cards being DX9 compliant.

 

[XBoxLPU]

AOE 3


'Nuff Said

 

[lavaheadache]

blah, blah, blah SM 3.0 sucks.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: X
Beyond3D has a nice comparison of SM3.0 with SM1.1 here. What I find interesting is that 3.0 is touted as being more efficient. However, if you enable all of its additional features, you end up being unable to render them at an acceptable frame rate with today's technology.

So why get SM3.0 today when cards aren't fast enough to take advantage of its features? Not to say there aren't other reasons to choose Nvidia over ATI (I've had both and have no particular brand loyalty). I just don't understand why people advocate SM3.0 as an advantage of the 68 series, given that that today's cards can't take advantage of it. Am I missing something?

ok so its slower in use, but wait....your actually getting more features and better IQ in the process, you cant even ask SM1.1 to do the stuff SM3 does...it would be a slideshow

you must do a apples to apples comparison

you cant compare SM1.1 with SM3 + HDR + Softshadows + Parallax Mapping etc

if u look at splintercell benches, where they have turned off the SM3 specific enhancements like HDR, you see that SM3 is faster than SM1

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: X
Also, what do you think about the visual quality of 1.1 vs. 3.0. I actually see no difference, or prefer the look of 1.1 when it comes to Shader Profile, HDR Rendering, Tone Mapping, and Parallax Mapping. The only feature I like better in 3.0 is High Quality Soft Shadows.

Maybe the examples in the Beyond3D article could be better, or maybe it would look better on my gaming system...but does anyone else feel the visual differences are less than impressive?

in splinter cell i notice the SM1 path has banding issues with reflected light

 

[imported_X]

ok so its slower in use, but wait....your actually getting more features and better IQ in the process, you cant even ask SM1.1 to do the stuff SM3 does...it would be a slideshow

I'm taking for granted that the improvements are a lot more obvious with a moving game than can be seen in screenshots. But even given that, what good is it to have better IQ when the game can't be run at acceptable frame rates with today's cards? Maybe you can get by dropping to a lower resolution, foregoing FSAA, etc. but then you lose the IQ advantage that SM3.0 is supposed to provide.

I like the idea of SM3.0, but I don't see any reason to get it until I can actually run it without sacrificing other IQ features in the process.

 

[imported_humey]

Hmm, who cant play these new games with dx0c P.S 3.0 and HDR, at decent framerates ?

I for one can play them, yes it takes a FPS hit but nothing really my eyes will see unless its DOOM3 ROE at 1600x1200 and all maxed settings inc 5.1 sound and my torch (flashlight on) , when i run.

It then halfs FPS to around 29-31 FPS, i just o/c GPU to compensate.

Remember the cards tech is over 1 year old and the games are new. (Nvidia N40)

 

[fierydemise]

No company will release a game that only supports SM3 until ATI has released a card that supports SM3, all game companies are slaves to the mighty dollar they wouldn't cut their potential market in half. By the time that happens the current nVidia cards will be low end/budget cards, SM3 is the tech of tomorrow so why use it has a selling point today?

 

[Gstanfor]

:disgust:sigh:disgust:, the fanATIcs are at it again I see. Can't accept SM3.0 regardless of the fact R520 will be featuring it...

SM3.0 is mostly about efficiency, not visual difference.

As for the claims that SM3.0 is currently slow and SM2.x can keep up, try downloading the demo in this thread and see how well Sm2 keeps up.

McArra, the fanATIcs don't need to return to DX5, they need to return to glide, after all given their "speed is everything" mentality they were surely 3dfx fans back in the day, and ATi reminds me strongly of 3dfx.