Why go with SM3.0 today?

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: 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.

Cute, but that is just like saying "Not if the groundhog sees his shadow.".

I guess nobody got the sarcasm eh? Oh well...

 

[Pete]

X, your title and thread are both not representative of B3D's article. (Nice to your knee-jerk perception of B3D's bias, too, DP. It's Dave that's supposed to be biased, and Nick wrote this article. )

Onto the article and SM3. Firstly, this article isn't about SM3, but about SC:CT's use of SM3 (and above) hardware features. Secondly, both this article and FiringSquad's SC:CT article show that SC:CT actually runs faster in SM3 mode. It's not merely "touted" as such, it is faster.

I'm not sure why you'd think "additional [IQ] features" wouldn't run slower. (This isn't exclusive to SM3 or the GF6 or HDR: new hardware exposes new functionality, and new games take advantage of that with nicer effects. This new functionality also requires more transistors, though, and IHVs also have to wait for manufacturing processes to allow for higher performance at an acceptable price.) HDR as implemented in SC:CT uses FP blending and filtering, both of which are (ATM) exclusive to nV's GF6 *and* above and beyond the SM3 spec. ("HDR" can also be implemented with SM2 cards, as the RTHDRIBL demo shows--and I'm guessing HL2's high-performance update will also show--but it has problems with alpha textures that apparently only FP blending sidesteps with acceptable performance.) FP blending/filtering takes a big performance hit with nV's cards because you basically lose half the "fillrate" using it, but it only knocks you down about 18% in SC:CT, according to B3D's numbers. 58fps at 10x7 seems mightly playable to me. Enable all the bells and whistles, and you're still getting 48fps at 10x7. This isn't "fast enough to take advantage of," especially in a game that just happens not to be a MP FPS (read: twitch-fest)?

BTW, you prefer SM1.1 to SM3?

In the above screenshots, you can see the rendering problem that we experienced with the ATI RADEON X850 XT-PE in Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. This problem affected every level of the game and seems to be tied in with Specular Lighting. When Specular Lighting is disabled, the problem goes away. The problem is quite noticeable as you play through the game and can almost be distracting as you are moving through the game. It is as if the pattern stays static while the rest of the game moves around it. - HOCP

Sorry for the excess attitude, X, but this ground has been covered before, and I think you've been a member long enough to have read one or five of these "SM3 vs. XYZ" threads.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: 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.

Are you listening to these people? I think you should read all the posts again thoroughly.

 

[fstime]

SM2 is just as good as SM3 from what I hear..

A game comes out that only supports 1.1 and 3.0 and all of a sudden people are comaring SM1 to SM3.

 

[DaveBaumann]

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.

Clearly it is more efficient than the PS1.1 path by virtue of fewer render passes (hence reducing the number of poly's required by 3/5).

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

Obviously you read the article and got what the point was. :roll:

Originally posted by: Pete
X, your title and thread are both not representative of B3D's article. (Nice to your knee-jerk perception of B3D's bias, too, DP. It's Dave that's supposed to be biased, and Nick wrote this article. )

That'll learn 'em Pete, thanks! :frown:

 

[imported_X]

Pete, no need for taking an adversarial tone. As I said in my original post, I am an equal fan of Nvidia and ATI. I am simply asking an honest question about the value of SM3.0, given today's hardware.

You basically repeated what I have already said. You acknowledge that there is a performance hit when the features of SM3.0 are enabled, even given the greater efficiency of SM3.0. It is the use of these additional features that I am questioning.

How many people play at 10x7? For those that do, it is an obvious sacrifice in one area (resolution) for a different area (HDR, etc.). Why not wait until cards are fast enough to allow you to enjoy the benefits of SM3.0 without having to make those sacrifices?

As a side note, I like the SM3.0 example better than the SM1.1 example that you provided. However, the HOCP article seemed to be blaming it on the implementation of Specular Lighting with the X850, not the lack of SM3.0 per se. I also like the SM3.0 soft shadows example in the original article that I referenced. I am willing to take the word of those with SM3.0 that the features look even better when in motion. So I'm not questioning the quality of SM3.0. I'm just asking if we are ready for it yet.

 

[DaveBaumann]

Originally posted by: X
You basically repeated what I have already said. You acknowledge that there is a performance hit when the features of SM3.0 are enabled, even given the greater efficiency of SM3.0. It is the use of these additional features that I am questioning.

the features themselves are not necessarily SM3.0 specific per se, but they have been wrapped into the SM3.0 capabilities of the title - the implementation of HDR in this particular title is not anything to do with SM3.0, for instance, but just happens that only SM3.0 capable chips support it. Some of the other features could be achieved via SM2.0/x but they are using SM3.0 for ease of implementation.

However, in this instance the performance impacts are relatively small in comparison to other implementations - Far Cry, for instance, over halved the performance for HDR alone, and yet here we see HDR, in addition to the other effects creating a hit of about 2/5'ths.

 

[imported_X]

But even in this case, where the hit is less than in a game like Far Cry, the 36% performance cost can take a game from being playable at high resolutions (39-53 fps) to being unplayable (25-33 fps). And that is with the inherent sacrifice of going without FSAA. Why not wait until you can go with full feature SM3.0, along with FSAA, and not notice the difference in gameplay performance?

It's a judgment call of course, and there is no right answer. But personally, I don't see SM3.0 as being a real advantage until hardware is fast enough to implement the various features that are associated with it.

 

[lopri]

Based on these I'd go with SM3.0.

Screenshots

Benchmark

lop

 

[mooncancook]

I think if your card has SM3 and it runs well and you can see visual difference then that's power to you. Right now I'm very satisfied with my X800XL for under $300. Be happy with your card and that's all that matters. I don't feel bad for not having SM3, and I wouldn't feel superior for having SM3 either. Stop these nonsense SM1 vs SM2 vs SM3 threads. I know my next card with have SM4 and DX10 so envy me.

 

[imported_humey]

Cool, you will be only peep on planted with a DX10 card, i will have DX NEXT avalon complient card

Hint, there is said to be no DX10 by MS Longhorn changes that.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: 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.

It should also be noted that a few months before now there were NO games announced that were SM3 only, and we don't know what months to come hold.

All we know for sure is that if you save that $50-$100 you won't to see the soft shadows in Riddick*, the HDR in Far Cry*, the SM3 in Splinter Cell and maybe others this year.

Take a look at the nVidia testimonial page and the long, long list of TWIMTBP developers talking about how the nV40 gives them the tools they need to bring their ideas to life. If you want to bet they'll all retro-code for ATIs 2003 feature set, enjoy.

The rest of us know there have been three games so far, and will likely be more, where SM3/and the nV40 feature set make it the card to have.

*not SM3, but currently nV4X specific

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: 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?

Errr, you do realize that Splinter Cell Chaos Theory is either SM1.1 or SM3/

 

[hans030390]

HDR...it is NOT natural...any game with an HDR option means it is NOT running as designed...Splinter cell may look much prettier with HDR, but prettier does not mean that it is exactly how the game is meant to look. Kinda hard to explain, but HDR should not be brought into a SM3.0 discussion yet because it isn't used heavily in games (and is only used for bloom...which doesnt look right.) now, HDR might go alot further than bloom in the near future (or with a small amount of games now) but all it really does is kill your performance with pretty lighting (mostly not more realistic lighting from what today's games offer).

Also, if you turn of HDR, SM3.0 looks ALOT better (did you notice the Displacement mapping/parallax mapping? yes, it physically alters the geometry of an objext, rather than faking it like bump mapping), BUT Sm3.0 still runs a good bit better than 1.1 as long as HDR isn't enabled...

IF HDR could run on sm1.1, how well do you think it would run as opposed to SM3.0?

Another thing, SM3.0 offers way more than just a tiny advance (like 1.4 to 2.0)
If you haven't read up on Sm3.0, do so now...you might find that there is more to it than you though.

mooncancook: Don't even mention SM4...that won't be out for a while

I'll admit, SM3.0 is pointless as of right now. BUT, when next gen games come out, if you have a sm2.0 card and do NOT plan on upgrading...you just might have to.
You also have to understand that my opinions all come from the fact that i upgrade once every 4 years, meaning i needed sm3.0 to be partially secure for next gen games...

Ok...even I am tired of SM3.0 threads...I'll still be there to bug everyone with my sm3 talk though

anybody else want pizza?

 

[imported_Noob]

A little of topic here. But is it teh tone mapping in SM 3.0 that made the light son the surfaces seem brighter, and not just SM 3.0 itself? And are the only features you can toggle on and off with SM 3.0 is HDR and HQ Soft Shadows?

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: 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?

Errr, you do realize that Splinter Cell Chaos Theory is either SM1.1 or SM3/

I do but my point was companies will still offer a way to play the game without SM3 until a big percentage of the market have SM3 video cards, Splinter Cell had SM1.1 for those who didn't have SM3.

 

[imported_Noob]

A little of topic here. But is it the tone mapping in SM 3.0 that made the lights on the surfaces seem brighter, and not just SM 3.0 itself? And are the only features you can toggle on and off with SM 3.0 is HDR and HQ Soft Shadows?

 

[housecat]

Was that guy leaving B3D a hoax or not?
He accused the head of B3D of being ATI's b**** IIRC.

Maybe this is just more proof of that.

 

[DaveBaumann]

Originally posted by: housecat
Was that guy leaving B3D a hoax or not?
He accused the head of B3D of being ATI's b**** IIRC.

Then your recollection is not correct.

Maybe this is just more proof of that.

I fail to see the connection between this and an article looking at SC3's options for benchmarking.

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: DaveBaumann

Originally posted by: housecat
Was that guy leaving B3D a hoax or not?
He accused the head of B3D of being ATI's b**** IIRC.

Then your recollection is not correct.

Maybe this is just more proof of that.

I fail to see the connection between this and an article looking at SC3's options for benchmarking.

Hey! You are the one thats biased!


If I'm wrong (I did say IIRC), then why not enlighten me and the others??

You might fail to see the connection, but its possible. Alot of you guys are so sly in slipping bias into this crap.. from Driverheaven (not so sly) to OCP to B2D.. I dont give a crap who you are, everyone has bias its human nature.
But I trust Anand the most to strive for an unbiased outlook.

Thats why I reside here, at Anandtech the most proven and best site of them all. This place is the King.

 

[DaveBaumann]

Originally posted by: housecat
If I'm wrong (I did say IIRC), then why not enlighten me and the others??

Because it has absolutely no bearing on or relevance to this thread.

You might fail to see the connection, but its possible.

What is possible? What does this have to with our quick guide to Splinter Cell?s rendering options and an explanation / tool for benchmarking with it?

But I trust Anand the most to strive for an unbiased outlook.

Have you read any of our articles? Even the one reference in this thread?

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: DaveBaumann

Originally posted by: housecat
If I'm wrong (I did say IIRC), then why not enlighten me and the others??

Because it has absolutely no bearing on or relevance to this thread.

So you'd rather have rumors and false information flying around about you.. great. :disgust:

That garners alot of respect. I'm just going off what your underling said. As far as I can tell what he said was the truth.
Wouldnt be the first time a thread went offtopic on a tangent on the internet. Just thought it might be important to spread the truth about the allegations made by one of your longtime underlings.. when I'm not the only one wondering about this in your thread.
Others have posted their doubts in this very thread on B2D/ATI bias..

but whatever, the (possibly) false information and lies CAN live on if you wish. /shrug

 

[DaveBaumann]

So you'd rather have rumors and false information flying around about you.. great.

No, its just not important to go over it. Don't judge things on other people perceptions, vague recollections or second hand information, judge on the content of the article(s) as the content is what important. So far I've yet to see what this has to do with the content being discussed in this thread.

 

[Keysplayr]

Bottom line is, it's better to have something than not having something (For all you wise arse's out there, I'm talking about SM3.0 full compliance and not herpes. ) and wishing you did when the situation arises.

If you think you (whomever you are) can deal with a card that does not support the latest technologies, then go for it. And don't get frustrated as time goes by when more and more titles emerge and there is another thing your card can't do. And then another, and another. Even if you (whomever you are) don't think that this will happen, why force yourself to buy a lesser card? It makes absolutely no sense to buy a card (X800/50 whatever) and expect it to be able to do everything a card with more features can do (video processor aside) forever. Riddick, Splinter Cell 3, FarCry HDR is just the tip of the iceburg. I can't prove to you that I'm right, but you can't prove I'm wrong either. But I would rather be prepared than not. And I am. 6800GTOC. My ASUS X800XTPE sits on the shelf, I sh!t you not. I tried selling it at a reasonable price in FS/FT, but nobody wants it.

To the OP. Your original question, "Why go with SM3.0 today?" is easy to answer. Had you phrased it this way, "Why not go with SM3.0 today?", nobody can give a valid reason. And the answer of, "Because you don't need SM3.0", is not valid so pay no heed. Not everybody "needs" a kickass video card let alone "needs" to play games on a computer.
But we want these things don't we.... ALL of Nv's 6 series cards are SM3.0 compliant. No matter which one you choose. from the lowly 6200TC to SLI'd 6800Ultra Extreme's. Pick and choose your price range, there's plenty to choose from.

The answer to your original question is another question. "Why not?".

 

[housecat]

Fair enough, but I read pages and pages over on your forums on this. I'd suggest you take a read here as to why you might want to clean your forums and site out. link
I'm not the only one.

Just a suggestion. But I happen to agree with the Rev on Nvidia. I dont even think its really debatable, its that clean cut.
Sad he got his butt chewed off for stating his opinion over there.

Anyway, wrong time wrong place.. I just wanted more info on it.. but if you do not want to share I can live with that.
Heres to hoping you make B3D a haven for ATI fanbois no longer :beer:
We have both here, and we coexist in relative harmony.

I even grew to like Ackmed. Now THATS harmony.