Originally posted by: AIWGuru
Originally posted by: UlricT
AIWGuru... 1.x shaders are from DirectX 8!
I think the argument here is DX9b vs. DX9c!!!
Yes, but what we're talking about is PS 3.0 being able to do the same ammount of work in 1/10th the ammount of time as PS 2.0.
Saying PS 2.0 = PS 3.0 just because it's capable of producing the same visuals EVENTUALLY (with much more work) is stupid.
It can't be PRACTICALLY done because it's MUCH MUCH slower.
AIWGuru, one of the few guys who actualy understands what's going on.
I am soooooooooo tired of reading this totally un-substanciated PS3.0 bashing of some people - its VERY EASY:
PS3.0 is an EXTENSION and IMPROVEMENT over the older code
It offers more powerful commands, dynamic branching, registers, instancing
PS2.0 would need much more code, some code may even be impossible to realize on PS2.0 hardware. (Branching)
PS3.0 is good - as is ANY step toward the future because develoeprs who jump on it and code for it also PUSH so we end up having MROE adavnced game engines.
Less and more effective code/comands ----> LOGICALLY means better performance
Easier to code and less performance impact COULD mean better visuals because the effort in PS2.0 might be too big.
This whole discussion gets bizarre.
We could also sit here and start debating whether SIMD, 3DNOW, MMX etc. are a 'waste' and how 'it is possible to do the same' with normal CPU instructions....etc...etc....
I like ATI, like i saif a few times already, i own a 9800Pro and had a 8500 before. GREAT cards. But i dont make the mistake and pos unsubstanciated negative coments about something which is good....EXCEPT (like HB does or some other people) PROOF me that NV's implementation is 'slow', buggy etc. like they say. Uh !!!! Its amazing how brand-loyality or wishful thinking can distort a healthy view on reality