NVIDIA haveing a hard time running in DX9

[DeadDOG]

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1863

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/halflife2/performancepreview/1.gif

As you can guess, the folks at Valve were quite shocked. With NVIDIA's fastest offering unable to outperform a Radeon 9600 Pro (the Pro suffix was omitted from Gabe's chart), something was wrong, given that in any other game, the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra would be much closer to the Radeon 9800 Pro in performance.

Working closely with NVIDIA (according to Gabe), Valve ended up developing a special codepath for NVIDIA's NV3x architecture that made some tradeoffs in order to improve performance on NVIDIA's FX cards. The tradeoffs, as explained by Gabe, were mainly in using 16-bit precision instead of 32-bit precision for certain floats and defaulting to Pixel Shader 1.4 (DX8.1) shaders instead of newer Pixel Shader 2.0 (DX9) shaders in certain cases. Valve refers to this new NV3x code path as a "mixed mode" of operation, as it is a mixture of full precision (32-bit) and partial precision (16-bit) floats as well as pixel shader 2.0 and 1.4 shader code. There's clearly a visual tradeoff made here, which we will get to shortly, but the tradeoff was necessary in order to improve performance.


http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/halflife2/performancepreview/2.gif

read it your self
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1863

[DeadDOG]

not tring to slam NVIDIA just letting people know what there paying for.
i would hate to buy a 300+ videocard and it not run fully in DX9.

[LA_MERC_Onji]

hm, seems to run just fine for me

[LA_MERC_MadMAX]

me too...

[Timbo]

Hey I have a Nvidia 5900 256 card... This card sucks. I have a ATI 9800.I love this card. I'm geting 160 too 256 fps in ut03.... :)

[LA_MERC_MadMAX]

Yeah, but you're overclocked to what...oh 75GHz and have, oh what by now, 9-10gigs of ram, with a freon powered deepfreeze cooling system?????








LOL, just j/k...

[Timbo]

OMG :D :D :D :D LA_MERC_MadMAX

[DeadDOG]

ok now you have to understand there are only a few game that use all of DX9 UT2003 is not one of them.
run this bechmark to test your DX9
http://www.egosoft.com
goto downlaods and get the
Rolling Demo of X²

it should be a ture test of your DX9 card.
just becouse you have downloaded DX9 don't mean your useing it.
2.0 shaders only a few games have them as of now but all the new game will.

and if you doing this LA_MERC_Onji
(seeing i know your not a noob at this stuff)
i would like to see some info on it i am realy intrested in peoples benches.
seeing i am in to computer building i do some testing my self and have not use Nvidia GF4 yet. becouse of all the problems i have read about. now

[LA_MERC_MadMAX]

I think I made timbo mess up his britches...lol.

[pattont]

yea.. nvidia also said wait for the 53 series drivers... these current (45.??) ones aren't fully functional with the dx9.. its trial and error when i jumped from the others to 45 my frame rates when up in 3dmark03.. i have a geforce fx 5900.. oh and thats not the ultra because i was 2 cheap 2 get that because i knew that when CZ or HL2 came out.. i was buying the nv40 or whatever is the uberest at the time... and selling the other...

[Zaknafein]

I think its time to note that nvidias FX cards are designed for DX8 and not DX9. Yes this is incredibly stupid but Nvidia has said time and time again that you won't get accurate benchmarks with an Nvidia base card in DX9 until the 50.X drivers come out. Its pointless to benchmark the cards now. And Timbo you're staring at a wall, friggin get real.

[LA_MERC_Dirge]

lmao :owned

[LA_MERC_Cowboy_From_Hell]

lol...I din't understand EVERYTHING in this thread but I know ownage when I see it....lmao

Scott

[Tracker]

You nub....

[LA_MERC_Sabre]

:ara: :mg

[LA_MERC_LaTech]

I'm geting 160 too 256 fps in ut03....

I've never understood this...what does it REALLY matter how many FPS you can get? I mean, the human eye can only register around 60 (please correct me if I am wrong) fps, so everything above that is overkill.

[}{y|3ri|)]

Originally posted by LA_MERC_LaTech
I've never understood this...what does it REALLY matter how many FPS you can get? I mean, the human eye can only register around 60 (please correct me if I am wrong) fps, so everything above that is overkill.


can i get some written documentation on that plz =-p




Zaknafein... lmao very nice point i was thinking same thing when i saw his screenshot LOL

[Zaknafein]

True the human eye can only see about 60 frames a sec. Thats why i tend to keep v-sync on. But the catch is that your eyes can note a change in frames over 60. So if you get use to 100 frames, and you change back to 60 you could tell a difference. Its like your refresh rate. I set mine around 60-75 but my roomates like theirs around 85-100. So everytime they watch me play something they talk about how they can "see" the refresh rate cause its so slow. But all they can see is a difference from what they are use too, not actual slower refresh.

[LA_MERC_Sabre]

soooo.....there is no spoon?

[LA_MERC_Diesel]

yeah good point Zak, you must remember that Timbo lives on the Planet Zircon, and he has never owned a computer part for longer than 3 months. As long as his FPS are higher than his deaths he is as happy as a lark.
:stick

[$pecto|2]

i did a google for "over 60 fps pointless" , almost every link was some moron spitting out what they thought and making it look professional../

Anyways, i think fps below 60 is obvisouly jerky, and if its over 60 you may not be able to 'tell' its skipping frames, but it defiantly can have a. lower quality b. blurry and c.not as 'smooth' as you used to. I got 3 year old g-card and average 99fps in cs 1.5, now i get 60 in 1.6, difference is very obvoius 2 me, and when fightin it goes to 50 :/ all well.

an example of situation is this, my friend has geforce4 with 20" lcd, and lcd can oonly go up to 75hz (i think) refresh rate, so ANy game he plays can only go to 75fps, I CAN tell difrenec on CS with only 75fps instead of 99, its BLURRY when i move really fast.. but he can play bf1942 which i cant. /so im not braggin, and he likes it and cant tell difference... so w/2 floats your boat... if u like ur 60 fps . or demand 300+ go for it.

[Timbo]

OMG LA_MERC_Diesel:...... :)

[Timbo]

ok look at this 1

[DeadDOG]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11492
here is some more on the hl2 FPS battle

[Corp]

what would be better for me ... ti 4200 128 , 5200 128 mb ultra or a 5600 256 mb ??

[pattont]

i would wait.. see what comes out around christmas, apparently nvidia is supposed 2 release some new cards and if they do maybe u could get a better card for cheap.. i would wait man...