Pixelshader 3.0 FarCry NV40

Danhill · Apr 16, 2004, 04:41 AM

Some images with/without pixelshader 3.0 but I wonder if the pictures witout p.s 3.0 is really 2.0, I don't think so it looks like it's 1.1 or 1.4.

http://www.pcper.com/image.php?aid=&...fore_stair.jpg Without 3.0

http://www.pcper.com/image.php?aid=&...fter_stair.jpg With 3.0

http://www.pcper.com/image.php?aid=&...before_bud.jpg Without 3.0

http://www.pcper.com/image.php?aid=&..._after_bud.jpg With 3.0

Deathryuu3 · Apr 16, 2004, 06:06 AM

the "before" pictures HAD to be taken using a version of PS earlier than 2.0 because my 9800 pro uses PS 2.0 and the water looks 100000x better than the water in that "before" pic.

also...the water in that 3.0 pic looks identical to the ps 2.0 water...perhaps its just the position the player was in when the pic was taken but it doesnt look any better from here

Danhill · Apr 16, 2004, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deathryuu3
the "before" pictures HAD to be taken using a version of PS earlier than 2.0 because my 9800 pro uses PS 2.0 and the water looks 100000x better than the water in that "before" pic.

also...the water in that 3.0 pic looks identical to the ps 2.0 water...perhaps its just the position the player was in when the pic was taken but it doesnt look any better from here

Exactly what I tought also, but perharps it's not so easy to say by only looking at pictures.

germanjulian · Apr 16, 2004, 06:48 AM

ahhhhh wait wasnt this game written for pixel shader 2.... cause 3 wasnt even offical etc cause the engine was developed ages ago... v3 pixel shader is not supported in this game? right?

Danhill · Apr 16, 2004, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by germanjulian
ahhhhh wait wasnt this game written for pixel shader 2.... cause 3 wasnt even offical etc cause the engine was developed ages ago... v3 pixel shader is not supported in this game? right?

I think it is, the latest patch (1,1) adds support for ps 3.0 but it needs DX9.0c to run correctly.

Dom · Apr 16, 2004, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deathryuu3
the "before" pictures HAD to be taken using a version of PS earlier than 2.0 because my 9800 pro uses PS 2.0 and the water looks 100000x better than the water in that "before" pic.

also...the water in that 3.0 pic looks identical to the ps 2.0 water...perhaps its just the position the player was in when the pic was taken but it doesnt look any better from here

Yeah.

Danhill · Apr 16, 2004, 08:48 AM

Well I think it's wrong to compare ps 1.1 or 1.4 to 3.0 it should be 2.0 vs 3.0.

Dom · Apr 16, 2004, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Danhill
Well I think it's wrong to compare ps 1.1 or 1.4 to 3.0 it should be 2.0 vs 3.0.

Well, yes, it is unfair.

germanjulian · Apr 16, 2004, 08:57 AM

i c.... still looking at the pics there are diffinatly NOT camparing v2 vs v3... I mean who are they trying to bullshit here? us ? not gonna work

Bart1987 · Apr 16, 2004, 04:53 PM

that's nvidia's ps2.0 on their nv3x cards. That's how much IQ they sacrifised to get more performance

sc3252 · Apr 28, 2004, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bart1987
that's nvidia's ps2.0 on their nv3x cards. That's how much IQ they sacrifised to get more performance

That makes sense now, I kept going on farcry on my ati 9800 comparing and the whole time I needed a 5900 ultra for a fair comparison.

Nacht · Apr 28, 2004, 10:28 PM

no its not ps2.0 on the nv3x cards...because i have one and the water DOES NOT look like that

sc3252 · Apr 28, 2004, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rob13800
no its not ps2.0 on the nv3x cards...because i have one and the water DOES NOT look like that

I dont even think its using ps shaders, it looks like dierct x 7 graphics.

Nacht · Apr 28, 2004, 11:58 PM

thats true...it looks like morrowind water when you have the ps option disabled on the setup splash screen

Rayder · Apr 29, 2004, 06:43 AM

It's also quite obvious to me that they used lower res textures as well as the lighting. Who's kidding whom?

RebelWolf · May 1, 2004, 02:41 PM

I've been sort of following this debate on those pics, and through all the forums and interviews I've read, this is kind of how it look's to me...

First, is that yes, one of those pics is shader 2.0/3.0 (there is no difference look's wise in what they were demoing between those two shader revisions) and the other is a 1.x shader.

Secondly, it was not a shot from the actual game, since the only 2.0/3.0 shading in that game is lighting effects, all the normal water and everything else is done in 1.X shaders anyhow. Those pics were done simply for demonstration purposes, and without proper explanation of what people were being shown.

While those pics are good examples of the notable differences between DX 7 capable hardware and DX 9 capable... other than that, they serve no purpose. Anything Geforce 3 or beyond (except as always the GF4MX series) would render a better version in the game than the "before" pics they showed, even if it couldn't render the 2.0 shader lighting effect in the game.

The point of the pics "should" have been, that the new 6800 can render 2.0/3.0 at playable speeds, where older cards might be forced to 1.X version shaders to get playable speeds, which CAN look worse (the pics did show how bad that difference "could" be, though it isn't like that in that game). As usual, marketing FUD stepped in, and any valid points that could have been made with those pics lost all meaning at that point.

RebelWolf

Apr 16, 2004, 04:41 AM	#1
Danhill DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sweden Posts: 4,116 Rep Power: 0	Pixelshader 3.0 FarCry NV40 Some images with/without pixelshader 3.0 but I wonder if the pictures witout p.s 3.0 is really 2.0, I don't think so it looks like it's 1.1 or 1.4. http://www.pcper.com/image.php?aid=&...fore_stair.jpg Without 3.0 http://www.pcper.com/image.php?aid=&...fter_stair.jpg With 3.0 http://www.pcper.com/image.php?aid=&...before_bud.jpg Without 3.0 http://www.pcper.com/image.php?aid=&..._after_bud.jpg With 3.0 __________________ MOBO: [color=white]ASUS A8N-SLI Premium[/color] CPU: AMD 64 3200+ (Venice) @ 2,50 Ghz MEM: 2 x 512 DDR 466, VGA: 2 x 6600 GT in SLI, HDD1: WD Raptor HDD2: Maxtor Diamond Plus 9, Case: Antec Plus View 1080, PSU: ThermalTake PurePower 500W, MX 1000, Dell 2001 FP, Aud. 2 SZ

Apr 16, 2004, 06:06 AM	#2
Deathryuu3 DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 84 Rep Power: 0	the "before" pictures HAD to be taken using a version of PS earlier than 2.0 because my 9800 pro uses PS 2.0 and the water looks 100000x better than the water in that "before" pic. also...the water in that 3.0 pic looks identical to the ps 2.0 water...perhaps its just the position the player was in when the pic was taken but it doesnt look any better from here __________________ System Specs: Here Playlist: Here

Apr 16, 2004, 06:48 AM	#4
germanjulian Back in London Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: London Posts: 1,794 Rep Power: 0	ahhhhh wait wasnt this game written for pixel shader 2.... cause 3 wasnt even offical etc cause the engine was developed ages ago... v3 pixel shader is not supported in this game? right? __________________ /\|\ Asus P5W DH Deluxe, Intel C2D E6600, 2GB Corsair XMS2-6400C4 DDR2, E-VGA GeForce 7800 GT, Creative X-Fi Extreme Music, 500GB Seagate 7200.10 SATA, Lian Li PC-V1100 Aluminum Case Black, etc. http://germanjulian.com /\|\

Apr 16, 2004, 08:48 AM	#7
Danhill DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sweden Posts: 4,116 Rep Power: 0	Well I think it's wrong to compare ps 1.1 or 1.4 to 3.0 it should be 2.0 vs 3.0. __________________ MOBO: [color=white]ASUS A8N-SLI Premium[/color] CPU: AMD 64 3200+ (Venice) @ 2,50 Ghz MEM: 2 x 512 DDR 466, VGA: 2 x 6600 GT in SLI, HDD1: WD Raptor HDD2: Maxtor Diamond Plus 9, Case: Antec Plus View 1080, PSU: ThermalTake PurePower 500W, MX 1000, Dell 2001 FP, Aud. 2 SZ

Apr 16, 2004, 08:57 AM	#9
germanjulian Back in London Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: London Posts: 1,794 Rep Power: 0	i c.... still looking at the pics there are diffinatly NOT camparing v2 vs v3... I mean who are they trying to bullshit here? us ? not gonna work __________________ /\|\ Asus P5W DH Deluxe, Intel C2D E6600, 2GB Corsair XMS2-6400C4 DDR2, E-VGA GeForce 7800 GT, Creative X-Fi Extreme Music, 500GB Seagate 7200.10 SATA, Lian Li PC-V1100 Aluminum Case Black, etc. http://germanjulian.com /\|\

Apr 16, 2004, 04:53 PM	#10
Bart1987 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 634 Rep Power: 0	that's nvidia's ps2.0 on their nv3x cards. That's how much IQ they sacrifised to get more performance

Apr 28, 2004, 10:28 PM	#12
Nacht ein Krieger Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Clemson Uni Posts: 3,127 Rep Power: 0	no its not ps2.0 on the nv3x cards...because i have one and the water DOES NOT look like that

Apr 28, 2004, 11:58 PM	#14
Nacht ein Krieger Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Clemson Uni Posts: 3,127 Rep Power: 0	thats true...it looks like morrowind water when you have the ps option disabled on the setup splash screen

Apr 29, 2004, 06:43 AM	#15
Rayder Mostly lurking lately.... Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 2,037 Rep Power: 51	It's also quite obvious to me that they used lower res textures as well as the lighting. Who's kidding whom? __________________

May 1, 2004, 02:41 PM	#16
RebelWolf DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 55 Rep Power: 0	I've been sort of following this debate on those pics, and through all the forums and interviews I've read, this is kind of how it look's to me... First, is that yes, one of those pics is shader 2.0/3.0 (there is no difference look's wise in what they were demoing between those two shader revisions) and the other is a 1.x shader. Secondly, it was not a shot from the actual game, since the only 2.0/3.0 shading in that game is lighting effects, all the normal water and everything else is done in 1.X shaders anyhow. Those pics were done simply for demonstration purposes, and without proper explanation of what people were being shown. While those pics are good examples of the notable differences between DX 7 capable hardware and DX 9 capable... other than that, they serve no purpose. Anything Geforce 3 or beyond (except as always the GF4MX series) would render a better version in the game than the "before" pics they showed, even if it couldn't render the 2.0 shader lighting effect in the game. The point of the pics "should" have been, that the new 6800 can render 2.0/3.0 at playable speeds, where older cards might be forced to 1.X version shaders to get playable speeds, which CAN look worse (the pics did show how bad that difference "could" be, though it isn't like that in that game). As usual, marketing FUD stepped in, and any valid points that could have been made with those pics lost all meaning at that point. RebelWolf