about pixel shader 3.0

Status
Not open for further replies.
beedubaya said:
See...what did I tell y'all.

Just be quiet dale5605. People can like the games they choose. Not everybody buys a high end card to get 2000 fps in America's Army.

that's right... your eye doesn't even notice frame rates higher than 60, and even if you get more, your monitor is likely that the HZ are limited to like 60-75... 85HZ are only on 1024x768 or less on most CRT's, including the "nice viewsonic" ones...

so GO NVIDIA!!!!:D

EDIT: if you an afford the x800's, you an afford a vid game, you won't be playing Ameraca's Army! :p
 
The funny thing is Pixel Shader 3.0 is no better then 2.0, just a bit faster. Better comands is all it is.

-Ryan
 
MrBebop26 said:
The funny thing is Pixel Shader 3.0 is no better then 2.0, just a bit faster. Better comands is all it is.

-Ryan

That is not necissarily true. In the case of Far Cry, it was used just for mere performance increases. But current and future games are using it for image quality increases as well. You can't have parallax mapping or HDR lighting with SM2.0. Plus, developer's aren't coding in 2.0 anymore. They are including 1.1/1.4 and 3.0 paths, and like I said, the difference is astronomical between 1.1 and 3.0.
 
Yes 1.1 and 3.0 it is, but between 2.0 and 3.0 all it is is better commands for faster execution, there is no other advancement. I got this from E3, the guy talking about making UT2k7.

-Ryan
 
AAO will be the first game to be ported on to unreal 3 is what I meant. UE3 isn't even done yet so of course it's not on UE3 right now. UE 2.5 is correct.

Also, I only get 40-80 fps. 40 is the lows I usually hit during firefights and other places and 80 is usually where my fps peaks. AAO is a very graphical game and takes a lot of juice.
 
it was just a very bad foresight on ATI's part to not include it, and allow this argument to even be had.. damn foolish of them.

however with pixel shaders and such aside it doesn't matter the 6600GT is the mid-range card of choice for this era, no ATI card IN THIS RANGE can beat the 6600gt. the 6800gt in my opinion also dominates the upper-mid range with its performance for its cost. i have owned both these cards and compared them to aTI's of similiar cost before and after i purchased them.

it just makes sense to go nvidia right now, next gen who knows? but right now go nvidia.
 
Fact is ATI are a bunch of morons for not including it. If people are actually going to buy the ATI equivilent of a 6800gt, they should at least be able to get EVERY EYE CANDY FEATURE AVALIABLE!!!! $400 and you don't support SM3? You don't deserve squat.

6600gt is unbeatable with its price. 6800gt is unbeatable in its price and performance. Period.
 
Im not going to lie, im ashamed in myself for not doing more research b4 purchasing my X850 XT. Thing is, i read editorials and looked at benchies, not TF. o well, lesson learned.

Mind u, im still pissed at ATI.

@Dale - i ran AA on a P4 2.4ghz Northwood with 256MB of RAM and a 64MB Dell integrated gfx chip without any problems, with my FPS around 25-30. It aint that demanding of a game
 
Nubius, that is a kickass show on your sig..., but besides that... I will advise against Nvidia Geforce 4 MX 4000, it doesn't suport pixel shader at all... other than that I say Nvidia all the way!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom