| Author |
Message |
DarthDoctor
Gamorrean
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
 Posted: Nov 29, 2003 18:36 Post subject: Pixel Shader ? |
    |
|
I'm trying to get the Deus Ex 2 demo to work, but It says I need pixel shader 1.1 or better. I"m running a nVidia GeForce2 64 MB on a 1.7 Pentium 4.
Without buying a lot of stuff, is there anything I can do? Anything I can dl?
_________________
"At least, I think it was primitive DD that was the source of the bug" - Nottheking |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 29, 2003 18:56 Post subject: |
|
|
No. The earliest NVidia based graphics card with Pixel Shader 1.1 support is the GeForce 3.
|
|
Taton
Trandoshan
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 30, 2003 20:05 Post subject: |
|
|
What would be the Radeon Equivalent? I have a Radeon 9000 Pro. Does that support pixel shader 1.1. I'm just curious.
_________________
"A fight should be clean and elegant, without waste"
-Asuka Langley Sohryu, Evangelion |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 30, 2003 20:50 Post subject: |
|
|
Let's plow through all (well, most) cards at once, to save time:
NVidia Riva
NVidia GeForce 256
NVidia GeForce DDR
NVidia GeForce2
NVidia GeForce2 MX
NVidia GeForce4 MX
NVidia NForce
-
NVidia GeForce3
ps 1.1
vs 1.1
NVidia GeForce4 Ti
ps 1.3
vs 1.1
NVidia GeForceFX
ps 2.0
vs 2.0
ATI Rage
ATI Radeon
ATI Radeon 7000
ATI Radeon 7200
ATI Radeon 7500
-
ATI Radeon 8500
ATI Radeon 9000
ATI Radeon 9200
ps 1.4
vs 1.1
ATI Radeon 9500
ATI Radeon 9600
ATI Radeon 9700
ATI Radeon 9800
ATI Mobility Radeon 9600
ps 2.0
vs 2.0
SiS 651
-
SiS Xabre
ps 1.3
vs 1.1
XGI Volari V3
ps 1.3
vs 1.1
XGI Volari V5
XGI Volari V8
ps 2.0
vs 2.0
Matrox Parhelia
ps 1.3
vs 2.0
3DLabs Wildcat VP760
3DLabs Wildcat VP870
3DLabs Wildcat VP970
ps 1.2
vs 1.1
PowerVR Kyro II
-
PowerVR Series 5
ps 3.0
vs 3.0
3dfx
-
Intel
-
Last edited by Mattias Welander on Dec 02, 2003 00:19; edited 3 times in total |
|
Taton
Trandoshan
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 01, 2003 02:43 Post subject: |
|
|
 WoW...
Mattias, do you like have lists on your computer containing facts about computer?
_________________
"A fight should be clean and elegant, without waste"
-Asuka Langley Sohryu, Evangelion |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 01, 2003 02:50 Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, I carry that list with me, rather than in the computer. I store it in a little device I have called a "brain".
|
|
Taton
Trandoshan
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 01, 2003 12:55 Post subject: |
|
|
WoW!!! A Brain!!!
Does that support Pixel Shader v.1.1?
_________________
"A fight should be clean and elegant, without waste"
-Asuka Langley Sohryu, Evangelion |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 01, 2003 12:58 Post subject: |
|
|
So far it supports ps 3.0.
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 01, 2003 20:05 Post subject: |
|
|
I have a card-related question:
Exactly WHAT is would the Radeon 7000 be? I presume that it is what is referred to as simply "Radeon". that's what I currently use... I know it's definitely NOT for modern games, but at $70US it was sufficient to speed up whatever I could run on my 500Mhz rust bucket, like Jedi Knight, which now gets ~60fps normally because of it.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 01, 2003 20:30 Post subject: |
|
|
Mattias Welander wrote:
And I can still execute ps 3.0 code in my brain.
And you won't have to wait for universal support for ps 4.0 (or whatever will come after 3.0) before you can execute THAT code as well! 
Mattias Welander wrote:
Good question. It's not a card I know about. It seems to be mainly a Mac card. Anyway, from the specifications of it I can find, it's just a DX7 card, meaning, no shader support at all. I'll add it to the list for convenience.
I knew it was a cheap card when I bought it. It definitely doesn't support very much in the way of newer processes... It's good for acelerating things like JK, and augmenting cardless PCs so that they can get a decent framerate with newer games such as Q3A, UT, and UT2003. as far as for performance, I wouldn't reccomend it... I think the Radeon 9500 is probably the least I'd look for good ATI cards... But it(the 7000) works in a pinch to do away with software rendering.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 01, 2003 21:01 Post subject: |
|
|
Mattias Welander wrote:
Very true. Though I too believe the next pixel shader version will be called ps 4.0, it's really too early to be sure, since even the DirectX version it belongs to still is just called "DirectX Next". Anyway, the second the beta specification is out, I'll be able to execute it. Not very fast, though.
That's the part where those computers always manage to beat us... Speed. Of course, the general scientific community doesn't seem to make this comparison using Pixel shading... I think they prefer calculating digits of Pi, or chess board positions. Even my "rust bucket" can use Chessmaster 5000 to calculate arround 5000 positions per second, while I can, at my best, reach mabye up to 10, but I doubt I'm counting time correctly when I do that.
Mattias Welander wrote:
It sure should be, since JK is DX3.
yep. I believe that the Radeon 7000 can only properly use acceleration up to DX7, although Morrowind claims that it requires DX8 (and 3D aceleration), but is compatable with cards as old as the original Radeon. Of course, My computer doesn't use DX7; it currently uses DX8, as that's the most anything that'l run on it requires.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 02, 2003 22:34 Post subject: |
|
|
Mattias Welander wrote:
I believe we have had this discussion before, but... since you brought it up... and I do hope we won't start arguing about it again. But what I mean to say is, that it is important that you realize the difference between requiring a specific DX version, and using a specific DX version. Morrowind does indeed requre DX8 (that is, it does use DX8 software features), but it does not require it (that is, it does not necessarily use DX8 hardware features).
Strange... Why don't there seem to be any games that require DX8/DX9 hardware aceleration? Is it simply because they're afriad that not enough potential customers would have an appropriate card?
Also, I hope that "DirectX Next" is only a codename, or else it will sting for years after it is displaced by a more advanced version, unless they start calling them names like "DX After That", "DX Still After That", and so on...
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 02, 2003 23:17 Post subject: |
|
|
Nottheking wrote:
Strange... Why don't there seem to be any games that require DX8/DX9 hardware aceleration? Is it simply because they're afriad that not enough potential customers would have an appropriate card?
Well, that's an interesting issue. You're correct that there are few games that require the newest hardware (the Deus Ex 2 demo from this thread is apparently an exception, since it requires DX8 hardware [ps 1.1]). There are a lot of games that utilize DX8 or even DX9 hardware, though, if found - and if not, they simply fall back to less good looking and/or slower rendering methods. I can make a quite long list of games that use DX8 hardware if found, and a short but not empty list of games that use DX9 hardware if found, though I doubt that would be particulary interesting.
I think a big part of the problem is that for stationary computers, all integrated graphics cards are DX7 or earlier. It's of course insane to run games on integrated graphics cards, but a lot of people do anyway... after all, Intel is the biggest graphics card manufacturer out there, and they don't support DX8 or later.
Nottheking wrote:
Also, I hope that "DirectX Next" is only a codename
Yeah, I hope it is, too... though we won't know for a long time, since it's currently scheduled for 2005.
|
|
DarthDoctor
Gamorrean
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 03, 2003 01:01 Post subject: |
|
|
So, here's my question:
What's my next step?
I also am going to get Max Payne 2 in the near future, and that needs some good hardware, too.
what card would be the next step up from my old GeForce 2?
_________________
"At least, I think it was primitive DD that was the source of the bug" - Nottheking |
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 03, 2003 03:21 Post subject: |
|
|
Mattias Welander wrote:
Well, that's an interesting issue. You're correct that there are few games that require the newest hardware (the Deus Ex 2 demo from this thread is apparently an exception, since it requires DX8 hardware [ps 1.1]). There are a lot of games that utilize DX8 or even DX9 hardware, though, if found - and if not, they simply fall back to less good looking and/or slower rendering methods. I can make a quite long list of games that use DX8 hardware if found, and a short but not empty list of games that use DX9 hardware if found, though I doubt that would be particulary interesting.
I think a big part of the problem is that for stationary computers, all integrated graphics cards are DX7 or earlier. It's of course insane to run games on integrated graphics cards, but a lot of people do anyway... after all, Intel is the biggest graphics card manufacturer out there, and they don't support DX8 or later.
Of course, If your expanding your list to include everything you can think of, be sure to add all of the other motherboard manufacturers... For example, my rustbucket had been poking along with a SiS 550 (or something like that) graphics chip, not sufficient for ANY DirectX hardware aceleration, only software.
Mattias Welander wrote:
Yeah, I hope it is, too... though we won't know for a long time, since it's currently scheduled for 2005.
OUCH! 2005?! That's nuts! There's been what, 8 versions, over about 8 years! waiting two years would be plain stupid, and would cause a slump in the advancement of games! At least most of the upcomming games aren't waiting for what I HOPE will be called DX 10.
Speaking of such, I also hope that you've locked the specifications for your "Dark3D". At least a two-year DX gap will help...
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 03, 2003 10:54 Post subject: |
|
|
Nottheking wrote:
OUCH! 2005?! That's nuts! There's been what, 8 versions, over about 8 years! waiting two years would be plain stupid, and would cause a slump in the advancement of games!
I agree that's a long time, but it's not as bad as it sounds. You see, DX9 defines both ps/vs 2.0 and ps/vs 3.0, yet all current DX9 cards only support 2.0. Some time during early next year, we expect to see ps/vs 3.0 cards from all major graphics card manufacturers. So, the problem isn't really that the next DX version will take a long time to come out, but rather that graphics cards that implement the full current DX version are delayed. There's really not much need to come out with a new DX version until most features of the durrent DX version are supported in hardware, since such support is required for backward compatibility in later DX versions.
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 03, 2003 15:22 Post subject: |
|
|
Mattias Welander wrote:
I agree that's a long time, but it's not as bad as it sounds. You see, DX9 defines both ps/vs 2.0 and ps/vs 3.0, yet all current DX9 cards only support 2.0. Some time during early next year, we expect to see ps/vs 3.0 cards from all major graphics card manufacturers. So, the problem isn't really that the next DX version will take a long time to come out, but rather that graphics cards that implement the full current DX version are delayed. There's really not much need to come out with a new DX version until most features of the durrent DX version are supported in hardware, since such support is required for backward compatibility in later DX versions.
Okay... It's a relief to find that DX9 still has a second punch to come... 'Was afraid there'd be no games to raise the graphics bar for much of 2004...
...From what you said, then nothing currently uses ps/vs 3.0, and the PowerVR Series 5 is there just to blaze the trail.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 03, 2003 15:28 Post subject: |
|
|
Also, another question in regards to your list... What about the ATI "all-in-wonder" cards? Where would they be? Do they use the same chipsets as the Radeon cards, or do they have their own? Of course, not that I'd reccomend them for gaming... Per bit of performance, They're FAR harder on the wallet than any other card, and aren't available at the top of the line.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
The MAZZTer
Death Star
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 03, 2003 18:27 Post subject: |
|
|
Hehe I have a GeForce FX 5200, and Halo can barely run at the lowest settings on my 1.3gHz comp... Deus Ex 2 is a bit better.. but it doesn't work right.
It doesn't save my control settings! Whenever I change areas, they reset!!! -.o
Quite annoying.
_________________
http://www.mzzt.net/ | I am a respectable admin with a respectable sig. |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 03, 2003 18:34 Post subject: |
|
|
Nottheking wrote:
...From what you said, then nothing currently uses ps/vs 3.0, and the PowerVR Series 5 is there just to blaze the trail.
Actually, that one is not even out yet. Should it turn out they did in fact not support ps/vs 3.0 when it's out, I'm prepare to change the list. 
That said, all ps/vs 3.0 articles in the ShaderX2 book (sort of the standard reference work for DX shader programming) were written by the PowerVR development team members, something that have led the industry to believe the Series 5 (just a code name, I believe) will indeed support ps/vs 3.0.
Nottheking wrote:
What about the ATI "all-in-wonder" cards?
Ah, I see. Yes, they're using the same chipsets as the normal cards. I was just listing chipsets, but I can understand the confusion. If I can find a list that matches card with chipset for the all-in-wonder series, I'll try to add them to the list.
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 03, 2003 18:43 Post subject: |
|
|
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
Hehe I have a GeForce FX 5200, and Halo can barely run at the lowest settings on my 1.3gHz comp... Deus Ex 2 is a bit better.. but it doesn't work right.
It doesn't save my control settings! Whenever I change areas, they reset!!! -.o
Quite annoying.
What are your graphics settings? My brother currently runs UT2K3 on his 2Ghz Athlon XP, with crap for memory, and integrated graphics. With the res set to 640x400x16bb, and the texture detail decreased, he can get around 30 fps in most cases. Also, do you have anti-aliasing turned on? Also, although I'm unsure if the 5200 supports it, might Anisotropic (please correct the spelling if you can, Mattias). Even in games that use large ammounts of big surfaces, it only corrects perspedctive a small ammount, yet consumes a considerable ammount of power.
As for the controls being reset every time, I'm a bit stumped there. Perhaps the game has difficulty (however THAT might happen) writing to the configuration file. In cases like this, the problem is that the file it tries to write to is missing, but I believe most games should create the file if it missing; I may be wrong.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 03, 2003 18:47 Post subject: |
|
|
Nottheking wrote:
...anti-aliasing turned on? Also, although I'm unsure if the 5200 supports it, might Anisotropic (please correct the spelling if you can, Mattias). Even in games that use large ammounts of big surfaces, it only corrects perspedctive a small ammount, yet consumes a considerable ammount of power.
The GeForceFX cards support at least 4x anti-aliasing and 8x anisotropic filtering. Actually, anisotropic filtering corrects quite a lot of perspective distortion (800% correction is quite a lot, in my opinion). However, you are correct that it eats a lot of processing power. Usually in slower games, I lover anisotropic filtering to 4x. It still looks almost acceptable but brings with it a large speed boost.
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 03, 2003 18:50 Post subject: |
|
|
Mattias Welander wrote:
Actually, that one is not even out yet. Should it turn out they did in fact not support ps/vs 3.0 when it's out, I'm prepare to change the list.
::Slaps forehead::
I had JUST gone to their site before that post, and they said that it's still in the works! 
Mattias Welander wrote:
That said, all ps/vs 3.0 articles in the ShaderX2 book (sort of the standard reference work for DX shader programming) were written by the PowerVR development team members, something that have led the industry to believe the Series 5 (just a code name, I believe) will indeed support ps/vs 3.0.
Sounds quite plausable. Let's just hope they don't decide to tease us by specifically NOT including support for ps/vs 3.0. But if there aren't any cards that can support it yet, then why is it there? Is software rendering used for it, or is it just out there so that applications can be waiting for the cards when they DO come?
Mattias Welander wrote:
Ah, I see. Yes, they're using the same chipsets as the normal cards. I was just listing chipsets, but I can understand the confusion. If I can find a list that matches card with chipset for the all-in-wonder series, I'll try to add them to the list.
That's what I thought... Forunately, the confusion's damage is reduced, because those who want the AIW's various abilities (such as TV tuning) aren't that worried about having the best aceleration.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 03, 2003 18:54 Post subject: |
|
|
Mattias Welander wrote:
The GeForceFX cards support at least 4x anti-aliasing and 8x anisotropic filtering. Actually, anisotropic filtering corrects quite a lot of perspective distortion (800% correction is quite a lot, in my opinion). However, you are correct that it eats a lot of processing power. Usually in slower games, I lover anisotropic filtering to 4x. It still looks almost acceptable but brings with it a large speed boost.
Amazingly enough, my pathetic Radeon 7000 supports anisotropic filtering. In think it can do 2x and 4x, but it calls the settings "high" and "highest", so I don't know. It may be worse, I have haven't found too good ways to test it... I only notice a real difference on a beta for a old simulator for those Light Cycles from TRON. Yes, it did correct the perspective, in some places by as much as the appearance of 10 degrees. However, it lowered the framerate from above 60 to around 30, so I leave it off.
Oh, and does that mean I actually got the spelling right?
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you..
Last edited by Nottheking on Dec 03, 2003 18:55; edited 1 time in total |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 03, 2003 18:54 Post subject: |
|
|
Since we've had quite a few questions about the capabilites of various graphics cards, I was thinking like this... a while ago, I wrote a graphics card capability test program when I prepared the first release of CDark. If you're interested in knowing what your card supports and doesn't support, feel free to run it and study the produced log file:
The program can be found here: http://dark3d.codealliance.ca/temp/CD3DLib9Test.zip
It should be noted that on some cards there is a difference between what features the hardware supports, and what a specific version of the driver supports.
Last edited by Mattias Welander on Dec 03, 2003 19:07; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
