About Gamersyde
Gamersyde is a commercial multiplatform web portal based in Europe, with hundreds of thousands of visitors each month from all over the world. We cover both handheld and video games platforms and the site has grown into one of the biggest gaming sites in the continent. We are able to offer fast news delivery and HD content from the upcoming games, and one of the greatest and friendliest gaming communities in the world. The HD content we provide always respects the original resolution and framerate of the games we capture, making Gamersyde the one and only place to get 1080p/4K/60fps videos with high bitrate. At a time when Youtube's subpar video compression has become the norm for most people on the Internet, we refuse to give up quality without a fight. We now also produce HDR videos, which can only be enjoyed by those who own compatible televisions. The content we produce is obviously not free of use should you want to upload our videos on your own website or YouTube channel.
Patreon
Since 7548 DaysRemember, when was the last time you saw an Xbox1 game do 125M triangles a second??? Like... NEVER!
But on the second part of your question there, Xenos mauls the X800 series in vertex performance. And that is if you look at ratios--real world is even scarier. Lets say you are doing stencil shadows and are doing a VS pass. So with the X800 series you get 6 (memory there) VS working on this--and everything else in the pipeline is waiting. Xenos? Xenos walks his 48 bad boy ALUs and slams the job meaning no wasted resources AND gets it done faster.
So while Xenos is back working on something else the X800 is still plugging away trying to get the task done.
Really no comparison. The setup numbers are just misleading.
Since 7548 DaysYou don't have to believe me, but the 500M number for triangles/vertices was confirmed a long time ago by Dave Baumman and the 1 clock = 1 vertex (500MHz = 500M) of Xenos was all explained.
I will trust what Dave says (which agrees with everything I know) since he talked with ATI's engineers who designed Xenos over an "approximately" from TeamXbox.
Nice to know where you got the number though.
Since 7593 DaysVertices/triangles: Where the fill rate tells you the rendering performance of the graphics chip, it does not cover the performance of the card in geometry calculations. The graphics chips cannot work on curves - they can only process flat surfaces; but if you have enough flat surfaces you can make them look like curves. In a process called tessellation, all objects in a 3D scene are broken down into a set of triangular surfaces - the more triangles, the better the curves and angles of the real world can be represented. A 3D object can be made up of hundreds or even thousands of triangles. This is what game developers are talking about when they talk about the number of polygons in a character - the number of discreet (flat) surfaces in the character model.
Unfortunately, to further confuse matters, ATI and Nvidia talk about geometry processing power using different standards. Nvidia chip specifications refer to vertices per second (that is, the points at the corners of the triangles), while ATI specifications list triangles per second. (You cannot, incidentally, just divide the Nvidia numbers by three to get triangles - triangles next to each other share vertices).
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;1854767...
does anyone have a link as to how Nvidia and how ATI calculate thier geometry processing
Since 7460 DaysSo as the object gets bigger the vertice/triangle ratio changes.
Triangle = 2.33
Square = 2.25
Octagon = 2.125
Cube = 1.75
Unless of course i have completely misunderstood it.
Since 7548 DaysTo explain a little father, Minimally you can make the following:
1 Triangle = 3 vertices / 1 triangle
Square = 4 vertices / 2 triangles
Pentagon = 5 verticies / 3 trinagles
Octagon = 6 vertices / 4 triangles
Heptagon = 7 vertices / 5 triangles
But by adding one point, like to the Octagon, in the middle you can then make it 7 vertices and 6 triangles. So note how the pattern can change to near perfection:
Square = 5 vertices / 4 triangles
Pentagon = 6 vertices / 5 triangles
Octagon = 7 vertices / 6 triangles
...
150 vertices / 149 triangles
100,001 vertices / 100,000 triangles
Of course in the real world you will always have a few more vertices than triangles (because not every intersection is going to be perfect), but you do not need 3 vertices to make a triangle. This is why IHV's use the term triangle and vertex interchangably on many occassions.
I found the link on B3D discussing this:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/printthread.php?t=22...
Note our friend hasanahmad--I knew you used to post there. ;)
Make that 3, Optimus and Has can join us :D
Since 7469 Daysx1900xtx is still top dog http://theinquirer.net/?article=29795
Just bought myself a x1900xtx recently it should arrive tomorrow.
Since 7548 Days1. Bad news for NV seeing as the X1900XTX has a lot more upset with future games that are shader heavy will further the disparity
2. Good news is that this is a refresh and with Vista and DX10/SM4.0 due sometime this year they have a chance to wrestle back the lead with G80.
I wonder since G71 is using slower memory than the 7800GTX 512MB if Nvidia will be making a power play with the G71 and get it down to $400?
That would be sweeeeet.
Since 7469 DaysOh man... i hear nvidia said they can have quad sli power on a SINGLE videocard with their g80 design which is suppose to be unified shader as well, but is also suppose to be the first dual core gpu ever made or something like that.
Since 7593 Days
Since 7469 Days
Since 7593 Days65nm process
64 shader pipelines
32 TMU's
32 ROPs
128 Shader Ops per cycle
800 Mhz Core
512 Gflops for Shaders
2 Billion Triangles per Second
25.6 Gigapixels per second
256-bit GDDR4 1.8Ghz Memory
57.6 GB Bandwidth
Directx10
Since 7593 DaysRemember the G70 does 1100 Vertices/s
RSX is supposed to do 1100 Vertices/s
G71 is supposed to do 1450 Vertices/s
R520 is supposed to do 1250 Triangles/s
Xenos, supposedly can actually reach nearly 500 Million Triangles in actual games if pushed
in tests http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/video/r580-par...
G70 reaches 330 Million Triangles/s
R520 reaches 385 Million Triangles/s
X1900XT reached 409 Million Triangles/s
this is with FFP/VS2.0/VS1.1 in AMBIENT SETTINGS
Next Test: DIFFUSE SETTINGS
G70 reaches max of 222 M T/s
R520 reaches max of 254 M T/s
R580 reaches max of 262 M T/s
Next Test: DIFFUSE+SPECULAR
G70 reaches max of 180
R520 reaches max of 202
R580 reaches max of 209
Next TEST: Branching+DIFFUSE+SPECULAR
G70 reaches max of 109
R520 reaches max of 112
R580 reaches max of 116
Since 7469 DaysI'm so glad I decided to buy the x1900xtx it comes tomorrow!!!
Since 7548 DaysAnytime someone has an axe to grind like that it raises red flags. I dislike cap bits, but NV and ATI have been using them for years. To single one out over the other is silly, especially when misleading consumers that doing so makes it no SM3.0. I guess FX cards were not DX9 then...
Since 7548 DaysWith Vista coming this year--and a lot of consumers (through OEMs and business types) moving to it--ATI absolutely cannot miss deadlines. MS has already said they suggest ATI products, at least for now, due to better drivers (wink wink nudge nudge... scratch my back I scratch yours, NV on the outs, ATI on the inside) so ATI needs to capitolize on being preferred right now AND having a big leg up on SM4.0. There is a lot of synergy between Xenos and DX10, ATI needs to move on that this fall and establish themselve as the DX10 leader.
Since 7469 DaysI'd prefer some good ones that can give me some shader performance numbers.
Since 7548 DaysAlso you would be insane not to run Ruby and ToyShop. Go look at the windshield wipers in ToyShop:
http://www.ati.com/designpartners/media/edudemos/R...
But the best tests are games.
FEAR => 1600x1200 4xAA 16xAF HQ, Soft shadows on, HDR, etc.
Btw, can I borrow your 360 while you play with your new $600 toy? I need your job... what do you do?
Since 7469 DaysThey paid upwards of $25 an hour for me to do all the tedious little tasks they don't like to do such as filing or typing. It was all extremely easy, but there was ALOT of easy work to do which made things rather annoying, but at $25 an hour I usually found myself getting home around 12AM at times I'd stay longer since one of my owners usually worked late so I used that extra time to earn some more cash. I only had time to work there during the summer though never when I had class. I tried it once and couldn't handle it.
In the summer I'd work from about 8AM straight to 10PM sometimes 12 if I could everyday except saturday and sunday.
I don't work currently, but right now I don't really need to as i'm hardly ever wasteful with my money and have alot of money saved up so any bills that need paying I can take care of them without worrying too much. I also have a father that likes to spoil me constantly putting money into my account even when I tell him its alright, but he's like that with my other brothers, mother, and sister as well so I guess he just wants to make sure everyone is okay.
He's a stock broker.
Yea I ran ruby it was amazing kept pressing spacebar to go through all the different views its so nicely done. The self shadowing from her hair and the rest of her body and the HDR, in addition to the softshadows (especially when she got knocked back by cyn and her sword fell out of her hand I was rotating the camera angle try to get a better look at her .. umm sword yea i was trying to get a better look at the sword.
Completely forgot about toyshop i'm going to download that now. Then some shadermark tests then i'll go enjoy myself with some games. I don't have fear yet, but I'll most likely buy it next week when i pick up fight night for the 360.
Since 7469 DaysIn addition I can do a whole list of other things such as following the taxi or see breakdowns of how certain features were done in toy shop and I can see comparions between the different mapping methods and I can see geometry wireframes on one half of the screen and normal on the other i'll post a picture of all the options you are given.
You were right you can so tell that all of this is actually possibly in a game I can't wait to see the 360 pull stuff like this off.
Since 7460 Days
Since 7469 DaysShaderMark v2.1 - DirectX 9 HLSL Pixel Shader Benchmark - ToMMTi-Systems (http://www.tommti-systems.com)
video mode / device info
(1280x720) X8R8G8B8 (D24X8) vram used 124780544
HAL (pure hw vp): Radeon X1900 Series (Anti-Detect-Mode: off, gamma correction: DAC)
options
pixel shader version: Pixel Shader 3_0
results:
shader 1 ( Pixel Shader Precision Test): pixel shader 1.1 full precision: s23e8
( Pixel Shader Precision Test): pixel shader 1.4 full precision: s23e8
( Pixel Shader Precision Test): pixel shader 2.0 full precision: s23e8
( Pixel Shader Precision Test): pixel shader 2.0 partial precision: s23e8
( Pixel Shader Precision Test): pixel shader 3.0 full precision: s23e8
( Pixel Shader Precision Test): pixel shader 3.0 partial precision: s23e8
shader 2 ( Per Pixel Diffuse Lighting - ps_3_0): 1314 fps 0.7609 mspf 6574 rendered frames
shader 3 ( Per Pixel Directional Light Shader (Phong) - ps_3_0): 1261 fps 0.7933 mspf 6305 rendered frames
shader 4 ( Per Pixel Point Light Shader (Phong) - ps_3_0): 1279 fps 0.7819 mspf 6397 rendered frames
shader 5 ( Per Pixel Spot Light Shader (Phong) - ps_3_0): 1164 fps 0.8589 mspf 5824 rendered frames
shader 6 ( Per Pixel Anisotropic Lighting - ps_3_0): 1244 fps 0.8040 mspf 6221 rendered frames
shader 7 ( Per Pixel Fresnel Reflections - ps_3_0): 1151 fps 0.8687 mspf 5758 rendered frames
shader 8 ( Per Pixel Car Surface Shader - ps_3_0): 857 fps 1.1662 mspf 4289 rendered frames
shader 9 ( Per Pixel Environment Mapping - ps_3_0): 1375 fps 0.7273 mspf 6877 rendered frames
shader 10 ( Per Pixel Environment Bump Mapping - ps_3_0): 1180 fps 0.8476 mspf 5901 rendered frames
shader 11 ( Per Pixel Bump Mapping - ps_3_0): 1116 fps 0.8958 mspf 5584 rendered frames
shader 12 ( Per Pixel Shadowed Bump Mapping - ps_3_0): 686 fps 1.4570 mspf 3433 rendered frames
shader 13 ( Per Pixel Veined Marble Shader - ps_3_0): 652 fps 1.5339 mspf 3261 rendered frames
shader 14 ( Per Pixel Wood Shader - ps_3_0): 826 fps 1.2108 mspf 4131 rendered frames
shader 15 ( Per Pixel Tile Shader - ps_3_0): 673 fps 1.4865 mspf 3365 rendered frames
shader 16 ( Per Pixel Refraction and Reflection Shader with Phong Lighting - ps_3_0): 796 fps 1.2558 mspf 3983 rendered frames
shader 17 ( Per Pixel BRDF-Phong/Anisotropic Lighting - ps_3_0): 931 fps 1.0738 mspf 4658 rendered frames
performance impact of heavy alpha blending
shader 18 ( Fur Shader With Anisotropic Lighting - ps_3_0): 112 fps 8.9107 mspf 562 rendered frames
performance impact of multiple shaders switches
shader 19 ( Combination Effect - ps_3_0): 362 fps 2.7635 mspf 1810 rendered frames
performance impact of dynamic flow control
shader 20 ( Dual Layer 8x8 PCF Shadow Mapping without Flow Control - ps_3_0): 141 fps 7.1033 mspf 705 rendered frames
shader 21 ( Dual Layer 8x8 PCF Shadow Mapping with Flow Control - ps_3_0): 186 fps 5.3653 mspf 933 rendered frames
performance impact of floating point filtering
shader 22 ( High Dynamic Range Shader - low quality version without filtering - ps_3_0): 291 fps 3.4320 mspf 1458 rendered frames
shader 23 ( High Dynamic Range Shader - high quality with fp filtering - ps_3_0): 329 fps 3.0407 mspf 1645 rendered frames
shader 24 ( High Dynamic Range Shader - high quality without fp filtering - ps_3_0): 219 fps 4.5757 mspf 1094 rendered frames
performance impact of multiple render targets
shader 25 ( Per Pixel Edge Detection And Hatching Shader using 1 RT and 2 Passes - ps_3_0): 207 fps 4.8347 mspf 1035 rendered frames
shader 26 ( Per Pixel Edge Detection And Hatching Shader using 2 RTs and 1 Pass - ps_3_0): 208 fps 4.8161 mspf 1039 rendered frames
ShaderMark v2.1 - DirectX 9 HLSL Pixel Shader Benchmark - ToMMTi-Systems (http://www.tommti-systems.com)
video mode / device info
(1280x720) X8R8G8B8 (D24X8) vram used 124780544
HAL (pure hw vp): Radeon X1900 Series (Anti-Detect-Mode: off, gamma correction: DAC)
options
pixel shader version: Pixel Shader 3_0 - all fp32
results:
shader 1 ( Pixel Shader Precision Test): pixel shader 1.1 full precision: s23e8
( Pixel Shader Precision Test): pixel shader 1.4 full precision: s23e8
( Pixel Shader Precision Test): pixel shader 2.0 full precision: s23e8
( Pixel Shader Precision Test): pixel shader 2.0 partial precision: s23e8
( Pixel Shader Precision Test): pixel shader 3.0 full precision: s23e8
( Pixel Shader Precision Test): pixel shader 3.0 partial precision: s23e8
shader 2 ( Per Pixel Diffuse Lighting - ps_3_0): 1314 fps 0.7608 mspf 6575 rendered frames
shader 3 ( Per Pixel Directional Light Shader (Phong) - ps_3_0): 1260 fps 0.7938 mspf 6301 rendered frames
shader 4 ( Per Pixel Point Light Shader (Phong) - ps_3_0): 1282 fps 0.7802 mspf 6411 rendered frames
shader 5 ( Per Pixel Spot Light Shader (Phong) - ps_3_0): 1156 fps 0.8649 mspf 5783 rendered frames
shader 6 ( Per Pixel Anisotropic Lighting - ps_3_0): 1246 fps 0.8024 mspf 6234 rendered frames
shader 7 ( Per Pixel Fresnel Reflections - ps_3_0): 1151 fps 0.8687 mspf 5758 rendered frames
shader 8 ( Per Pixel Car Surface Shader - ps_3_0): 858 fps 1.1651 mspf 4293 rendered frames
shader 9 ( Per Pixel Environment Mapping - ps_3_0): 1375 fps 0.7272 mspf 6878 rendered frames
shader 10 ( Per Pixel Environment Bump Mapping - ps_3_0): 1178 fps 0.8487 mspf 5894 rendered frames
shader 11 ( Per Pixel Bump Mapping - ps_3_0): 1117 fps 0.8956 mspf 5585 rendered frames
shader 12 ( Per Pixel Shadowed Bump Mapping - ps_3_0): 686 fps 1.4570 mspf 3433 rendered frames
shader 13 ( Per Pixel Veined Marble Shader - ps_3_0): 652 fps 1.5334 mspf 3262 rendered frames
shader 14 ( Per Pixel Wood Shader - ps_3_0): 826 fps 1.2111 mspf 4130 rendered frames
shader 15 ( Per Pixel Tile Shader - ps_3_0): 672 fps 1.4878 mspf 3362 rendered frames
shader 16 ( Per Pixel Refraction and Reflection Shader with Phong Lighting - ps_3_0): 796 fps 1.2561 mspf 3982 rendered frames
shader 17 ( Per Pixel BRDF-Phong/Anisotropic Lighting - ps_3_0): 931 fps 1.0741 mspf 4657 rendered frames
performance impact of heavy alpha blending
shader 18 ( Fur Shader With Anisotropic Lighting - ps_3_0): 112 fps 8.9142 mspf 562 rendered frames
performance impact of multiple shaders switches
shader 19 ( Combination Effect - ps_3_0): 362 fps 2.7635 mspf 1810 rendered frames
performance impact of dynamic flow control
shader 20 ( Dual Layer 8x8 PCF Shadow Mapping without Flow Control - ps_3_0): 141 fps 7.1033 mspf 705 rendered frames
shader 21 ( Dual Layer 8x8 PCF Shadow Mapping with Flow Control - ps_3_0): 186 fps 5.3653 mspf 933 rendered frames
performance impact of floating point filtering
shader 22 ( High Dynamic Range Shader - low quality version without filtering - ps_3_0): 291 fps 3.4307 mspf 1458 rendered frames
shader 23 ( High Dynamic Range Shader - high quality with fp filtering - ps_3_0): 329 fps 3.0419 mspf 1645 rendered frames
shader 24 ( High Dynamic Range Shader - high quality without fp filtering - ps_3_0): 219 fps 4.5757 mspf 1094 rendered frames
performance impact of multiple render targets
shader 25 ( Per Pixel Edge Detection And Hatching Shader using 1 RT and 2 Passes - ps_3_0): 207 fps 4.8347 mspf 1035 rendered frames
shader 26 ( Per Pixel Edge Detection And Hatching Shader using 2 RTs and 1 Pass - ps_3_0): 208 fps 4.8142 mspf 1039 rendered frames
I probably messed something up this stuff probably only makes sense to the guys that completely understand it.
Since 7460 Days
Since 7469 DaysNever ran this test before so i'm not too sure if I ran everything properly.
Since 7548 Dayse.g. For Pixel Shaders it will test PS 1.1, PS 1.4, PS 2.0, PS 2.x, and PS 3.0. It may break it up further as "Test A: Normal Maps".
So Shader Mark is more of a test to idenfity specific strengths. e.g. a GPU can be in games overall faster, but to really test the architecture you get into ShaderMark and can see, "Ok, this does great in PS2.o and basic SM3.0, but you add branching to the pixel shaders and it is slow."
FYI - This is how we knew the FX series SUCKED at DX9. It was really slow in PS2.0 tests... REALLY slow, like 50% the speed in some cases or worse.
Likewise the 7800 beats the X1800 in dynamic vertex branching by not static branching; conversely the NV40 (and G70) are poor in their SM3.0 Pixel Shader Branching and Flow control whereas the X1800 series excells here significantly.
Now you have to be careful to one degree because they are limited tests (e.,g. they do not explore every possible different or 10 various code samples of each), but they DO give a good overall impression.
This is also why we know, e.g., NV40/G70 is still too slow to do Displacement Mapping, because these tests can test such features specifically to see if it performs fast enough. This is one reason ATI decided to just use the vertex buffers instead because they knew it was not a feature that would be supported because NV could not do it fast enough.
Basically the trend has been: Unless both developers can do something fast then devs don't support it. This is one (of many) reasys why DX9 games took forever to appear. Just look at the time frame:
Fall 2002 :: DX9 released; 9700 & 5800
2003 :: 9800 & 5900
Spring 2004 :: First real DX9 game (Far Cry)
Summer 2004 :: X800 & 6800
Fall 2004 :: Half-Life 2
There are other factors (like games are developed with older hardware in mind due to install bases and it takes time to transition) but if one IHV balks at a core feature it usually wont be supported. Even now we are still waiting for our first games that require DX9 and wont work on DX8. That is because the FX series is still a very common GPU.
That is one great thing about consoles :D Everyone is getting an SM3.0+ GPU this time around!
Now if we can only wait until 2007 when we get some games designed for these things >:(
Since 7469 DaysSince putting my 3500+ back in i've had no problems this is really annoying too because that 4200+ x2 is extremely fast.
Any suggestions acert?
The mobo is a abit an8 ultra and it does support up to fx 60, but for some reason my x2 isn't staying stable in windows long enough for me to actually enjoy it.