Bioshock DX9 vs DX10 benchmarks

Shocky-FM · 30 Aug 2007 at 18:43

Tom|Nbk said:
Since your forcing me to explain I will..

No, seems your completely blinkered. The 2900 does resolve some AA in the Shader units of the card but also Uses a ROP Unit for some of the resolve also. So your comment that the card lacks hardware resolve is totally rubbish.

"Of course, there's more to this part of the architecture than simply applying anti-aliasing - In R600, the ROPs handle the data passed to them by the architecture's Stream Processors, converting the final shaded, textured fragments (to use the proper parlance, as the Stream Processors handle fragments rather than pixels technically speaking) into pixels, as well as worrying about depth (or Z) values to ensure that the final frame is displayed correctly. This is the final point of the rendering journey before data is sent to the frame buffer to be output on-screen."

http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/in...sk=view&id=388&Itemid=31&limit=1&limitstart=5

How does that change anything?, it still has to use shader based AA which is hindering performance so all my points are still valid.

Tom|Nbk · 30 Aug 2007 at 18:44

Shocky-FM said:
How does that change anything?, it still has to use shader based AA which is hindering performance so all my points are still valid.

No. You said the R600 does not do any hardware resolve of the AA which is complete tripe. Seriously do your homework before you try to "educate" me. Last im posting in this thread im fed up of blinkered fan boys. Don't try to dig yourself out now

Shocky-FM · 30 Aug 2007 at 18:47

Tom|Nbk said:
No. You said the R600 does not do any hardware resolve of the AA which is complete tripe. Seriously do your homework before you try to "educate" me. Last im posting in this thread im fed up of blinkered fan boys.

It still lacks hardware resolve as it has to use the shaders which again hinder performance which put it at a disadvantage to a card with hardware resolve.

Tom|Nbk · 30 Aug 2007 at 18:55

Shocky-FM said:
It still lacks hardware resolve as it has to use the shaders which again hinder performance which put it at a disadvantage to a card with hardware AA.

No, the AA starts at the ROP units on the card just like your GTX or a X1900XT the difference is on the 2900 it is then passed through the shader units on the card for the rest of the resolve this is the thing that sometimes hurts performance. Your comment :- "it lacks hardware resolve" is complete crap. The only software part of the resolve is that it is is programmable with drivers. Which is actually somthing it has over the G80.

Shocky-FM · 30 Aug 2007 at 19:00

Tom|Nbk said:
No, the AA starts at the ROP units on the card just like your GTX or a X1900XT the difference is on the 2900 it is then passed through the shader units on the card for the rest of the resolve this is the thing that sometimes hurts performance. Your comment :- "it lacks hardware resolve" is complete crap. The only software part of the resolve is that it is is programmable with drivers. Which is actually somthing it has over the G80.

It's amazing how your trying to change a disadvantage into and advantage, benchmarks speak for themselves and R600 consistently is taking huge hits when you enable AA and shader based AA is why and everybody knows it.

Tom|Nbk · 30 Aug 2007 at 19:05

Shocky-FM said:
It's amazing how your trying to change a disadvantage into and advantage, benchmarks speak for themselves and R600 consistently is taking huge hits when you enable AA and shader based AA is why and everybody knows it.

The fact that the AA is programmable is a massive advantage you need to do your homework because as I said earlier you don't have a clue.

Shocky-FM · 30 Aug 2007 at 19:07

Tom|Nbk said:
The fact that the AA is programmable is a massive advantage you need to do your homework because as I said earlier you don't have a clue.

Well it hasnt helped them much yet has it.

gareth170 · 30 Aug 2007 at 19:10

bioshock doesn't even support AA so why u guys saying about AA? :confused:

Shocky-FM · 30 Aug 2007 at 19:11

gareth170 said:
bioshock doesn't even support AA so why u guys saying about AA?

The game doesnt support it but AA works when forced in DX9.

Spyhop · 30 Aug 2007 at 19:25

ergonomics said:
especially if the human eye cant notice anything higher than 60 anyway

Absolute myth that needs to die. Do you think that "frames" is all there is to human vision?

It depends entirely on what you're viewing, how you're viewing it and who you are.

willhub · 30 Aug 2007 at 19:28

wush said:
Absolute myth that needs to die. Do you think that "frames" is all there is to human vision?

It depends entirely on what you're viewing, how you're viewing it and who you are.

So are you saying, a human aye could tell the diference between 60fps and 120fps?
I guess some peoples vision goes down to 30fps when they are drunk too lol since things can seems slower, litrally.

Spyhop · 30 Aug 2007 at 19:31

What kind of question is that unless you say what kind of motion the frames are showing and what type of device they are being viewed on?

Human vision doesn't operate in simple "frames" just because games and films do.

Tom|Nbk · 30 Aug 2007 at 19:33

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

willhub said:
I guess some peoples vision goes down to 30fps when they are drunk too lol since things can seems slower, litrally.

PMSL. Best post ever

willhub · 30 Aug 2007 at 19:51

Tom|Nbk said:
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

PMSL. Best post ever

Wow, I've just read that, so we can see well over 60fps, out eye's are more powerfull than 2 8800Ultras in SLi, if I read right, we can see up to 500fps :eek:

helmutcheese · 30 Aug 2007 at 21:49

You still do not need more than 60FPS, thats the magic number to try get and keep ideally.

Shocky-FM · 30 Aug 2007 at 22:21

helmutcheese said:
You still do not need more than 60FPS, thats the magic number to try get and keep ideally.

It's more about how smooth the gameplay is, sure visually there may be no difference above 60fps on a 60hz display but the mouse sure does feel allot smoother with 100fps which helps allot in shooters, especially fast paced multiplayer but obviously not so importent with SP games.

helmutcheese · 30 Aug 2007 at 22:34

HZ has nothing to do with it if you dont use both Sync Locks (CRT), I have never since 2001.

The fact is most (not all) games look laggy bellow 30FPS, look good at 30FPS-45FPS, and look damn sweet at 60FPS, no more is needed.

I could not tell difference in BioShock from the 70FPS Min I got in it to the parts that hit 100-150++++++ FPS, all looked good. (I actually dont know max frames I got).

Shocky-FM · 30 Aug 2007 at 23:00

helmutcheese said:
HZ has nothing to do with it if you dont use both Sync Locks (CRT), I have never since 2001.

The fact is most (not all) games look laggy bellow 30FPS, look good at 30FPS-45FPS, and lood damn sweet at 60FPS, no more is needed.

I could not tell difference in BioShock from the 70FPS Min I got in it to the parts that hit 100-150++++++ FPS, all looked good. (I actually dont know max frames I got).

Well this is why I always disable vsync as the mouse lags way to much for me even with triple buffering and a steady 60fps.

willhub · 30 Aug 2007 at 23:06

I get lag at 40fps in Bioshock.

helmutcheese · 30 Aug 2007 at 23:23

I also do not use USB for mouse, its still PS2 for Mouse+KB (wireless kit), normally set to 200 refreshes/sec in device manager but Vista does not have option.

For USB mice I think they can lag and thats why mad peeps OC the HZ of the USB controler on Mobo (Google it if you think I am joking).