DOOM 3 & DX9

With all the discussion lately about how Half-Life 2 will run on ATI hardware compared with NVIDIA accelerators, BonusWeb.cz shot off an email to id Software's John Carmack to ask how DOOM 3 and other games are likely to be impacted by the difference between the two graphics platforms running DirectX 9. Here's how he responded:
Unfortunately, it will probably be representative of most DX9 games. Doom has a custom back end that uses the lower precisions on the GF-FX, but when you run it with standard fragment programs just like ATI, it is a lot slower. The precision doesn't really matter to Doom, but that won't be a reasonable option in future games designed around DX9 level hardware as a minimum spec.
View : : :
40.
 
Re: wakey wakey!
Sep 17, 2003, 21:50
40.
Re: wakey wakey! Sep 17, 2003, 21:50
Sep 17, 2003, 21:50
 
doesn't Carmack program in openGL rather than DirectX? I thought he was against Microsoft engineering for specific graphical platforms.

It's not the API (directx vs opengl) it's the lower level shader language that the FX is having issues with. Regardless of if you use opengl or dx9, you still have to use the shader language to get the 'cool, new effects' that the cards can (or should...) be capable of.

re: fp16/32: (This is my understanding of the problem, I'm sure it's over simplified, but not as over simplied as "the FX sucks" or "ATI rocks") The basic problem is that the fx doesnt have as many registers (basically buckets to keep your temporary work while computing the graphics) as the dx9 shader compiler expects. So, as a work-around, you can 'double' the number of registers available by using 16bit shaders, but at a loss of quality (and at apparently it's more complicated than that, you have to basically write all your shaders twice, once for ps2.0 and once for the nv35 (ps1.4?).

Date
Subject
Author
1.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
4.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
7.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
9.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
12.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
23.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
2.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
3.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
5.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
6.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
16.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
20.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
21.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
24.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
     Re: No subject
55.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
      Re: No subject
56.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
       Re: No subject
60.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
       Re: No subject
81.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
        Re: No subject
8.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
10.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
13.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
14.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
15.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
11.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
18.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
17.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
19.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
22.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
25.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
 40.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
    Re: wakey wakey!
27.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
32.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
33.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
38.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
26.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
30.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
31.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
62.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
64.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
    Re: 26 WRONG
96.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
     Re: 26 WRONG
83.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
    Re: 26 WRONG
36.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
39.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
45.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
    Re: 26 WRONG
63.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
28.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
29.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
35.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
37.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
41.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
47.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
48.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
42.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
   ???
44.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
    Re: ???
50.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
     Re: ???
46.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
109.
Sep 19, 2003Sep 19 2003
110.
Sep 19, 2003Sep 19 2003
111.
Sep 20, 2003Sep 20 2003
115.
Sep 22, 2003Sep 22 2003
116.
Sep 22, 2003Sep 22 2003
34.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
43.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
49.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
51.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
61.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
65.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
66.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
67.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
79.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
80.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
101.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
84.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
85.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
86.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
87.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
88.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
90.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
94.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
52.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
53.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
54.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
82.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
57.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
59.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
58.
Sep 17, 2003Sep 17 2003
68.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
69.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
70.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
97.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
71.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
72.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
73.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
75.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
76.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
78.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
74.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
77.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
89.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
91.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
92.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
93.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
95.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
98.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
99.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
106.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
107.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
108.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
100.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
102.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
103.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
104.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
105.
Sep 18, 2003Sep 18 2003
112.
Sep 20, 2003Sep 20 2003
113.
Sep 21, 2003Sep 21 2003
114.
Sep 21, 2003Sep 21 2003
117.
Sep 23, 2003Sep 23 2003
118.
Oct 22, 2003Oct 22 2003