DOOM 3 & DX9 [Sep 17, 2003, 7:08 pm ET] – Share – Viewing Comments
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.
'Actually before nVidia hacked their 40 series of drivers 3Dmark03 was telling us precisely the same thing as HL2's numbers do. Why else do you think nVidia went so hard after Futuremark to discredit their benchmark?'
IMHO - only in a partial sense. Many of the sites that did use 3dmark to evaluate possible future performance weren't even approaching it in the right manner - ie. using the total 3dmark scores rather than the individual test results (eg. the nature test etc)
Regardless, even without the driver cheats and looking at specific tests AKAIK none of them produced results where there was an incredible 50+% performance gap between the R3x0 and NV3x with the 9600pro being the equivilent of a 5900u in shader terms.
Now we might not be able to point the finger too broadly given that there weren't any non-synthetic DX9 benchmarks around, but we can certainly blame specific sites for recommending the NV3x as clearly better alternative to the R3x0 and generally future proof card when there were synthetic indicators to the contrary as well as the general knowledge available about the ARB2/DX specs to any properly savvy reader.
This comment was edited on Sep 18, 05:34.
IMHO - only in a partial sense. Many of the sites that did use 3dmark to evaluate possible future performance weren't even approaching it in the right manner - ie. using the total 3dmark scores rather than the individual test results (eg. the nature test etc)
Regardless, even without the driver cheats and looking at specific tests AKAIK none of them produced results where there was an incredible 50+% performance gap between the R3x0 and NV3x with the 9600pro being the equivilent of a 5900u in shader terms.
Now we might not be able to point the finger too broadly given that there weren't any non-synthetic DX9 benchmarks around, but we can certainly blame specific sites for recommending the NV3x as clearly better alternative to the R3x0 and generally future proof card when there were synthetic indicators to the contrary as well as the general knowledge available about the ARB2/DX specs to any properly savvy reader.
This comment was edited on Sep 18, 05:34.
Date
Subject
Author
Copyright © 1996-2025 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2025 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News. All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.5.0/blue++: Page generated 20 June 2025, 19:19.