Doing a Parhelia or How to Break Promises

[Tomasz]

Originally posted by warp
Yes, but that is *only* true for the FX5900/5950. And even these high-end models are not 100% DX9 compliant.
The mainstream FX cards (5200, 5600, 5700, etc.) are not true DX9 cards (PS1.4 is DX8.1 spec...not DX9) but nVidia still does advertise them as true DX9 cards.

Also keep in mind that compatible is NOT the same as compliant.
Heck, even the GF2 and the G400 are DX9 compatible, but both are not DX9 compliant.

Edit: Fixed some typo's.

Unfortunately this has turned into a semantics debate focusing on technicalities. Sorry, this is partly my fault for not being more careful with the way I formulated my statements.

Here is how I see the GFFX situation:
1.) AFAIK all GFFX cards support PS 2.0, but using PS 2.0 on the 5200 and 5600 is too slow to be practical- that is why games drop down to PS 1.4 (only the 5900, 5800, and maybe the 5700 are fast enough to use PS 2.0, but only in partial precision).
see http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/nvidia/nv31r2/

The launch of the GeForce FX series marked a slight change in product nomenclature by NVIDIA. Previous ranges basically consisted of two levels: the "main" one, which sub-divided into further categories based on clock speeds, and a "budget" range, which was architecturally different to the main range (as well as being split by clock speeds too). The GeForce FX series is different in this respect by, first of all, having 3 product lines that all have the same base chip design (e.g. they all have VS/PS2.0 capable pipelines) but also having the categories scale by increasing the feature set of each line.

2.) The basic GFFX architecture is not very optimal for DX 9 functions. It seems as if nVidia built a DX 8.1 card and then slapped on some DX 9 features for marketing purposes. Perhaps, they thought that DX 9 and heavy shader usage would not catch on for another generation.
see http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/traod_d.../index.php?p=2

The NV35 has to take 2 clock cycles when asked to execute every two PS 2.0 instructions (PS 2.0 - Simple result is about half of the PS 1.1 and 1.4 ones, and the "PS 2.0 - Longer" is about half of "PS 2.0 - Simple").

[Catweasel]

I don't care about Matrox at all.

I mean, i used Matrox Cards for a long time (started with Mystique, ended with G400MAX) and i liked them very much. But since the release of the G550 im getting more and more dissapointed and with this DX9 issue, in my eyes they lost their last Reputation.

Best regards,
Swen, very dissapointed.

[jezza]

If this happened in Australia the Competition and Consumer Commission would jump down their throat.

Over here you CANT advertise that your product does something if it doesn't, as covered under federal law.

We are entitled to a complete refund if the product is different, or has different capabilities, to those advertised. There are also massive fines for corporations doing that sort of thing.

Like if I purchased a TV that claimed it could recieve channels 1 thru to 10, and when I got it it could only do channel 7, the company would have to replace or refund it. Then cop a large fine.

Matrox stinks. What in gods name are they thinking over there in Canada? Terrance and Phillip are two Canadians that dont stink as much as Matrox.