If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Well, I simply don't understand why everyone's complaining 'bout "DX9 feature or not", "broken promises" and other things like that.
Just take the card "as it is"!!
No matter how many times someone's telling you, that the P. was intend to be a "gaming machine", it's time to get real!
The P. is primary a desktop-card, better used for high quality dvd & video playback, any kind of multimedia processing and visualization, InDesign-product workabouts and last but not least workstation based construction and design computing.
And it's really good at that!
Sure, there are better cards in that kind of use, but as twice as expensive, like 3DLabs products.
The P. is a workstation-card with gaming-support, N O T a game-card with workstation based software support and was never ment to be that way.
Of course, there were and still are problems with the kind a way Matrox handels supporting issues, but show me any other company perfect in it.
ATi? No, don't make me laugh.
Thinking about RagePro128-times or better RageFuryMAXX .... horrible.
Or nVidia? Newer driver-releases sometimes 20% slower than older ones? If you call that perfect driver-support, I don't wanna know the opposite of that.
Or performance promisses? Thank god that there's ATi and nVidia, where for example the 9600 Pro ( slower than the 9500 Pro ) and the GeFoFX5600 Ultra ( just crap at all ) are slower in a new Game ( Chrome for example ) than the over 1 year old P.?
Yes, ATi and nVidia keep their promisses, releasing an endless bunch of buggy cards in 50MHz-steps just to have 10 "different" models. Great. A "must-buy". *lol*
But do as you please ... sell all your P's and get happy with nVidia or ATi. And then start posting your complaints in their forums, cause there will be enough to talk about for sure.
Ah well... good news is that nVidia users are in the same boat.
nVidia (still) claims that the FX line is fully DX9 compliant while it's not. That's why all major gaming software houses have to revert to special coded nv30 paths instead of using the standard ARB2 path
Come on, it's been how many years since either of those 2 products were released? Geez, they've released the 1st generation Radeon, the 8500 series, the 9700, the 9800, and now the 9800XT. That's 4 generations of Radeon's.
To a man, nobody will dispute the fact that ATI has come full circle in terms of driver support. Take a good look around and see what real developers are saying about ATI drivers.
On the nVidia side, I have been very critical of their whole operation for the last 18 months or so. Let's face it, they've really tarnished their image. Having said that, the statement about their products NOT being DX9 compliant is absolutely not true. The fact that developers are providing special codepaths is NOT indicative of the product being non-compliant at all; what it does mean is that the FX lineup does not handle DX9 very gracefully without special care, especially in the area of pixel shading 2.0.
Well said. I do think it is a bit of a strech to call 9700, 9800 and 9800XT 3 generations though. Might as well add the 9000 then.
Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
[...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen
The GeForceFX is fully compatible with DX 9. Its pixel shaders are just slow in general and very slow when used in full 32 bit precision. To gain speed you have to either fall back to 1.1 shaders or selectively use partial precision shaders. It is a pain for developers, but it is done because of the very large number of people who own nvidia cards.
No one is going to write a special rendering path for the Parhelia because of its scant market share. It would significantly extend development time and would probably benefit only a few hundred people. Furthermore, without DX 9 pixel shaders, the Parhelia will never run a games' DX 9 path; it will always fall back to DX 8. Even if matrox enabled VS 2.0 in drivers, game manufacturers would still have to add a custom PS 1.3 and VS 2.0 path for it to be used. That is just not going to happen.
Regardless, just for the sake of their reputation and in order to appease their loyal customers, Matrox should still enable VS 2.0 in drivers. Who knows, someone might find a use for them. Otherwise, it seems as if they are breaking promises, and this rightfully upsets many people who shelled out nearly $400 for this card.
So you guys don't have a problem with the new disclaimer for 10% clock variation in addition to the other specs that were removed from the matrox site?
Originally posted by rylan So you guys don't have a problem with the new disclaimer for 10% clock variation in addition to the other specs that were removed from the matrox site?
The clockspeed issue is the most sleazy. Pragmatically speaking, the VS 2.0 issue is inconsequential, but it is a PR nightmare.
Originally posted by Tomasz
The GeForceFX is fully compatible with DX 9.
Sorry, but its not (according to Microsoft themselves):
Developers at the Meltdown Microsoft DirectX conference heard Nvidia make an interesting comment about its drivers.
One of the developers using FX 5900 hardware for an upcoming title tested the new shaders 2.0 and made a comment that he'd had problems with them.
Apparently, some 2.0 shaders simply do not work making Nvidia's claim that this card is DirectX 9 hardware puzzling, as Pixel Shader 2.0 is one of the essences of DX 9.
I voted "don't care".
It's simply history repeating itself (G200), this is why I didn't get a Parhelia in the first place (so much money for promises once more ? No thanks)...
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism."
Originally posted by Tomasz
PS 2.0 on GFFX seems to have some problems but it still appears to be mostly compatible with DX 9.
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.
The P is definitly a good piece of hardware, but the Matrox action with the VS 2.0 is also definitly a shame!
Further, that's not an execusion for the Matrox guys, but the support of the other companys is not better. LoL @ any guy suggesting me to buy a ATI product again , I've not forgotten R.F. Maxx (2 driver releases ever! no win2000/xp/linux driver ever!! for a 600 DM card!!!) and I see massive problems on the R 8500s two of my friends use, since the release of the cards till today, ATI drivers are just terrible.
P IV 3,06 Ghz, GA-8ihxp i850e, 512 MB PC-1066 RDRam, Parhelia 128 mb 8x, 40 + 60 gb IBM 7200 upm/2048 kb HD, Samtron 96 P 19", black icemat, Razer Boomslang 2100 krz-2 + mousebungee, Videologic sonic fury, Creative Soundworks
Comment