PreservedSwine
Posts: 325 +0
Remember all the synthetic Pixel Shader 2.0 benches that showed very poor performance on NV3x cards? Check out this Beyond 3d review.....
http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/traod_dx9perf/
I was pretty surpised to see the HUGE difference in performance between R3XX amd the NV3XX cards. Hoping that Nvidia will optimize their shaders, they have some serious catching up to do......Wondering if HL2 will show similar results....
Interesting that for the low end, DX9 Nvidia cards,
Why are you buying that FX5200 again??? Go Ti4200!!!
With the recent Triplex REDai Radeon 9600PRO 128MB we introduced the game "Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness" as a benchmark. Regardless of what you may feel of the game, the importance of this as a benchmark is that this is one of the first available gaming titles to make use of Pixel Shader 2.0 functionality, meaning that DirectX9 boards are required to run the full functionality the game has. The developers have included numerous fall back modes to cover boards all the way from DX7 to DX9, but here we are only looking at DX9 performance with a number of DX9 boards from ATI and NVIDIA.
http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/traod_dx9perf/
I was pretty surpised to see the HUGE difference in performance between R3XX amd the NV3XX cards. Hoping that Nvidia will optimize their shaders, they have some serious catching up to do......Wondering if HL2 will show similar results....
Interesting that for the low end, DX9 Nvidia cards,
By default we see a similar pattern with the lower end boards than the high end boards - all the extra PS2.0 effects are turned off for the FX boards and enabled for the Radeons. You'll note that despite this being DX9 capable, all PS2.0 effects are disabled for it, effectively limiting it to DX8 functionality.
Why are you buying that FX5200 again??? Go Ti4200!!!