upgrading graphics card. Help!

I thought this article was fairly well done, discussing whether or not pixel shader 3.0 is overhyped or really worth it:

http://www.gdhardware.com/interviews/dx9b/002.htm

From what I understood in that article, programmers want to use pixel shader 3.0 as it DOES allow them to render better looking games, but not a high enough percentage of users have GPUs that support the technology so they have to wait. Since all NEWEST cards out today are supporting 3.0 (even the new ATI cards on on board), my guess is we are going to see it used more and more, as the programmers (at least the ones in that article) tend to feel that it is a step up in graphics.

If you are buying a new high end grahics card, (and I still consider the 6800/X850 cards high end) why by one that doesn't support pixel shader 3.0 (I.e, X850 series)? More and more games will be making use of the technology over the next few months it seems.

if you read the article you posted the link to you can see that the statemnet is made: Rowan: I can not think of any effects that can be done in PS 3.0 that can't be done in PS 2.0. Under PS 2.0 they might take some extra passes, or maybe a few more instructions, but the final result should exactly match the equiv PS 3.0 Shader.

I can tell you why it isnt a deal maker for me. I use ATI cards because they are calable and becuase they will fit in my full tower case without me having to remove my drive cages. and the same cannot be said about Nvidia's absurdly over long cards.

OUCH!! :unch:

pulling out the stoppers and going for the kill!!! Yeesh.

That was one (of many) responders answers. Was his the only one worth reading? I found the numerous other responses that were postive for pixel shader 3.0 to at least be worth reading.

For example:

or this one:

or this one:

"If I read it"??? Is that your impression of what I do in this forum, is post things I have not read? Nice. Anyways, you are one of the posters here who's opinions and contributions I have found INVALUABLE many times.

But today, I'll let this thread go on without me for a while. It is starting to take the flavor of a punching match, and well.... sometimes those are fun, but not today.

I think you missed the point of what all of the developers had to say about the differences between PS2.0 and 3.0 they all admitted that there is nothing that can be done with PS3.0 that cant be done in PS2.0. it is simply EASIER and more cost effective in to do it in PS3.0. that is not an unimportant factor is developing games. BUT... if the same effects and identical graphics can be done with PS2.0 as can be done with PS3.0 then it cant be said that better lookings games are only possible with PS3.0

The real reason developers want to move to 3.0 is because it will allow them to create the SAME graphics quicker and easier than doing it with 2.0. not becuase they cant make better looking games with 2.0

OK then, if they CAN make the same level of graphics using 2.0, then why is it that games that are utilizing 3.0 shaders look so much better? The far cry team had a LOT to say about the advantages of 3.0 vs 2.0, and it was NOT simply that it makes it easier to program as you are saying above.

Another example (from this link http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/02/vga_charts_viii/page2.html ) is Age of Empires3. Why are those 3.0 screenshots so much better than 2.0? If 2.0 CAN do the same, then why aren't they?

I think your point that for most games 3.0 is not utilized is accurate, but to say that 3.0 is not a step up (graphics wise).....

The answer is simple, they didnt take the time to program the graphics to the level it could have been with shader 2.0. opting instead for the easier route of shader 3.0.

Dont forget, programmng extra instructions required to fully exploit shader 2.0 capability means more time spent = cost more for the developer.

By better image quality I am referring to higher levels of anti alias and better texture filtering in general. Do a search on google about texture shimmering on the nVidia cards, you get some shimmering on ATI too BTW, but not as obvious in most cases.

I am not saying nVidia does bad video cards, I like both their video and chip set solutions.

BTW, most of the questions you raised while I was absent are answered by ISS, so not much left for me to say here(I agree with him in his recent posts).

compres

Which brings us back to the original question, is it worth while going for a 6800GT over and above the X850XT based on the fact that the 6800GT supports pixel shader 3.0.

For me the answer is simple. Yes. I want to be able to view games at their FULL potential. Programmers are using 3.0 and if I get a X850XT I will not be able to get all the details I would if I got a 6800GT.

Your original point that the number of games utilizing 3.0 is valid, but most of the newest games ARE using it, and the number of games that utilize it are going to continue to increase. The X850XT is not a good choice, as it's closest competitor, the 6800GT does support 3.0 and WILL give you the latest in graphics.

Go DonNagual! Yo da man! I hope you win this argument. And realistically, allways pick the better of the two cards. If one is even slightly better, then get it. Why quibble over which is better value, the 7800 series has the newest tech, so get it! I vote for the 7800.

Dude! That is against the rules.

Anyways, ISS is one of the most useful people on this board. I fully admit that there is the possibility that ISS is right. His knowledge of computers FAR surpasses my own in just about every way. I am the first to admit that.

When I bought my last card (the 6800GT) I did a lot of research and made my decision based on this exact discussion. If he proves I was wrong, it means I wasted my money, and I hate wasting money. (Mind you, I have since upgraded to the 7800GT but that is a different discussion).

Oops, sorry! I'm not sure what the rules are. But common sense would show that Pixel Shader 3 is better than Pixel Shader 2. 3 comes after 2. Now before you start telling me that it isn't allways that, I know that there are multiple factors. But the 7800 series is faster anyway.

Total confusion

This thread is a prime example of my dilemma: to game, or not to game? To date, my "high-tech" gaming experience consists of: Lara Croft:Angel of Darkness. Cartoonish, I know, but with my previous experience (SuperMarioBros2, Legend of Zelda), it seemed like a vast improvement. (plus-it came bundled with my sound card)

My video card(Radeon9250) won't play any of the good stuff, but when I read a thread like this, how in the world could I get an idea about which direction to go on a limited budget? Seems like like you'd have to be a software engineer to know what you were buying. Guess I'm too old and started too late.

Lively debate, though, and I am learning a little (I think).

I was just kidding actually. There are no rules saying you can't cheer someone on.

But it was against the rules of chivalry. When two samurai's meet face to face, there must be silence. If someone where to yell "I hope you win!!", internally the samurai may be happy, but he would have no choice but to slay the cheering person with incredible ferocity and violence.

It is a matter of honor.

To be honest I do not consider myself to be in an argument with Don, and our views as far as what card represnts the best value are the same. ( my intial post was a recommendation for a 6800GT, and still is. but I would also agree that spending 30-50 more for the 7800Gt is an even better idea.)

my only area of disagreement with Don is in the nature of shader 3.0. I hold it to be more hype than a necessary(for better looking games) component. all the develoopers will admit they can produce the same graphic quality with Shader 2.0b as with 3.0. it is simply a matter that it requires them more work to do it with 2.0b than it does with 3.0. That, plus the fact there are so few games supporting shader 3.0, and the fact that by the time most new games are supporting it. the current top end cards supporting 3.0 will only be a powerful as the lates budget, or mainstream cards by then.