"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote:
> This is not OT, it's directly relevant to this newsgroup.
>
> > Just noticed this thread about the performance difference in Far Cry if
> > the
> > Nvidia 6800 Device ID is set to ATI R300.
> > [url]http://www.driverheaven.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44253.[/url] Haven't had
> > a chance to read it yet in depth, and I do hope Nvidia isn't cheating.
> > Again.
>
> "the Radeon 9800XT is very close in [FarCry] performance to the
> 6800Ultra at the same IQ levels. Only 7fps in average framerates separate
> the cards which is a phenomenal result for the Radeon."
>
> What does this mean? My guess is that FarCry uses a mix of PS1.1 & PS2
> shaders for the GeforceFX, and these settings are being carried over
> unchanged to the 6800u, while the Radeon has always used PS2.0 alone. If
> true, present FarCry 6800u benchmarks are pretty much worthless, especially
> with the reported 6800u artifacts.
>
> rms

To me, the real question is, what exactly can be achieved with PS2.0
and PS3.0 over PS1.1? I just didn't see a whole lot of differences
between my old GeForce 4200 and the newer 5900XT? Will the fish
shine? Do the birds change from fancy parrots to dirty seagulls when
using an old card? If the comparisons done in Geneva two weeks ago
were done in low quality PS1.1 against the highest quality PS3.0, then
that's really the wrong way to market the next generation card. If
the thugs have shining snot dribbling from the noses with PS3.0, maybe
I don't really want to see it!