Newsgroup: it.comp.hardware.video-3d
Titolo: Ancora su PS3.0 contro 2.x Bart Kijanka

Bart Kijanka – CTO Gas Powered Games:
GD: A lot of attention has been paid to NVIDIA's support of Pixel Shader
3.0 - can you specifically think of anything PS 3.0 can be used for that
can't be done in PS 2.0?
Bart: Currently it appears the impact of 3.0 on developers will be minimal.
Therefore it's unlikely the consumer will see significant benefits from 3.0
for quite some time, especially since the improvement of 3.0 over 2.0 isn't
as great as 2.0 over 1.0.
GD: Is there ever a need to use 32-bit precision over 24-bit? I'm looking
for an example where 32-bit precision shows an obvious superiority over
24-bit - both are considered "Full precision" by the current DX9 spec.
Bart: We don't have an identified need for 32 bit precision at this time.
GD: As a developer, how much are you influenced, if at all, by the likes of
NVIDIA's "Way its meant to be played" or ATI's "Get in the Game" programs?
Bart: We like to ensure our games work on the majority of video hardware
regardless. The card vendor certification initiatives seem to affect
marketing more than development.
GD: How far away do you think we are until we see PS3.0 and 32bit Precision
support become relevant as a "must have" feature in graphics cards?
Bart: Several years. I expect it won't be a "must have" until 3.0 shader
support is present in 80% or more of the installed user base.
GD: As a gamer, would it be more important for you to buy a video card with
the utmost in performance and supported 24bit precision and PS2.0 or one
slightly behind in performance but had PS3.0 and 32bit precision support?
Bart: Highest performance wins.
GD: A lot of attention has been paid to NVIDIA's support of Pixel Shader
3.0 - can you specifically think of anything PS 3.0 can be used for that
can't be done in PS 2.0?
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.
GD: And can you tell me if there's ever a need to use 32-bit precision over
24-bit?
Rowan: If there is, I haven’t found it yet  I’m still finding even 16bit
precision is suitable for most real-time shaders at the moment. I imagine
that once people start doing all sorts of crazy procedural material
generation within the Shader that 32bit might be necessary, however I think
we are still a ways off from there in terms of required hardware speed
The key message is that Shader model 3.0 and 2.0 look exactly the same, the
ATI representative added.
In a developers' mail that we also received, it added that there is a
possibility that the 3.0 path might be slightly faster in same cases on some
hardware - an obvious reference to Nvidia.
ATI also claims that its hardware will run faster then Nvidia's anyway and
he added: "It's pretty much impossible to make a sm3.0 game look noticeably
different to a sm2.0 game, which is why Nvidia was comparing the 2.0/3.0
path with a 1.1 path."
-- 
*** *** *** *** ***
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/locked.gif
http://punto-informatico.it/punto/20040430/dl2.gif

PS3.0 is over hyped. And many people were trapped into PS3.0 vs PS2.0 IQ
difference in Far Cry. As we know now, there were no comparison between
PS3.0 and PS2.0 but PS1.1. As ATI stated and Cry Tec confirmed there are no
visual difference between PS3.0 and PS2.0 in the Far Cry, and this is just
another NVIDIA fiasco...
I know that's all about marketing and i can understand it, but for sure
consumers should more carefully read all those articles and so on...
PS3.0 is nothing spectacular, and game developers clearly pointed out that
PS3.0 is nice and cool, but it will not be fully explored for next year or
two.
Extreme fast shader hardware like r420 will do faster PS2.0 than NV40 even
using PS3.0, and it will produce same IQ. Now, if we extend those shader
instructions up to thousands and thousands of them, eventually NV40 will
compe up faster, but the outcome will be the same for both chips "unplayable
frame rate" what is unacceptable for the consumers, gamers and so on...
The most important thing here is displacement mapping, because it can take
place in the game right now.
I think ATI will win this round, and NVIDIA will end up cutting down to FP16
in every game including Far Cry, simply because ATI will do much faster Far
Cry using FP24 than NVIDIA using FP32. And I don't think that NVIDIA will
let it, the rest is history.
However, NV40 is going to be base for future game development, the games
which will be released in the next two years.
On the other hand r3xx is going to be the choice for development in the
current and in the games which supposed to be release this and in q1 next
year.
!!NVIDIA should support FP24 precision, it's still the major key here...
