There are some nice demoes at NV, one called Ogre, one called Dawn, and some others.
They look incredible. Can someone post some benchmarks running these demoes?
PS: The FX doesnt seem to be available where I am. The ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 128Mb DDR AGP is listed as 310$ on one local place but on the internet I see some Gf FX 5500 for 75$ (pricewatch).
What’s the joke? They have ridiculous prices listed on some websites.
The joke? Oh, that’s the GeForce FX.
I’m really doubting that the GeForce FX will ever see the light of day. To me the GeForce FX was a failure. It wasn’t released when it should have been, not all that impressive. O well, better luck next round.
Originally posted by V-man:
but on the internet I see some Gf FX 5500 for 75$ (pricewatch).
Never heard of Gf FX 5500. As far as I know there are 5600 and 5200(maybe you mean the last one) - this are the “light” versions of Gf FX, something like MX series. A DX9 card for 80$ - not bad, but the performance…
PS: The FX doesnt seem to be available where I am. The ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 128Mb DDR AGP
The 5800 ultra from BFG Technologies was shipped to some stores in the US yesterday. Priced at $500. I am assuming it will be available in other countries within a couple of weeks.
I’ve recently been running those demos on one of our Quadro FX 1000’s.
I wasn’t particularly impressed. If these demos are supposed to demonstrate “cinematic” rendering, then they fail.
Ogre: What’s the big deal? Why is it 244mb? It’s per-pixel lighting on a skinned mesh - or am I missing something? I’m pretty sure it could be rendered with equal quality in maybe a few more passes on a geforce 3.
Toys: It’s ok. The depth of field effect works reasonably well, but the artifacts (a kind of woven fabric overlay artifact) are evident. Close up blur is terrible. Non-cinematic.
Dawn: Now this looks good. The lighting on the skin is really carefully done. It’s pretty effective.
Time Machine: crap - really bad rust. Again, don’t see the big deal - why is it FX card only? Nothing special there.
I dont know what FX 5500 is suppose to be, but that’s what they had listed. Even if it was a 5200, 75$ seems too low for a brand new card (although I dont know what it can do).
If it’s a “MX” type of thing, forget it!
The ogre demo looks well detailed in the screen shots. As detailed as the Dawn demo. I’m assuming all the demoes are using vertex and frag programs so it’s FX only.
Those 2 look “cinematic” from the screenshots.
What FPS are you getting Kierana?
The joke is the performance on anything less than the 5800 Ultra. I got a 5200 Ultra and it’s so damn slow… my GF4 4600 Ultra beats it in games. If you just want to program with the new VS/PS stuff, then go with the 5200 Ultra. It’s enough to get started on coding for new hw, but dont expect any kind of performance.
I went back to my 9700 real quick!
[This message has been edited by fresh (edited 04-15-2003).]
The 5200 seems to be the MX replacement. I think the recommended street price and available memory configuration should make that competetive. Bringing DX9 shaders out at that price, potentially to every consumer, is not something I’m prepared to frown too much upon, even if it’s just 2 pixels per clock.
More power to consumers == more interesting work for us.
EDIT: did you notice that the Dawn demo has a settings file? Did you notice that there are actually two settings file? Did you notice the frame rate on the 5200 if you use “the other” settings file (There are clearly visible differences between the two settings, even for screen shots).
[This message has been edited by jwatte (edited 04-15-2003).]
Originally posted by jwatte:
did you notice that the Dawn demo has a settings file? Did you notice that there are actually two settings file? Did you notice the frame rate on the 5200 if you use “the other” settings file (There are clearly visible differences between the two settings, even for screen shots).
not having an FX (and never planning to), i’m interested in seeing those screenies, and knowing the performance differences…
is it fp16 against fp32?
i see no point in FX cards anyways. sure, the advanced pixelshaders are neat to use, but that the performance of standard pixelshaders is crap, thats crap.
The Asus 5800 was advertised last week in Oz for a tiny AUD$970 but no other models. Doesn’t mean it’s available though - I remember going to buy a geforce 2 GTS a couple of months after they came out and no-one had one.
From what I’ve seen of the specs (vertex/tri throughput) the 5800 looks like the only “True” fx and the other two look like MX’s - the 5800’s performance looks to be way above the other two. (The stat’s I read were something like 200Mil to 80Mil)
To be honest, to claim to be cinematic, is to claim to be able to render a typical scene from a real film with some degree of detail. I’m unsure of what NVidia’s definition of cinematic is now. The frame rate for even the Ogre is pretty dire on this quadro fx (look at it in wireframe, there’s not very many polys in the ogre itself, and there’s ZERO scenery).
Whether they’re using fragment programs or not, doesn’t make much difference if the end scene looks much the same as standard pixel shaders, except at a lower frame rate.
I think they should have thought more carefully about what demos to release - wolfman is more impressive to the casual observer than ogre, even though ogre involves more accurate calculations.
As far as demos go, I think NVidia should really have released something more along these lines:- http://www.flipcode.com/cgi-bin/msg.cgi?showThread=04-15-2003&forum=iotd&id=-1
HDR and image-based effects - now that’s cinematic.
Originally posted by kieranatwork:
To be honest, to claim to be cinematic, is to claim to be able to render a typical scene from a real film with some degree of detail. I’m unsure of what NVidia’s definition of cinematic is now.
agreed. seeing dawn looking quite like some shrek-character from quality is one thing, but seeing shrek walking in shrek environment, the house, the swamp, the trees, the grass, the water, the air, the sky, the flowers and all, thats something completely different.
i was never impressed by one-character-demos. look at the ati demos. the chimp for example. some nice nature environment around. look at the nature demos from 3dmark02/03. those show how near/far from cinematic we are. a game needs a cinematic world. not a cinematic character.
and looking at such cinematic worlds, the radeons perform quite well, and don’t even require those thousand-instruction-pixelshaders.
Originally posted by kieranatwork:
HDR and image-based effects - now that’s cinematic.[/b]
Really amazing , the quality is …well ashtonishing effects …
anybody have seen this with frag programs in OpenGL ? any tutorials in image-based lighting ?
this work is so amazing that´s something like …
…oh yeah… I want to die now …
[This message has been edited by raverbach (edited 04-16-2003).]
From the screenshots, the face and hair of the fairy look pretty good. Maybe not movie CGI quality, but it’s halfway there. Heck if games look like this instead of beeing box like with a 64x64 or 128x128 texture …
Doom3 is detailed but the polygons are visible.
You guys discouraged me from getting the FX.
I’m gone wait and see.
Mad stuff, isn’t it? (the HDR/glare stuff)
I’m sitting here spinning that skull with tons of exposure on - and it looks pretty damn cinematic to me…and I’m getting better frame rates than the ogre demo.
If I remember rightly, Nutty did a nice opengl ‘glare’ demo yonks ago - but this obviously takes that to a new level.
ATI have a HDR demo too, don’t they? I remember watching some AVI’s of it, but again it wasn’t to this sort of standard.
Graphics like this would certainly refuel my interest in video games, I think. Lots of gameplay twists when you’ve got real lighting effects like this.
Looking in wireframe, the “ultra” version of the Dawn demo seems to have one more level of tesselation in geometry, pluse nicer shaders on the wings.
Interesting tidbit: all the hair on Dawn seems to be made out of geometry!