Ati to fight OPENGL with DIRECT 3d?

[RoguePsi]

Essentialy, forgot to add the where i was going with it.... It looks like Half-life 2 will have that extra needed boost to get the game done. They are going to have heat from ATI.

Heh. No. Valve take no heat from nobody.

 

[mayro]

The whole point of this thread wasent which was better... opengl or Direct 3d... The point was the geforce cards "atleast from what ive seen" Run opengl alot better than ATI cards. ATI cards run Direct 3d alot better than Geforce cards... THINK! Before these new lines of cards geforce's direct 3d sucked SO MUCH that the tombraider game that originaly had a benchmark got the benchmark pulled becuase it showed ATI faster... hence direct 3d.

From what ive read from you guys ATI is working on makeing its open GL better and geforces NEW line of cardw work ok with direct 3d.. What about people useing say a geforce 5600 and less? This was the whole reason i brought this up, opengl for the older geforce cards is awsome where the direct 3d sucked.

The point was - DOOM3 - is open gl GEFORCE cards LOVE! opengl.
2nd Point was- H-L-2 - is direct 3d ATI cards LOVE! direct 3d.

As far as i know, the game only runs in that mode opengl for doom3 and direct 3d for half life 2... if they ran both it wouldnt be a issue.

 

[FictiousWill]

In the end I'd imagine it's 4 to 5 fps at stake here.

 

[ailevation]

:x I'm very confused, from all the OpenGL games i've played... regardless of the card from ATI or Nvidia I was able to get good FPS even with low end cards, with high end you can easily attain 100+. Doom III is OpenGL, but it will actually give high end cards a work? D3D is more known to give video cards a work. What I am saying is why does it matter which cards perform better in OpenGL when high end cards can easily attain great FPS rates?

 

[blahblahblah]

:x I'm very confused, from all the OpenGL games i've played... regardless of the card from ATI or Nvidia I was able to get good FPS even with low end cards, with high end you can easily attain 100+. Doom III is OpenGL, but it will actually give high end cards a work? D3D is more known to give video cards a work. What I am saying is why does it matter which cards perform better in OpenGL when high end cards can easily attain great FPS rates?

Most recent OpenGL games (ie Call of Duty) are based off of the Quake 3 engine. That engine is somewhere around 5 years old. Even though the game developers can use high-res textures with the Quake 3 engine, the Quake 3 engine doesn't outright support fancy things like shaders and dynamic lighting. All of the shaders and dynamic shadows used in Call of Duty was adding in by the developers. Since most Quake 3 powered games don't have those fancy effects they naturally run faster than newer engines.

[Edit]: Back in the early days of DirectX, OpenGL actually ran faster than DirectX. I don't know if that is still true.

 

[Kazuki_Fuse]

BTW Far Cry was a *TWIMTBP title and in a hell of a lot of cases - ATI owners reported better performance with their cards !

*The way its meant to be played!

Not only better performance, but superior visual quality as well

 

[Asus]

As it stands now, Nvidia really is the only choice if you're a linux user, Windows 64bit user, or an OpenGl user. If you're use normal 32bit Windows and Direct3d, you can use either Nvidia or Ati, but Nvidia is still slightly faster anyway.

The OpenGl performance issues are Ati's problems only, but they are sorting it out now.

I disagree with the Windows 64bit part. Nvidia's 64bit drivers were not as mature as ATI's last time I saw a review. ATI has done a good job on their 64bit drivers so far. They are even with the 32bit drivers basicly. Nvidia's 64bit drivers were lower performance than the 32bit ones in a number of games.

ATI did take a while to get the driver out though. But currently it is out and works well.

 

[blahblahblah]

ATI's 64 bit drivers don't work with OpenGL games.

 

[Asus]

ATI's 64 bit drivers don't work with OpenGL games.

True. I don't play Opengl games right now so that could be why I forgot such a thing.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

bleh im just trying to make things right in my head. Sorry if im wrong /cry (wishes he could delete post)

 

[Kschreck]

I am for sure going to get the Geforce 6800 Ultra 512MB GDDR3 card when available soon. The Geforce 6800's are much better then the ATI cards. I read all the user reviews and yes Half-Life 2 will run super good on Nvidia cards as well. Valve would not make a game that only worked well on ATI cards because they would lose so much money. In fact almost everyone I know uses Nvidia cards. I like both companies but These new Geforces seem to be real good. I am however upset that ATI and NVIDIA are bugging Valve and ID to release buggy versions of their games just so ATI and NVIDIA can make some money. GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDY!!!

 

[SMT]

Even though the game developers can use high-res textures with the Quake 3 engine, the Quake 3 engine doesn't outright support fancy things like shaders and dynamic lighting.

Quake 3 supports shaders, but they're fixed function shaders because Quake 3 was written in the era of GeForce 1 cards.

And just about every modern 3D game has dynamic lighting. Muzzle flashes are dynamic lighting. Flashlights are dynamic lighting. Rocket explosions that light up the vicinity are dynamic lighting.

So do you mean full real-time lighting (i.e. every light source is dynamic and there are no pre-computed lightmaps)? Because Quake 3 definitely doesn't support that. It's the entire premise of Doom 3's design, however.

 

[CR0M]

A few years back at Quakecon, when Doom III was first announced, ATI was the manufacturer being promoted as "the" card to run ID's latest creation. It ran fine then, it'll run fine now. Unless, like someone mentioned earlier, you're a performance freak who wants to get that extra 2-5% out of their framerate. Besides, if ID was making Doom III specifically to run better on one particular hardware, they are only hurting themsevles by lowering their consumer base. The game has to perform well on most, if not all manufactured cards to maximize sales and thus profits.

Exactly. (That was me btw ^.)

Mayro, the grounds of my argument against any discernable difference is based on experience of the latest Nvidia (the way it's meant to be played) hyped engines in games such as Painkiller and UT2K using both cards. There is no slowdown on either, there is no jerkiness at all. Fact is, both top end cards run fine - it's all down to whether you want to anally compare the xtra fraction of % increase in speed with other schoolkids in the playground - there is no reason to expect Doom3 or HL2 to be any different, see if i'm wrong.

 

[Rupertvdb]

now i'm confused, which is the better card coming out, x800 or Geforce 6800?

 

[Crusader]

I only read one (p)review so far, and the ATI card came out on top there, but I'd have to see some more to benchmarks to see for sure..

 

[The Hulk]

I am sure ATI cards will be fine at running doom3 and I am sure that Nvidia cards can run HL2 just fine.

I agree MarksmanHL2. I got a 9800XT about 4 months ago and guarantee that it'll be great for both HL2 and DOOM3. Why ATI? No reason other than I've always had ATI cards over the years and never had problems with them. Nothing wrong with Nvidia...

I drive a Ford F150. I have buddies who drive Chevy's who scoff Fords - both truck are great - both look similar, although have slightly different looks - at the end of the day, they both can haul a lot of stuff - and that's what trucks are about. Same with the X800 and 6800 - both kick ass, slightly different is all.

 

[Steelwind]

Ok-Im sorry= Proof Time....

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16782

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDc0

Still looking for the other ones, gimme time.

You realize the HardOCP benchmarks are over a year old, right? ATI has had multiple dirver updates since then. Any problems they may have had are surely corrected. As for the Inquirer, that is all just speculation. We'll have to wait for a final version of the game, and final versions of ATI's latest cards/drivers to determine how big a difference there is. Again, I highly doubt it's as high as 50%. There's something terribly wrong if it is.

 

[NeLi]

I prefer the x800 over the 6800. It doesn't require a ****ing nuclear generator to run, like the 6800.

 

[^Ben]

6800GT is where it's going to be at my freinds!

Just underclocked ultra

While the X800 pro is a crippled XT 12VS16

The GT has the full 16 pipes and that does make a difference

But at the moment it's a moot point because the only cards you can get in steady supply are the x800pros in the UK but apparenly the 6800GT's are going to be in good supply within the next 2 weeks

 

[Bio]

Gonna buy x800xy PE when its comming.

 

[^Ben]

I'm still blazing it up with a radeon 8500!