# THE graphics cards LIST



## anidex (Sep 2, 2004)

Every other day, there's a chap out here posting about which graphics card to buy. This has made me, and quite a few others, pretty irritable since people simply don't bother to scroll down the page and get the answers they seek.

So, in an attempt to minimize this, I've made this thread, which I hope the mods will make a sticky. Below is a link to a shader intensive water demo that I wrote in DirectX 9.0c. It basically stresses the video card using a couple of vertex and pixel shaders (at version 2.0) to test the performance of the card. Please download it and run it. Make sure that the settings in the control panel are:

AntiAliasing: OFF
Anisotropic Filtering: OFF
Texture Preference: Highest Quality
MipMap Detail: Highest Quality
Vertical-Sync: OFF (or Application preference)

The demo automatically dumps a screenshot at frame 125. The screenshot contains the frame rates on top that should prevent people from posting fake scores. The screenshot also helps to determine the image quality. Please post this screenshot here along with the specs as follows. 

Screenshot:
Graphics Card: (Manufacturer) (Model) (Amount of video memory) eg: ATI Radeon 9600 PRO 128MB
FPS (from screenshot):
Price You Paid:
Current price:

This application is almost completely independent of CPU usage, so system configuration doesn't play a role in the performance. Also, the code has not been optimized for either ATI or nVIDIA (doh, it's DirectX)! This shoudl lead to a fair benchmark. The app requires DirectX 9.0c and a vertex/pixel shader 2.0 compliant (or higher) card. I welcome everyone with such cards, ranging from the GeForce FX 5200 to the Radeon X800 XTPE to post their scores here. People with the second generation DX9 cards like the 6800 and X800 are even more welcome. It would be nice if the Digit folks could test the above cards and post the scores.

Thank You.

*www.angelfire.com/trek/startrekindia/Water.zip


----------



## anidex (Sep 2, 2004)

To start off, here's the benchmark from my system.

Screenshot:
*img50.exs.cx/img50/4629/Screenshot25.th.jpg
Graphics Card: ATI Radeon 9600 PRO 128MB 
FPS (from screenshot): 56.23
Price I Paid: Rs.15,000
Current price: Rs.9,000


----------



## blade_runner (Sep 2, 2004)

the links not working dude !


----------



## JAK (Sep 2, 2004)

blade_runner said:
			
		

> the links not working dude !




```
This page is currently unavailable 
 
Unfortunately, we are unable to process your request at this time. We apologize for the inconvenience. Please try again later.
```

Ditto...


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 3, 2004)

Good, if this is so, then I will also post my OpenGL sahder's here to test

Oh! wait, the minimum size is 48 MB, as it is really high quality nature scene


----------



## anidex (Sep 3, 2004)

Sorry about that, geocities has some problems. So, I've corrected it with a new link. Don't click on it, just RIGHT CLICK and select "Save Target As...".

gxsaurav, why don't you scale down the scene and texture sizes (which I'm sure are what are taking up most of the 48MB) and post them. It'll be very beneficial to a survey of this type. Then, users can benchmark both DirectX and OpenGL performances of their cards.


----------



## DKant (Sep 4, 2004)

Hmm..more "I'm buying a graphics card" threads. Why don't the mods make this a sticky, so new threads on graphics cards aren't started just bcoz the people concerned didn't look all over the page hard enough?


----------



## blade_runner (Sep 4, 2004)

plz post the screenshots as clickable thumbnails !

Screenshot: 
*img36.exs.cx/img36/6620/Screenshot71.th.jpg

Graphics Card: Nvidia Geforce Fx 5200 128Mb
FPS (from screenshot): 8.93
Price I Paid: Rs.4,000.
Current price: Rs.3,800.


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 5, 2004)

anidex said:
			
		

> Sorry about that, geocities has some problems. So, I've corrected it with a new link. Don't click on it, just RIGHT CLICK and select "Save Target As...".
> 
> gxsaurav, why don't you scale down the scene and texture sizes (which I'm sure are what are taking up most of the 48MB) and post them. It'll be very beneficial to a survey of this type. Then, users can benchmark both DirectX and OpenGL performances of their cards.



 but downsampling, only lowers the files size when compressed with UHARC to 20 MB, the real file size extracted are over 80 MB

Also downsampling lowers the image wuality, not good

Don't worry, I m writting one from scratch, just for benchmarking


----------



## anidex (Sep 5, 2004)

C'mon guys, post your benchmark scores.

gxsaurav, why don't you use DXT compression. Should bring down your texture sizes by atleast 4 times, if not more? Would be much easier than re-writing the whole thing again.


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 5, 2004)

I m not rewritting the whole thing again, I m writing a tottely different thing, the current one I have is based on OpenGL 1.4 ARB codepath, the new one I m making in OpenGL 2.0

They are already DXTC, they use compression for the textures for the scene at the front of player & everything before that particular frame is fiushed from the memory


----------



## anidex (Sep 5, 2004)

BTW, why don't you post your GeForce FX 5900 XT's scores of the water demo?


----------



## blade_runner (Sep 5, 2004)

Anidex why dont u post a clickable thumbnail of the image, so that page loads better. Goto www.imageshack.us and upload ur image, u will get a code generated automatically for the clickable thumbnail. 

Also guys u need to install DX9.0c to be able to run this thing. So better create a restore point in case anything goes wrong. Btw i got 9.08Fps with the Omega drivers.........


----------



## anidex (Sep 5, 2004)

Thanks blade, I did that.


----------



## JAK (Sep 5, 2004)

Hmm...

Ok here is mine...  

*img80.exs.cx/img80/8444/Screenshot0.th.jpg

Details
9.18fps @ 1024x768
MSI GeForce FX 5200 :128MB


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 5, 2004)

1st, I don't have Dx9c & this crashes on DX 9b, I m waiting for digit to get in my hand so that I can install SP2 with DX 9c

Those of U who want to see the Supported OpenGL extensions can download GLView from here. This will only show the current OpenGL extensions supported by your card & Drivers

Note NVIDIA 61.77 has no support of OpenGL 2.0, only 66.00 beta or later drivers support OepnGl 2.0


----------



## JAK (Sep 6, 2004)

gxsaurav said:
			
		

> 1st, I don't have Dx9c & this crashes on DX 9b, I m waiting for digit to get in my hand so that I can install SP2 with DX 9c
> 
> Those of U who want to see the Supported OpenGL extensions can download GLView from here. This will only show the current OpenGL extensions supported by your card & Drivers
> 
> Note NVIDIA 61.77 has no support of OpenGL 2.0, only 66.00 beta or later drivers support OepnGl 2.0



hey i am waitin for ur scores..u hav a 9800xt right...


----------



## blade_runner (Sep 6, 2004)

Nah he has a 5900XT .............


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 6, 2004)

Ya JAK, Gigabyte FX5900XT, If U are already eager for my benchmarks results U can check my posts in general section, I have posted scores of Aquamark, & UT along with Doom3

Hey Anidex, just to not create confusion, which drivers U want to me test it with 61.77 or 65.73, I m rite now usinh 65.73 & Doom3 performance is about the same but the quality is highly incresed even in Mediaum Quality, Although I m playing at my settings while at Mediaum settings it use 1X anis tropic filtering, so I Edited the Doomconfig.cfg to use 2x anis & 2x aa

My Settings, 1024X768 85 Hz, V-Sync on, 2XQ AA & 2X Anis, at this I GET Quality compared to 1280X1024, never required to go any further, although I go if even at these settings the quality is bad


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 7, 2004)

Ok, I just installed Windows from scratch, with XP SP2 slipstreamed, I haven't configured it much, I m using the 61.77 Drivers & everything in driver panel is set to the default of Quality, the usual things were running in the background like, NAV2004, Window Blinds etc, I just clicked the water.exe & it started running by itself. Rite now I have done no Gaming Optimisation to my PC for as much raw performance as possible

The screenshot made at 125 Frames was 3 MB in size, a bmp file, I compressed it to jpg, the quality is decresed due to that,


Image 150 KB
*img25.exs.cx/img25/4219/test30.th.jpg


----------



## anidex (Sep 7, 2004)

I sort of suspected this would happen with gxsaurav and it did  I noticed a variation in the font at the top that indicates the fps. The demo uses the basic Windows font "Veranda", so the possibility that he doesn't have it is unlikely. So what could've happened ?

Here's the image that gxsaurav posted :-

*img19.exs.cx/img19/144/test45.th.jpg

and here's how it should actually look.

*img19.exs.cx/img19/2754/Screenshot-Proper.th.jpg

As you can see, while the rest of the app renders text with the same font, only the fps count seems to be different :roll:! Care to explain gxsaurav? C'mon, your dear nVIDIA's DX9 compliant card couldn't have given too low an fps that would've made you fire up an image editing tool and......................................................  , could it have? And why does the terrain in your screenshot look so badly tessellated? Has somebody be running a tessellation reductor on the model      ?


----------



## JAK (Sep 8, 2004)

anidex said:
			
		

> I sort of suspected this would happen with gxsaurav and it did  I noticed a variation in the font at the top that indicates the fps. The demo uses the basic Windows font "Veranda", so the possibility that he doesn't have it is unlikely. So what could've happened ?
> 
> Here's the image that gxsaurav posted :-
> 
> ...



hmm....

Looks like he edited 48.**fps and 5900XT..


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 8, 2004)

Cool, U got me

The thing I was also running fraps to capture it as a avi in the background, my FPS sluttered between 17 to 42, so when it took the screenshot it was in fact 19, I editied it to show the max FPS, as the demo ran even after 125 fps, for more true comparision, can U plz recode it so that it can take a Screenshot at every 125 fps & not only after first 125 fps, I had not optimized the PC for gaming at that time, now it is done, soon will be posting it again

The image quality is low, I admit that, this is due to the fact that I encoded the jpg with quality level 5 in Photoshop, I though, only the fps matters so, I decresed the quality, I didn't knew U wanted quality, I have one made of only 70 KB with a really bad sky, the real bmp was 3 mb, the max quality jpg was 577 kb, tell me if I optimized the file size thinking that the fps is all that matters, did I do something wrong,

I only edited 48.88, anidex code it again, make it such that it takes a screenshot at every 125 fps, 

Remembar caching, the game I run, any game Far cry, d3 I run with cache, there is no cache, I had reinstalled windows only 2 hrs earlier, comon guys, if U think I m that bad, than Ok, I can't change your thinking


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 8, 2004)

Re downloading it, will post results tomorrow morning, or may be ater 30 mins


----------



## JAK (Sep 8, 2004)

gxsaurav said:
			
		

> Cool, U got me
> 
> The thing I was also running fraps to capture it as a avi in the background, my FPS sluttered between 17 to 42, so when it took the screenshot it was in fact 19, I editied it to show the max FPS, as the demo ran even after 125 fps, for more true comparision, can U plz recode it so that it can take a Screenshot at every 125 fps & not only after first 125 fps, I had not optimized the PC for gaming at that time, now it is done, soon will be posting it again



U cud hav simply re-run the prog again without Fraps runnin..and posted the fps...but then why did u edit 5900XT...


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 8, 2004)

Ok, I have done it again, 17 FPs funny, it is using 24 bit presicion, it should use either 16 or 32 cos I m using NVIDIA card not ATI, could it be optimized for ATI, what could I say I don't have the source code

This is tottly untouched, but again compressed, it just gets blurred with Baseline optimisation in Photoshop, again, I don't think anyone will like a 900 KB JPG, besides, if My card is such bad in DX 9c, then Y m I geting nice frames better then before in Far Cry with Patch 1.2 taken from warez

Anidex, do U have any game that U think shows this DX vs OpenGL thing better, not a demo. Which game U think that shows this benchmark good, I will see if I can arrange it

I m using 61.77 Official with everything set to default, & I haven't touched anything in this pic this time other then Compression

Still unsure, I invite anyone at my home to check it your self, or I can post a bunch of screenshots of any game I have, u name it , If I have it I will post screenshot, not benchmark from someone with whom I argued a few days ago for ATI vs Nvidia & ANIDEX, U R also using my previous card

FX card is not so good in DX9 ok, but 5900XT is better then 9600 Pro

*img7.exs.cx/img7/8444/Screenshot0.th.jpg


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 8, 2004)

PC is optimized, D3 & Far Cry works fine, this time I had nothing running the background, I was down to 16 services from 22, everything closed

When U learn image editing the first thing U have to maintain is the file size, I had no idea that compression will decrese the image quality this much that membars will jump & say "U R A Lier, U don't have FX5900XT, it su**S" etc

Anything else, again, I m inviting


----------



## blade_runner (Sep 8, 2004)

Hmm even i though so but dint say anything........i noticed the difference in fonts and plus the scores looked a bit suspicious........I had my mind on the 5900Xt getting arnd 25-30 Fps. But it runs way lower than my estimate !! 

@Gxsaurav: Dude try shadermark, the latest verison. thats also a good software to test ur shader peformance. But believe me the fx series in many ways than one. No point in just defending the card just cuz u have brought it. Since i too have a Fx card.......a 5200 albeit.....but i am switching to a ATi card soon, maybe a 9800pro or a 9600XT. But really in the last pic the 5*900 XT* looks edited !

This is how ur pic looks like, take a look @ 900XT the font is a different

*img18.exs.cx/img18/5879/11057.jpg

And this is how it shud look like 

*img18.exs.cx/img18/5167/11058.jpg

Got the difference !!


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 8, 2004)

If somebody doesn't want to belive, fine, I can't change their mind, 

Shadermark, Downloading it now, I m not defending my card, anidex this made this on Radeon 9600 Pro from Gigabyte, I sold that card, which was my previous card to a friend, so I will again check it at his home,

Since he made this on ATI, DX SDK automatically compiled this according to his Radeon, not his fault, this is the same reason games made on NVIDIA looks better on NVIDIA cards & games made on ATI looks better on ATI

WTH, R We, simple users, I don't care what a game is made on what performance I should get, benchmark is something I prefer but many times games defy it, Till now every game I have played runs really fine at my settings, just this benchmark, which is using 24 bit precision (strange to me,NVIDIA doesn't do 24 bit, while DX gives support for 16,24,32, so if it was not optimized then it should run at 16 or 32 on nvidia cards)

Well, atleast OpenGL does


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 8, 2004)

& for the last time 5900XT is not edited aaaaaaaaa


----------



## blade_runner (Sep 8, 2004)

> FX card is not so good in DX9 ok, but 5900XT is better then 9600 Pro



Well u cant compare a 14k 5900xt with a 8.5k 9600pro. The 9800pro is the direct competition to the 5900Xt at this price level. But the 9800pro wud eat the 5900 for breakfast. 



> & for the last time 5900XT is not edited aaaaaaaaa


Well look @ pics ......anybody will tell u that its edited. 



> If somebody doesn't want to belive, fine, I can't change their mind,



Hell we cud all care less man, but u know what, such things destroy any credibility that a man's got. 

Neways lets get back to the topic, other members plz post ur screenshots !


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 8, 2004)

SO now U want me to finda Radeon 9800 Pro & compare with that, woww, man I have money, but not that much


----------



## blade_runner (Sep 8, 2004)

Did i ?


----------



## anidex (Sep 8, 2004)

> Since he made this on ATI, DX SDK automatically compiled this according to his Radeon, not his fault, this is the same reason games made on NVIDIA looks better on NVIDIA cards & games made on ATI looks better on ATI


I've never heard worse gibbersih. The HLSL compiler compiles the shader at run-time, nothing is pre-generated or pre-optimized. Unlike OpenGL, where you can use vendor specific optimizations, with DirectX it's almost impossible. ATI cards run the demo at 24-bit precision all the time. Lower nVIDIA cards switch to fp-16 due to the heavy load. So, nVIDIA is at an obvious advantage, though it doesn't seem to fare too well even with that !



> FX card is not so good in DX9 ok, but 5900XT is better then 9600 Pro


Sure, that's why the 9600 PRO made mincemeat out of the 5900 XT (how many times higher was the framerate again? Three ?). Why don't we watch the 9600 PRO make mincemeat out of the "latest and greatest FX card", the 5950 Ultra ? Or perhaps even the GeForce 6800 GT ? Just shows how dismally nVIDIA cards perform when a graphics application runs fairly without nVIDIA specific optimizations ! This was what turned me against nVIDIA (I was a big time nVIDIOT an year ago).



> But the 9800pro wud eat the 5900 for breakfast


Right blade_runner. Actually, here we see the 9600 PRO eating the 5900 for breakfast !

Finally though gxsaurav, I appreciate your partial honesty. Coming forward to admit the truth was pretty brave. But you're only fooling yourself thinking that the GeForce FX 5900 (Ultra even) is a better card than the Radeon 9600Pro.

OK people, out with the screenshots . Time we got back to the topic at hand.


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 8, 2004)

Again, Y don't U post your 3DMark scores, I guess that is not NVIDIA or ATI optimized my score is 4108

As said earlier, I mcalling anyone in LKW to benchmark for more accuracy, if U don't belive me how do U think I can belive U, I don't know weather U  have done any ATI optimisation or not, I m not there to see, 3DMark it is a fair benchmark, we both haven't made it, post your last 3DMark screenshot where the marks are written

I had the same card U r using & this benchmark does works good on Radeon, the friend I sold it to, I ran it at his home, with Catalyst 4.8 it worked higher, when he saw my scores even he was amazed cos Far Cry Works better at my home then it does at his PC, now tell me is far cry optimized for NVIDIA, no it works better on Radeon 9800 pro but only marginally, so I guess Radeon 9600 Pro should beat my card too, but it doesn't care to explain

Oh! & can any one post a link to download shadermark, the link on fileshack want me to register


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 9, 2004)

I even do 3D rendering work, in Maya & 3Ds Max 6, blender, even there FX beats my old radeon, so again they are made for NVIDIA cos NVIDIA bribed them, oh! wait they are OpenGL based, which is dead for gaming na

As long as a Single game works better in my PC with FX then Radeon, I will say FX is better, Radeon 9800 Pro, sure it is better , FX5900 nUltra was made to beat it, 5900XT beats 9800non Pro

Besides I throw whatever I want at this card & it works fine, except for this benchmark, even better then on Radeon


----------



## anidex (Sep 9, 2004)

Have you been sleeping for the past 2 years? nVIDIA has highly optimized their drivers for 3DMark. About 2 years ago, FutureMark made it public that nVIDIA is cheating in 3DMark benchmarks. Then, they backed down because nVIDIA secretly threatened a lawsuit against FutureMark. nVIDIA simply doesn't play fair, they don't like to loose. From then on, 3DMark allows fp-16 in all nVIDIA cards. Don't you know that a 1000 mark increase in the score for the 5950 Ultra with the 3DMark 330 build mysteriously disappeard when FutureMark released build 340? It came back again with the new drivers. That's enough proof that nVIDIA's cheating.

Anyway, here's an article by FutureMark that describes all of nVIDIA's cheats! (Right click and select SaveAs...).


[url]*www.angelfire.com/trek/startrekindia/3dmark03_audit_report.pdf
[/url]

Also, 3DMark has one DX7 test, 2 DX8.1 test and a single partial DX9 test. Why don't you post that "Elephant Rhino" pixel shader 2.0 test scores? Afraid that it might again reveal nVIDIA's dismal performance?

My score in the game tests :- 3386
My pixel shader 2.0 score :- 36.2 fps

It's obviously clear that asking you for the latter score is meaningless since you're only going to fake it again. Why don't you post your ShaderMark 2.0 scores? It's the only fair benchmark around currently. Wanna see how my card gets 5 times the fps as yours?[/url]


----------



## blade_runner (Sep 9, 2004)

This is the link for Shadermark.......

*www.hwsetup.it/files/download/benchmark/shadermark_install.exe


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 9, 2004)

Thanx techno, 

If U guys remembar a few months ago I baughta  Radeon 9700 Pro for 4 days from my friendly shop, I tried it over my Radeon 9600 Pro, for 3D Rendering purpose, what I see, there is no feature that can make me buy a Radeon 9700 or 9800, Y do U think I went for FX5900XT insted of Radeon, simple, FX Supports more features when it comes to 3D Rendering & animation

My game play is only 40%, 60% I m  in Animation & Rendering, & for that FX performas better then both 9600 Pro & 9800Pro, it is about the same in rendering speed compared to 9800 Pro, but supports a hell lot of features, Ultrshadow in hardware rocks in Room & Outdoor sceans


----------



## anidex (Sep 9, 2004)

> FX Supports more features when it comes to 3D Rendering & animation


Like what? Nobody needs 1024 pixel shader instructions for offline rendering since that doesn't even matter. The FX only supports more features for real-time stuff.

If I remember correctly, you said that you went for the FX card since it appeared to be faster in games. So, you seem to be contradicting yourself !



> I m in Animation & Rendering, & for that FX performas better then both 9600 Pro & 9800Pro


Proof? I'd prefer something like that Futuremark disclosure that I posted  !

Anyway, I still wonder why none of you have been troubled by that Futuremark report !


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 9, 2004)

Look again in my previous posts, I never said I went for FX due to speed, but due to Features

FX is good in OpenGL, animation is all OpenGL so FX beatsn Radeon in animation, it is beating rite now too


----------



## plasmafire (Sep 10, 2004)

why is there a fight here insyed of a card review n their prices???

plzz change title o post 2 "ati nvidia cat fight"


----------



## anishcool (Sep 10, 2004)

wahtever you guys say. ati rules


----------



## blade_runner (Sep 11, 2004)

gxsaurav said:
			
		

> Again, Y don't U post your 3DMark scores, I guess that is not NVIDIA or ATI optimized my score is 4108



Hmm.....though i dont believe in synthetic benchmarks much i m posting my 3Dmarks2003 scores .........These scores are with my newly acquired *ATi Radeon 9600XT*
_
3DMark2003 score:_ 4010

_3DMark2001SE score:_ 11852

_Aquamark score:_ 28,870. 

Now earlier my scores with the Fx5200 were bad, but then that was a low end  card. Now there's a massive performance gain. And no i havent overclocked my card yet.


----------



## anidex (Sep 11, 2004)

Cool dude! I still dream of reaching 3500 with my card! I did overclock it once though and got a score of around 4200!


----------



## blade_runner (Sep 12, 2004)

Well after a intial burn in period i will overclock my card and then see how much scores i get.


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 15, 2004)

for those who are on dial up

latest NVIDIA 61.77 Drivers, = 12 MB

Latest ATI Catalyst 4.9 = 42 MB (Driver + Catalyst control centre), U also need ,net runtime 1.1 installon your system, & if U are using U also need the 10 security update for .net runtime, so total size = 42+23+10 = 74 MB, & when catalyst 4.10 comes out download 42+ mb again

So, who want to get ATI on dial up


----------



## anidex (Sep 16, 2004)

The new ATI Control Center screws nVIDIA's nView shit right back to hell! It's more than worth the download.


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 16, 2004)

Ah! CCC, 74 MB on Dial Up, better then nvidia, but where, I didn't see anything it gives over nview

Oh! , do U know what nview is, not even a control panel, it's simply a 2D Desktop management tool something ATI don't have even with CCC, my old Radeon sold to that friend is using these, & he is sick, cos, he can't caonfigure everything he used to before, he is back to the classic control panel


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 16, 2004)

& CCC is so better, that U need to spare a lot of HD space, a lot of useless services in the background, while NVIDIA, true plug & play, install the drivers & play whatever U wan't no worries or configuration


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 17, 2004)

*www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Features/aticccfeature/2.html

Go here ANIDEX, U said OpenGL is dead for gaming, well even ATI IS USING OpenGL based 3D settings preview animation in C3


----------



## anidex (Sep 17, 2004)

Bottom line is that YOU ARE A SNOB WHO DOESN'T LISTEN TO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF EGO PROBLEMS. Either that OR YOU'RE JUST PLAIN STUPID !


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 17, 2004)

anidex said:
			
		

> Bottom line is that YOU ARE A SNOB WHO DOESN'T LISTEN TO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF EGO PROBLEMS. Either that OR YOU'RE JUST PLAIN STUPID !



WHAT M I, Can U clerify that

oh! & Just to remind U of OpenGL again

Quake 3 Arena - All time hit OpenGL
Return to castle wolfenstein - Big Daddy - OpenGL
Medal of Honus series & mods - OpenGL, LAN & Multiplayer god
CoD & Battlefield series OpenGL, again multiplayer gems

So, I m waht, stupid, well, U know what even I like DX but does it means that OpenGL is nothing, plz, PS3 will be using OpenGL 2.0b, so sony is fool according to U


----------



## anidex (Sep 17, 2004)

And the games that use DirectX :-

Half Life 1
Half Life 2
NFS Underground
Will Rock
Far Cry (the DX9 renderer is far more advanced)
Halo 1
Halo 2
Unreal Tournament 2003/2004 (DirectX is the only decent renderer)
Unreal 2
Unreal Engine 3

... and a hundred other !

Hell, even JC's next engine will most likely be in DirectX!

BTW dude, I was refering to your anti-ATI attitude as well .



> he is sick, cos, he can't caonfigure everything he used to before, he is back to the classic control panel


Does he also have trouble tying his shoe-laces ?



> So, I m waht, stupid, well, U know what even I like DX but does it means that OpenGL is nothing, plz, PS3 will be using OpenGL 2.0b, so sony is fool according to U


X-Box 2 will use the superset of DirectX 9. So what's your point?


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 17, 2004)

Look what I said, I don't hate DX, i have played all the games U listed except for the still unreleased HL2, in DX mode, &  I m happy with the performance. I said I hate U when U say OpenGL is dead, wake up dude, Linux, Unix, Mac all OpenGL, gaming market  on mac, if it is bad then Y they release games ported to opengl for mac

Oh! & DX is dead, next up is a tottly new thing XNA, 

Also OpenGL 2.0 has full support for everything DX can do in Shader Model 3.0, even U can make shaders in OpenGL just like U can in DX, so which do U thin is better, DX which runs on Windows Only, or OpenGL which runs on everything, even mobile, and do the same things with OpenGL as U do with DX

Oh! every one is not a geek like U, hell, even I m not a coder

JC next engine will be DX, biggest Joke of Century, where U get that from

XBOX 2 DX 9, no it will use XNA 1.0 , now what do U say, if DX is that good then Y MS is changing the whole code

Bottom line,we both are correct at our places, DX is good as well as OpenGL is good, but both have their own market, DX is Windows Only, if U say DX DX DX , then U are also directly saying that the gfx foundation of Linux & Mac sucks, 

Ah! Mac UI, so much better the Windows XP with anything , again OpenGL

Cut the crap, U know now I m liking to fight with U, comon, bring it on


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 17, 2004)

Oh! I just remember, Doom3, OpenGL, is coming for XBOX, now tell me, how can XBOX run OpenGL when it can only run DX, hey, even MS can't deny the existence of OpenGL, thats Y they made XBOX perform with OpenGL, even XNA will support OpenGL 2.0b, so that PC games running on Windows, made in OpenGL or XNA can be easily ported to console, XBOX2 or PS3 or Game cube 2


----------



## anidex (Sep 18, 2004)

> Oh! & DX is dead, next up is a tottly new thing XNA


Dude, XNA is a unified development platform like Visual Studio, specifically meant for XBox 2, not a graphics API.

Windows Graphics Foundation (or WGF 1.0) is the new standard, equivalent of DirectX (it was formerly called DX9L). The DirectX Next specifications will be used for WGF 2.0, so DirectX isn't dead. OpenGL has been dead for some while now since it hasn't seen ny revolutionary developments like DirectX has.



> Also OpenGL 2.0 has full support for everything DX can do in Shader Model 3.0, even U can make shaders in OpenGL just like U can in DX, so which do U thin is better, DX which runs on Windows Only, or OpenGL which runs on everything, even mobile, and do the same things with OpenGL as U do with DX


The only thing is that most IHVs don't support proper ARB extensions necessary to exploit this. Most credit goes to your favorite nVIDIA !



> Oh! every one is not a geek like U, hell, even I m not a coder


Firstly, I ain't no geek you SOB. No need to get personal. And what the hell was that about you knowing OpenGL coding? Were you shitting everyone then? Biting back on your own words, huh? I guess it happens to people when they haven't been laid for a while !



> JC next engine will be DX, biggest Joke of Century, where U get that from


In case you didn't know, JC's been attending DirectX seminars because he's tired of the way the IHVs have completely destroyed OpenGL with vendor specific extensions. He said that he would gladly move over to DirectX if the IHVs don't get their act together.



> XBOX 2 DX 9, no it will use XNA 1.0 , now what do U say, if DX is that good then Y MS is changing the whole code


Again, XNA is a development tool, not an API. What you say there is just about as dumb as asking why the vendors and the ARB commity add new extensions ! Unfortunately for you, Microsoft is keeping the structure of WGF very similar to DirectX.



> Ah! Mac UI, so much better the Windows XP with anything , again OpenGL


That's a matter of personal taste. So what's your point?



> Oh! I just remember, Doom3, OpenGL, is coming for XBOX, now tell me, how can XBOX run OpenGL when it can only run DX


The XBox port of Doom 3 will use Direct3D. In case you didn't know, the XBox doesn't and cannot support OpenGL.

And for the last time, XNA is a development platform, not a graphics API. Finally, get your facts straight, buddy.


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 18, 2004)

oh! fact, rite, Yaar tution de do


----------



## crackshot (Sep 19, 2004)

with directX 9.0c out it would be really hard to say which GFX card is resonably future proof
certainly the one which supports PixelShader 3.0 & vertexshader 3.0.
n the one that does would cost no less than Rs30000


----------



## anidex (Sep 19, 2004)

Actually, the GeForce 6600 retails for around 15 grands, and it's shader model 3.0 compliant.


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 19, 2004)

anidex said:
			
		

> Actually, the GeForce 6600 retails for around 15 grands, and it's shader model 3.0 compliant.



1) U R Recomending GeForce  

2) Which model is costing U 15k here, it's not evern out, Gigabyte will be launching it in october


----------



## nikhilesh (Sep 19, 2004)

anidex said:
			
		

> > Oh! & DX is dead, next up is a tottly new thing XNA
> 
> 
> Dude, XNA is a unified development platform like Visual Studio, specifically meant for XBox 2, not a graphics API.
> ...



hey gxsaurav no offense meant but this dude sure knows his stuff


----------



## anidex (Sep 19, 2004)

Thanks nikhilesh .

BTW, gxsaurav,

1) No, I ain't recommending a GeForce. I just pointed out that the 6600 was a shader model 3.0 compliant card available at around 15 grands. Kinda predicated that you would react this way !

2) The plain 6600 should retail for that price. The GT of course, would be slightly more expensive, like 18 grands.


----------



## crackshot (Sep 20, 2004)

only NV40 core based gfx cards support PS3.0 a feature implemnted through dx9.0c. what bout new versions of openGL?? they 2 will eat ur gfx card budget. nonetheless one available in india is scanty and hell costly.


----------



## blade_runner (Sep 26, 2004)

Plz get back to the topics fanboys !! Post ur scores !!


----------



## JAK (Sep 29, 2004)

OK...

u guys carry on but just tell me from wher i can DL that Proggy

water.zip..

*www.angelfire.com/trek/startrekindia/Water.zip  ==> not workin


I just got myself a Club3D 9800 Pro (128 MB) and wanna post here....


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 29, 2004)

JAK contact ANIDEX, maybe he is optimising the code for X800


----------



## blade_runner (Sep 29, 2004)

JAK said:
			
		

> OK...
> 
> u guys carry on but just tell me from wher i can DL that Proggy
> 
> ...



Thats gr8 dude.........cuz last time i heard the 9800pros were on severe back order ! How much did u pay for it ?


----------



## JAK (Sep 30, 2004)

blade_runner said:
			
		

> JAK said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Rs 15000/-...  

bye


----------



## blade_runner (Oct 1, 2004)

Well guys, RMA'ed my 9600XT and got a new 9800pro instead, will post scores and stuff later !!


----------

