Next Generation Emulation banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
5,810 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

· Registered
Joined
·
5,810 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Bleh i sugest u dont even bother downloading. The free version doesnt have all the texts and doesnt even let you choose the options :S

Bleh what a waste of traffic

 

· PCSX2 Coder
Joined
·
11,343 Posts

· Back to regular business
Joined
·
3,317 Posts
Bah, who needs HDR, anyway?! I mean, look at PS2 games like ICO or Xenosaga 2 doing that sort of effects without even knowing what HDR is! Really, that shot could have been produced by a PS2 as well!

P.S.: Just looked at your frame rate and afterwards on your PC specs. Man, that 3DMark engine REALLY sucks!
 

· I m meow desu! ^_^
Joined
·
5,631 Posts
Yes my PC going to cry about it.:(
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,810 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
F-3582 said:
Bah, who needs HDR, anyway?! I mean, look at PS2 games like ICO or Xenosaga 2 doing that sort of effects without even knowing what HDR is! Really, that shot could have been produced by a PS2 as well!
Trust me it wouldnt :p You should see it in motion, but yeah i agree the engine should run at least a little bit better.


As for HDR, its beautifull when done right (HL2).

And refraction thats what i said to my self, this should be 3dmark2005 2. But i think thats just the Basic version, Now theres an advanced and Pro version that have more stuff. In basic we can't even change the damn options :S
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,585 Posts
F-3582 said:
Man, that 3DMark engine REALLY sucks!
People had such gripes with F.E.A.R. as well. The ignorance that takes place is similar to the one that leads to questioning PCSX2's performance on today's modern PCs.

If you have any idea how much dynamically calculated precision there is in the lighting in these SM2/SM3 game demo's, the effects of softshadowing and HDR, and the amount of dynamic lights casted onto a huge number of reflecting objects; you'll come to understand that such dynamic precision is impossible to achieve without a huge amount of added overhead, thus delivering "terrible performance".



Metalmurphy said:
yeah i agree the engine should run at least a little bit better.
I wish I could instantly be aware of unoptomized code in an engine that is the first to display such a myriad of heavy techniques on your home PC. :p Unless you're able to volunteer to optimize it for them, you have no way of knowing.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,810 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Seeing as i've seen better looking GAMES (not just demos) running better i believe that yes it should run better.
 

· Back to regular business
Joined
·
3,317 Posts
I think that there's still a difference between an emulator utilizing lots of CPU for emulating completely different hardware and an engine being written solely for the system it is running on.

OK, call me ignorant, but I only judged from what I saw and I saw hardly any reflection, only a bit shadowing and a pretty bright sunlight.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,585 Posts
Metalmurphy said:
Seeing as i've seen better looking GAMES (not just demos) running better i believe that yes it should run better.
Like X3, the space "sim"? :lol:



F-3582 said:
I think that there's still a difference between an emulator utilizing lots of CPU for emulating completely different hardware and an engine being written solely for the system it is running on.
Definitely. But then, I wasn't comparing them, now was I. ;)



F-3582 said:
OK, call me ignorant, but I only judged from what I saw and I saw hardly any reflection, only a bit shadowing and a pretty bright sunlight.
Reflection..? I meant as in reflecting light, not having a reflection. A bit shadowing? What about the dynamic lighting in all game tests, and the softshadowing in the latter two? A pretty bright sunlight? Did you notice the effects it had on the objects it casted its light on?



I mentioned F.E.A.R. because of all the people initially whining about the system requirements, without understanding that this game is most accurate and most excessive in use of dynamic lighting of any PC game thus far. Ever shot a hanging light in that game? Do you realize the added complexity over the current Doom3- and Source-engine powered games, right out of the box?

I mentioned PCSX2 because it contains the perfect analogy (that anyone on Ngemu can understand) for my explanation: complexity requires more overhead. More overhead degrades performance.

Imagine coding stuff that behaves according to real world rules. Those are some nasty amounts of rules and checks, and the output is far more complex than anything less real can depict so far. Trying to get more accurate real world behaviour or dynamics in code, adds in complexity. Complexity requires more overhead. You guys think 3DMark06 just showed pretty graphics, neglecting the accuracy of the lighting (which was completely dynamic) compared to what we're used to, and the effects of softshadowing? :p
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,810 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Gaurav said:
Like X3, the space "sim"? :lol:
erm no but i dont see where ur going with that... X3 IS one of the best looking PC games around.

Oh and btw ur talking like u want to show u know alot when u actually dont. Nothing u said is new / unkown to us.
 

· Random personnality
Joined
·
53 Posts
Hey nice benchmark.... To run this program smoothly you have to get a pc that doesn't even exist. 3d mark you're the best. :)


But hey .. nice graphic.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,585 Posts
Metalmurphy said:
erm no but i dont see where ur going with that... X3 IS one of the best looking PC games around.
It also runs better than 3DMark06, which is why I thought you meant this one. There is good reason why.


Metalmurphy said:
Oh and btw ur talking like u want to show u know alot when u actually dont.
Actually, I was trying to inform on why certain choices of words are very bad and actually a bit insulting to anyone who worked on this. If I wanted to show I know a lot, I would've made my previous post sincerely longer and would've probably made fun of you in the process. I'm not like that, but since I don't take kindly to the non-sensical crap that is your remark, I will adapt to your customs just this once:


Metalmurphy said:
Nothing u said is new / unkown to us.
I see. The remarks made sure are typical for those knowledgable on why it performs slowly, even after a single run. :rolleyes: What if I said I made it all up?


Thanks for reminding me that I shouldn't bother.
 

· Back to regular business
Joined
·
3,317 Posts
Gaurav said:
Definitely. But then, I wasn't comparing them, now was I. ;)
Really? At least you used them as some sort of in-between-similarity in your argumentation... somehow, I think :D Besides, a few sentences after that statement you did a comparison, right?

Gaurav said:
Reflection..? I meant as in reflecting light, not having a reflection. A bit shadowing? What about the dynamic lighting in all game tests, and the softshadowing in the latter two? A pretty bright sunlight? Did you notice the effects it had on the objects it casted its light on?
Sorry, I should have mentioned that the last 3DMark running on a computer I 0wned was 3DMark01, I think. I was of course only referring to the screenshot Murphy posted. At least that one looked pretty crude in my humble opinion. Besides, I already mentioned that there are lots of games (mostly on the console side) that do some of these effects - that sun thing, for example - just by using some nifty big sort-of corona effect.


Of course, scenes of that accuracy are near (or completely?) impossible to run smooth on a system like mine, but seeing the recent progress in CPU and GPU technology, I don't see why they should run that choppy even on a PC like Metalmurphy's.
 

· Familiar Face
Joined
·
5,307 Posts
Strangely enough, I ran this on my rig, and it said that I couldn't run the HDL/SM 3.0 tests, which is weird, cause my video card supports shading 3.0.oO I have the latest drivers from Nvidia and newest Directx, but by not being able to run those test, my score was really hindered.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,733 Posts
I got 2667 in the test without overclocking my video card, so I am happy.

3DMark is not designed to run fast on most hardware, but to tax hardware using the very latest effects to give an idea how future games may look.

General Plot said:
Strangely enough, I ran this on my rig, and it said that I couldn't run the HDL/SM 3.0 tests, which is weird, cause my video card supports shading 3.0.oO I have the latest drivers from Nvidia and newest Directx, but by not being able to run those test, my score was really hindered.
Try Forcing AA off. NVIDIA cards cannot process HDR and AA at the same time, so the SM3.0 tests won't report a score.
 

· Familiar Face
Joined
·
5,307 Posts
Clements said:
Try Forcing AA off. NVIDIA cards cannot process HDR and AA at the same time, so the SM3.0 tests won't report a score.
Do this through 3DMark, or through my GeForce controls?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,810 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 · (Edited)
Through ur device controls, u can't even change through 3Dmark unless u bought it.

"NVIDIA cards cannot process HDR and AA at the same time, so the SM3.0 tests won't report a score."

Actually most of the games dont allow it but i dont think its a Nvidia problem. HL2 does HDR and AA with no problems.


I see. The remarks made sure are typical for those knowledgable on why it performs slowly, even after a single run. What if I said I made it all up?
it seems u got me wrong, of course if it runs slow is for a reason... thats obvious, but the true key on game making is making it look nice while using the less gpu/processing power as possible. Thats something 3Dmark2006 didnt even bother with it. And why should them, i understand they're point of view, but imo i call it bad devolopment, even for a benchmark

If I wanted to show I know a lot, I would've made my previous post sincerely longer and...
please do

would've probably made fun of you in the process.
u already did and thats why i was pissed.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,733 Posts
Metalmurphy said:
Actually most of the games dont allow it but i dont think its a Nvidia problem. HL2 does HDR and AA with no problems.
It is a NVIDIA problem.

Extremetech said:
There's one major curiosity in how 3DMark06 handles these tests. As we all know, GeForce 6 and 7 series cards cannot perform floating-point blending and multisample anti-aliasing together in hardware. These are Shader Model 3.0 cards and are capable of running the SM3.0 + HDR tests, but if you enable AA in 3DMark06 the SM3.0 tests won't run. If you enable AA in 3DMark06, you simply get no final score for GeForce 6 or 7 cards.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1912117,00.asp

Half-Life 2 is probably using a different method of rendering HDR or is not 'true' HDR that is using floating-point blending. The problem is well known since right back when the HDR patch for Farcry was released, and only X1xxx cards can do true HDR+AA at the same time right now.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top