On Jul 28, 05 19:29:19 +0200, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
R200 did not really have pixel shaders. They had a configurable pixel
pipeline, that's different. Comparable to GeForce2, a little bit
better.
Looks better to me than GeForce3/4, really, if only for the dependant
texture read. You
This is the sound of me hating ATI for making such useless pixel shaders.
Hey hey calm down a little there, up until the R300 ATI has been on
the forefront for implementing new features on their chips like:
- 3d textures. NVidia only came up with those in the FX5 series, ati
had them already in
On Jul 27, 05 17:14:25 -0400, Patrick McFarland wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 04:54 pm, Ian Romanick wrote:
Also, what stops you from splitting up a shader, and running the peices
back to back over multiple passes? Can't you emulate longer shaders doing
that?
No. Temporary
On Jul 28, 05 11:52:10 +0200, Wladimir van der Laan wrote:
This is the sound of me hating ATI for making such useless pixel shaders.
R200 did not really have pixel shaders. They had a configurable pixel
pipeline, that's different. Comparable to GeForce2, a little bit better.
Hey hey calm down
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthias Hopf wrote:
On Jul 27, 05 17:14:25 -0400, Patrick McFarland wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 04:54 pm, Ian Romanick wrote:
This, BTW, is what ATI's fbuffer in all about.
I'm trying to find more information about this fbuffer, but Google
Matthias Hopf wrote:
On Jul 28, 05 11:52:10 +0200, Wladimir van der Laan wrote:
This is the sound of me hating ATI for making such useless pixel
shaders.
R200 did not really have pixel shaders. They had a configurable pixel
pipeline, that's different. Comparable to GeForce2, a little bit
Hello. I found a reason why ATI nor NVIDIA provides us hardware
details:
http://www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/3dmark03_audit_report.pdf
Regarding ATI: This performance drop is almost entirely due to 8.2%
difference in the game test 4 result, which means that the test was
also detected and
Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
Hello. I found a reason why ATI nor NVIDIA provides us hardware
details:
http://www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/3dmark03_audit_report.pdf
Regarding ATI: This performance drop is almost entirely due to 8.2%
difference in the game test 4 result, which means that the test
Patrick McFarland wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 02:43 pm, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
Please continue developing reverse-engineered, open sourced drivers.
As time permits...
Heh, the only thing I want is GL ARB fragment shaders accelerated as much as
possible
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 03:18 pm, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
Patrick McFarland wrote:
Heh, the only thing I want is GL ARB fragment shaders accelerated as much
as possible by R200 hardware. I don't see that happening with ATI's
binary drivers, they only support the old ATI pre-ARB fragment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick McFarland wrote:
Even if we violate precision/range stuff, being able to accelerate simplistic
shaders would be quite useful. Its better than not having a software
implementation of the shader pipeline.
The problem is that most shaders
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 04:54 pm, Ian Romanick wrote:
Patrick McFarland wrote:
Even if we violate precision/range stuff, being able to accelerate
simplistic shaders would be quite useful. Its better than not having a
software implementation of the shader pipeline.
The problem is that
Patrick McFarland wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 04:54 pm, Ian Romanick wrote:
Patrick McFarland wrote:
Even if we violate precision/range stuff, being able to accelerate
simplistic shaders would be quite useful. Its better than not having a
software implementation of the shader pipeline.
So why can Doom 3 use R200 pixel shaders, and DRI can't?
And we currently don't implement the two extensions on r200 that Doom3
uses, I've still got a 90% finished ATI_fragment_shader done but I've
little time to pick it back up, and the only test code I had was doom3 and
unfortunately when I
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 06:16 pm, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 18:05, Patrick McFarland wrote:
So why can Doom 3 use R200 pixel shaders, and DRI can't?
Doom3's r200 shader pipeline gives different (read: worse) output than
their arb shader pipeline. They have the liberty
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick McFarland wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 06:16 pm, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 18:05, Patrick McFarland wrote:
So why can Doom 3 use R200 pixel shaders, and DRI can't?
Doom3's r200 shader pipeline gives different
16 matches
Mail list logo
