a few days ago, I bought following graphic card: http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/vga/vga/pro_vga_detail.php?UID=378&MODEL=MS-8894
please read the specification:
“Dual programmable Vertex Shaders”, “Advanced programmable Pixel Shaders” and “Complete OpenGL® 1.3 and OpenGL® support”…that’s why i bought this card, i thought i can use all the “nice” stuff for my application. After i downloaded the latest driver from NVidia and some CG shader demos…i realised that this card is also a piece of ****. Sorry guys, but this is driving me mad.
The only pro is that the new card is a bit faster than the old one.
So…what card do i have to buy if i want all the nice features?
How can i determine what extensions are supported on which chipset, BEFORE i order a new card? Is there a link with a list of extensions supported by graphic cards?
I’ll better switch to ATI now…sigh
Please tell me your experience with graphic cards…
Talk about closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
It didn’t occur to you to search the internet for reviews of this “piece of sh*t” before you bought it?
It’s an old card, for gods sake, you can’t blame nvidia for you buying one of their old cards.
Anyway, that “fools rush in” lecture aside, from now on read as many reviews as you can from places like www.tomshardware.com and check Tom Nuydens opengl hardware report page: http://www.delphi3d.net/hardware/
…which will tell you what opengl extensions a particular card supports.
ALLWAYS READ A LOT ABOUT YOUR CARD BEFORE BUYING IT!!!
The FX5200 for ~75$ is DX9 card with all the bells, and is around Ti4200 in performance, clock it and you’ll get more (or if you are lucky with manufacturer as I am, (I have vram clocked at +100MHz (+200MHz as it’s DDR)), no need to clock! ATI won’t help you with Cg either, as they can’t suport NV30 shaders that are FX specific!
Few years ago I allmost brought GF2MX, luckily one clever man pointed out that I NEED GTS, now I understand what’s the difference. Currently FX5200 (MX line) isn’t that bad at all, as it has all the features 5800 has without compression & Intelisample antialiasing stuff (performance oriented features).
[This message has been edited by M/\dm/
(edited 06-03-2003).]
This card has those features (if you think DX 8.0 counts as “advanced”).
To get DX9 level hardware (ARB_fragment_program, most notably), you need something like an ATI Radeon 9500 Pro (very good value, if you can find it!), GeForce FX 5200 Ultra (about $90, and a good value for that price!), or something above that.
Statements on your need to do some research before you buy, isn’t the above statement a bit of a lie?
Pixel Shaders are the Dx equivalent of fragment programs aren’t they? Which the 4200 most certainly didn’t have. Or was there some psuedo FP/PS that appeared on the geforce 4?
For MSI to claim the 4200 had advanced programmable pixel shaders seems a bit rich for me…
Pixel Shaders are the Dx equivalent of fragment programs aren’t they? Which the 4200 most certainly didn’t have. Or was there some psuedo FP/PS that appeared on the geforce 4?
The GeForce3 and GeForce4 Ti cards (4200, 4400, 4600) support ps 1.3 pixel shaders under DirectX and NV_register_combers+NV_texture_shaders under OpenGL (exposed in Cg with the fp20 profile).
[This message has been edited by jra101 (edited 06-03-2003).]
Originally posted by rgpc: For MSI to claim the 4200 had advanced programmable pixel shaders seems a bit rich for me…
It’s marketing material for crying out loud. What were you expecting them to say? “Rudimentary programmable pixel shaders that have since been obsoleted by GeForce FX and Radeon 9x00”?
Originally posted by Tom Nuydens:
[b] It’s marketing material for crying out loud. What were you expecting them to say? “Rudimentary programmable pixel shaders that have since been obsoleted by GeForce FX and Radeon 9x00”?
– Tom[/b]
LMAO!
Note that not all 9x00 support the extensions I mentioned. I think there is a 9000 and a 9200.
Note that not all 9x00 support the extensions I mentioned. I think there is a 9000 and a 9200.[/b]
Yup, that’s worth mentioning.
Radeon 9000/9100/9200 support ATI_fragment_shader (first seen on Radeon 8500) which basically is DX’ PS1.4. That’s up to 16 Color/Alpha operation pairs arranged in two ‘phases’, where you get to do dependant reads (using freestyle computed texture coordinates) only in the second phase. And up to six texture samplings per phase (these do not count against the instruction limint).
These chips will never support ARB_fragment_program.
Originally posted by jra101: The GeForce3 and GeForce4 Ti cards (4200, 4400, 4600) support ps 1.3 pixel shaders under DirectX and NV_register_combers+NV_texture_shaders under OpenGL (exposed in Cg with the fp20 profile).
So what does Dx call Fragment programs (is that ps1.4)? (As opposed to blending functions and texture shaders)
As zeckensack said, PS1.4 corresponds to GL_ATI_fragment_shader.
As for the ARB program extensions, ARB_vertex_program roughly corresponds to VS1.x and ARB_fragment_program more or less corresponds to PS2.0. I don’t know enough about D3D to tell you exactly how much they correspond, though.
