Is The FX ACTUALLY Directx 9 Compliant?

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

Microsoft requires that for a video card to be Directx 9 compliant that it be able to do FP24 bit precision. The FX line is touted as doing FP32, FP16, and INT12 (the whole driver cheating thing stems from them using FP16 when they're supposed to be using FP32).

However, according to this article only the nv35 (ie. the 5900) supports using FP32........the nv30/nv31/nv34 (5800/5600/5200) do NOT!

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/ps- ... index.html

These are with the WHQL drivers, too! So, unless you get a 5900 you're only getting a Directx 8.5 card. The article goes on to say that by this move, we'll be held back from using true Directx 9 software for an additional few years. The kick in the pants was that Carmack was calling for FP24 and FP32 back in 2000..........and nvidia still hasn't fully implemented it (I, personally, think he's an important "tech" voice in the industry and it's been 3 years since he asked for this. That's more than enough time.......especially in the computing world).

There are some who are saying that the other FX cards can do FP32, but that the drivers are disabling that option by default no matter what the app calls for. Hopefully, that's true. However, having the ability to do what is required and not performing almost seems worse IMHO.

Form your own opinions on whether this is acceptable or not........but I think my view on it is clear.

[Ghost [PX]]

This is interesting indeed. Did Carmack not state that the FX (NV30 not NV35) would be the ideal chip to run doom 3? While I realize that Doom III is an OpenGL based game, you would have thought that he would have known that it wasnt FP32 and FP24 compatible and mentioned it somewhere.

As for this whole mess... It seems that Nvidia's business practices seem to be coming under the microscope and are being recognized as shady and unethical. Its quite dissappointing really. When an industry giant falls so far as to blatantly lie and claim directX9 compliance when the product does not meet the standards required for certification.

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

Carmack doesn't say which one is "ideal." He did, however, state the the FX 30 was faster in Nvidia mode than the 9700 pro was in ARB2 (ie. the standard that looks the best) mode. That, and the man's not stupid. He does run a business. But when 60% of gamers have an Nvidia card, it has to work on them (which is why he said that ARB2 looks better than the Nvidia method). He did record a whole new demo for those Doom ]I[ benchies. Basically, I think by him saying that the ARB2 method looks better he was hinting at what Nvidia was doing even back then. Stuff still runs at 16bit; it just doesn't look as good as Ati's 24bit (thus, the slight speed increase for Nvidia and the better image quality of Ati).

Don't overtly slam Nvidia, though. Yes, this in unethical, but I think Ati is doing it just as much. However, the end results are that the Ati stuff looks better and runs faster. The lesser of two evils if you will.

The first one to release drivers to allow the user disable any of the optimization that they want gets BIG kudos from me.

Why, oh why did the Parhelia have to suck?

[Ghost [PX]]

Touche

As for your Parhelia comment....

Well, lets just say that Matrox was into the bottle marked XXX when it came time to release the card and decide the MSRP.