When will I *need* a Directx 9 card?

[Nitz Walsh]

No 3d features, but you may want to check on the memory architecture.
Also, the 4MX's 440 and 460 are at least twice the speed of any card
sold as a Geforce2 - the 4MX's are quite _fast_ they're just lacking
in _features_.

Please get educated. No, they're not twice as fast as any Geforce2 - a
440MX is very similar in speed to a Geforce2 Ti.

A 440MX is actually about the same speed as a Geforce3Ti200,

Nope - in DX7 games they can be relatively close, but it's also completely
lacking any pixel/vertex shaders, games that use those will look superior on
the Geforce3 to boot.

and is
more than sufficient for a system with a 733MHz intel Celeron CPU and
intended to run at very low (TV) resolutions.

You really don't have a clue, do you? The XBOX GPU is _not_ a GF4MX! It's
a tweaked Geforce3, and even has some more advanced features than a Geforce4
Ti. It has dual vertex shaders, pixel shaders, crossbar memory controller,
etc. It's worlds apart from the MX.

And folks, get it through your head - the Xbox is _not_ equivalent to a
733mhz Celeron and a Geforce3 (and certainly not a Gf4MX). The architecture
allows the CPU to be far less involved in geometry set-up than it does on
the PC, having a single unified memory architecture of 6+ gigs/sec, where
the CPU _and_ the GPU can write to the same memory pool without going over
AGP does have some distinct advantages.

 

[How can I be down]

No, I think I'll stay with my Radeon 8500 64mb retail. I just being
sarcastic about the way everybody tries to upgrade 2 minutes after something
comes out. I use to be that way. Had to have the card that supported DX
version X and and the 4x AGP. Now If my computers happy and I can play
pretty much whatever game I want, I just don't care.

 

[Mean_Chlorine]

You really don't have a clue, do you? The XBOX GPU is _not_ a GF4MX! It's
a tweaked Geforce3, and even has some more advanced features than a Geforce4
Ti. It has dual vertex shaders, pixel shaders, crossbar memory controller,
etc. It's worlds apart from the MX.

I've asked like ten times now: does the water in the Xbox version of
Morrowind have realistic reflections, like there is on PC with cards
which have pixel shaders?
It's a simple enough question. Does it?

And folks, get it through your head - the Xbox is _not_ equivalent to a
733mhz Celeron and a Geforce3 (and certainly not a Gf4MX). The architecture
allows the CPU to be far less involved in geometry set-up than it does on
the PC, having a single unified memory architecture of 6+ gigs/sec, where
the CPU _and_ the GPU can write to the same memory pool without going over
AGP does have some distinct advantages.

LOL! Yeah, unified memory, with code and graphics data all pooled into
64 MB of RAM, is so fantastically more efficient than having the code
and graphics on separate buses that fabulous machines like PCjr (and
various budget laptop PCs) had it in the early nineties. The sole
point of having it is to avoid having to pay for an extra bus, extra
logic, and, above all, dedicated video RAM.
I think you need to come to grips with the fact that the hardware of
XBox is the best Microsoft could buy _really cheaply_. It is not
performance hardware in any way, shape or form.
The one advantage XBox has over PC's is that the games can bang the
metal.

 

[Nitz Walsh]

I've asked like ten times now: does the water in the Xbox version of
Morrowind have realistic reflections,

You've already been answered - yes it does.

Why the fixation on Morrowind's water anyway? It's hardly that tough to
find an Xbox title that clearly uses pixel shaders - there was one if you
recall _on the day of release_, a small title called HALO.

Of course, you believe that's running on a "stripped down MX440 core".

There were more titles using pixel shaders during the Xbox's first 6 months
of release than there were PC games that utilized any DX8 features
extensively at the time.

Or, you could actually get off your ass and do some research about the
Xbox's technical abilities, instead of hinging your absurd notion that the
Xbox has a graphics system as crippled as the GFMX due to the quality of one
game's water effect.

LOL!

If you're laughing out loud at yourself, it's appropriate.

Yeah, unified memory, with code and graphics data all pooled into
64 MB of RAM, is so fantastically more efficient than having the code
and graphics on separate buses that fabulous machines like PCjr (and
various budget laptop PCs) had it in the early nineties.

It's patently obvious you don't have the technical understanding to grasp
why this can be an advantage in the case of a dedicated platform (and by
"technical understanding", I mean actually reading some technical articles
and interviews with developers that any simpleton - even you - is capable
of).

What is the relevance of the unified memory architecture on past or current
PC's?

- The graphics chip in past and modern PC's that utilize a shared frame
buffer don't have nearly the capabilities of the NV2A in the Xbox. Intel
Integrated "Extreme" graphics blows because the graphics chip sucks, not
just because of its shared interface to system memory.
- Despite sharing memory, on the PC an integrated graphics solution is
indeed a detriment as much of the polygon set-up still has to be done by the
processor, so you're taking away bandwidth without any gain - these
integrated graphics basically act like an AGP card that just steals more
bandwidth from the rest of the system.
- Due to the unified memory architecture, and even more important the fact
that the Xbox's hardware can be accessed on a far more low-level method than
the PC due to the fact it's a standard system that doesn't deviate, much of
the work a PC game has to do with the CPU can be done on the Xbox's GPU.
That's why a 733mhz Celeron with a Geforce3 will get its ass handed to it in
terms of performance when compared to the Xbox.
- The NV2A in the Xbox has many bandwidth-saving abilities, and the Xbox
also uses AMD's HyperTransport. It's 6.4 GB/sec total, yes - but it does
make very efficient use of that, and as mentioned above when you can access
the hardware at such a low-level, you can further optimize out the
bottlenecks.
- Continuing on the bandwidth track, running at 640*480 takes far less
bandwidth than PC gamers who demand 1024*768 as the starting point.

Again, this information can easily be gathered from a little research. Thus
concludes today's lesson.

I think you need to come to grips with the fact that the hardware of
XBox is the best Microsoft could buy _really cheaply_. It is not
performance hardware in any way, shape or form.

Amongst all three consoles, it consistently offers the best graphics across
the widest range of titles, and multi-platform ports usually run the
smoothest.

Of course it's not a PC with a 9800 Pro - who is saying that? It's a
console, cost is naturally going to be a significant factor. I'd take a
mid/high-end PC any day if performance was the utmost objective; my
XP1800/GF4 4200 is still a very capable game machine with superior graphics
to most Xbox titles. Heck, I _had_ an Xbox, and sold it over a year ago
because I found the selection of titles lacking.

Your attempts to divert the issue away from your own ignorance of the
platform are truly pathetic. No one is arguing the Xbox is the "bestest
videogame platform ever invented at any cost!", this thread has sprung up
from your own ignorant declarations on the Xbox hardware - mainly, that it
was "based on a stripped Geforce4 MX440 core", which as has been pointed
out, is complete nonsense (as well as your crap about the MX440 being "twice
as fast as any Geforce2, when in fact it's basically identical in
performance to a Geforce2 Ti). Instead of just ceding the point that you
didn't know that much about the Xbox as you thought, you go off on this
ridiculous tangent.

You ****ed up, you don't know what you're talking about , pure and simple.
It's time _you need to come to grips with that fact_.

Then again, after looking at your reply address...I don't hold out much
hope.

 

[Babble]

Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Yeah,, my first purchased computer had 1 mg of video ram.
But was upgradable.... to 2 mg! )

 

[Darthy]

No 3d features, but you may want to check on the memory architecture.
Also, the 4MX's 440 and 460 are at least twice the speed of any card
sold as a Geforce2 - the 4MX's are quite _fast_ they're just lacking
in _features_.

Memory doesn't mean anything if the GPU can't use it, same as having
256mb on a video card that's cant really use it or the GF2-MX-400 in
which they "improved" the GPU speed but has the same memory a the
original GF2mx = no change in performance.

As stated by myself and many people here, the GF4mx is nothing more
than FAST GF2 cards with a new label.

Then you said the GF4mx is twice the speed of any GF2 series - No data
to prove that, but plenty to prove it wrong. Link posted below.

But looking at the GF2Ultra (top end) vs mx460, it is NOT twice as
fast! or the 440mx or 460mx vs GF2-Ti - again, not twice as fast.

A 440MX is actually about the same speed as a Geforce3Ti200, and is
more than sufficient for a system with a 733MHz intel Celeron CPU and
intended to run at very low (TV) resolutions.

Again, you are incorrect. GF3 has a more advance memory and 3D Core
over the GF2. Look at the ATI 9600~9800 series cards which are about
half the Mhz of the GF-5 cards but are faser. or that the AMD is
about 1000Mhz Lower than the P4, but plays games about the same (give
or take) or the AMD 64bit at 2000mhz that smokes the P4 3.2Ghz in most
games... yet its 1200mhzs "lower".

The expensive 460mx is a noticable difference SLOWER than the GF3
Ti200 on semi-modern DX8 games. When the 460mx was NEW it was about
$75 more expensive than the GF3-Ti200. Hence you saw posts here like
you do TODAY "Don't buy the 5600 - its SLOWER than the Ti4200!"

Look at these charts with UT2003 on an AMD 2700+ CPU from this year.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030120/vgacharts-04.html

Also a good link is that this shows how a 1000mhz CPU compares to a an
AMD 2700 and how much is lost... Performance really starts to tank
with the GF2 Ti200 and up.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030120/vgacharts-05.html

Hey - you learn something new everyday.

 

[Darthy]

It's patently obvious you don't have the technical understanding to grasp
why this can be an advantage in the case of a dedicated platform (and by
"technical understanding", I mean actually reading some technical articles
and interviews with developers that any simpleton - even you - is capable
of).

What is the relevance of the unified memory architecture on past or current
PC's?

- The graphics chip in past and modern PC's that utilize a shared frame
buffer don't have nearly the capabilities of the NV2A in the Xbox. Intel
Integrated "Extreme" graphics blows because the graphics chip sucks, not
just because of its shared interface to system memory.

Hence, that is what made the Amiga computer of the 80s and early 90s
such an awsome computer back then. It was a TIGHT design with the
controller chip / graphics and sound chips with direct access to the
video/system memory.

A 100Mhz PC was sill kinda slow compared to my 25mhz Amiga 3000 and it
still was a better multitasker than Win95... Win98 cleaned out those
bugs.

 

[Mean_Chlorine]

You've already been answered - yes it does.

Not that I've seen, but I can't see posts with x-noarchives: yes set,
so I might have missed it. Anyway, great, then I'm satisfied that the
core is not a Geforce4MX, and does have pixel shader. The reason I
didn't think it had pixel shaders is that all screenshots I've seen of
XBox Morrowind show water which look like when playing Morrowind on an
GF2.

Why the fixation on Morrowind's water anyway?

Because it's a widespread game with an obvious pixel-shader effect
easy to see.

There were more titles using pixel shaders during the Xbox's first 6 months
of release than there were PC games that utilized any DX8 features
extensively at the time.

Uh, yeah. "Extensively".

If you're laughing out loud at yourself, it's appropriate.

Your fanboism is truly heartening. To actually claim that the unified
memory architecture of the xbox is an ADVANTAGE, that takes serious
fanboi mentality. I'm impressed.

It's patently obvious you don't have the technical understanding to grasp
why this can be an advantage in the case of a dedicated platform (and by
"technical understanding", I mean actually reading some technical articles
and interviews with developers that any simpleton - even you - is capable
of).

Yeah, whatever.
Besides, 64MB code + graphics data should be enough for everyone.

What is the relevance of the unified memory architecture on past or current
PC's?

That it's proven crap? That the *only* reason to use it, your BS
notwithstanding, is to save money at the expense of performance?

Now for some impressive technospeak. I'll try to interprete what you
say:

- The graphics chip in past and modern PC's that utilize a shared frame
buffer don't have nearly the capabilities of the NV2A in the Xbox.

"The nforce version in the XBox is fast enough and the CPU slow enough
that contention isn't too bad."

- Despite sharing memory, on the PC an integrated graphics solution is
indeed a detriment as much of the polygon set-up still has to be done by the
processor, so you're taking away bandwidth without any gain - these
integrated graphics basically act like an AGP card that just steals more
bandwidth from the rest of the system.

This is so convoluted it's hard to see what you're saying. You seem to
be claiming that there is no bandwidth contention in the XBox because
the nvidia chip on the xbox does more than full Geforce3's and
Geforce4Ti's, with dedicated memory, on the PC.

- Due to the unified memory architecture, and even more important the fact
that the Xbox's hardware can be accessed on a far more low-level method than
the PC due to the fact it's a standard system that doesn't deviate, much of
the work a PC game has to do with the CPU can be done on the Xbox's GPU.

Indeed, you ARE saying that because there is no DirectX and no OS, the
GPU does more than on PC. What, exactly, does the GPU do on the XBox
that it doesn't on the PC?

That's why a 733mhz Celeron with a Geforce3 will get its ass handed to it in
terms of performance when compared to the Xbox.

As I said, the one advantage the XBox has is that it can bang the
metal, a PC has to go through several layers of abstraction. It's not
a small advantage either.
On the other hand, there's not many 733MHz Celeron PC's trying to run
todays games, are there.

- The NV2A in the Xbox has many bandwidth-saving abilities, and the Xbox
also uses AMD's HyperTransport. It's 6.4 GB/sec total, yes - but it does
make very efficient use of that, and as mentioned above when you can access
the hardware at such a low-level, you can further optimize out the
bottlenecks.

Perhaps, although the nforce bandwidth on PC at least rarely if ever
achieves the theoretical maximum.

- Continuing on the bandwidth track, running at 640*480 takes far less
bandwidth than PC gamers who demand 1024*768 as the starting point.

This is true. This is indeed the main reason why XBox can use such
weak hardware - the requirements are much smaller than on an average
PC. We're talking 30fps at 640x480 instead of 40+ fps at 1024x768x32
or greater.
This is also why a MX440 would be plenty sufficient too, despite
claims in this thread that it'd be too slow.

Amongst all three consoles, it consistently offers the best graphics across
the widest range of titles, and multi-platform ports usually run the
smoothest.

So? That's like being best in the special olympics.

Of course it's not a PC with a 9800 Pro - who is saying that? It's a
console, cost is naturally going to be a significant factor. I'd take a
mid/high-end PC any day if performance was the utmost objective; my
XP1800/GF4 4200 is still a very capable game machine with superior graphics
to most Xbox titles.

And that's just barely a baseline machine.

videogame platform ever invented at any cost!", this thread has sprung up
from your own ignorant declarations on the Xbox hardware - mainly, that it
was "based on a stripped Geforce4 MX440 core", which as has been pointed
out, is complete nonsense

If you'd care to look rather than just posture, you'll find that I've
"declared" or stated no such thing.

(as well as your crap about the MX440 being "twice
as fast as any Geforce2, when in fact it's basically identical in
performance to a Geforce2 Ti).

<shrug> Well, I had a Geforce2 ultra, and tried a Geforce 440MX, and
it beat my old ultra by 2:1 in 3DMark. Looking at reviews on the net,
I see that that isn't the normal outcome. The normal outcome seems to
be that the Geforce440MX is 20% slower than a Geforce3Ti200, and about
equal to a Geforce2ultra.

Instead of just ceding the point that you
didn't know that much about the Xbox as you thought, you go off on this
ridiculous tangent.

What ridiculous tangent? That UMA is _good_?

Then again, after looking at your reply address...I don't hold out much
hope.

Ouch, that hurts. Well, at least I have a reply address, mr
"(e-mail address removed)".

 

[Chris Proctor]

Here's a little homework:

http://www.theblowhole.com/xbox/xboxvspc.html

I found that a fascinating read.
It's especially interesting to anyone who's been participating in any of
the "the Xbox is a PC" discussions.

 

[Nitz Walsh]

Your fanboism is truly heartening.

"Fanboism"? I don't even own an Xbox . At least your consistent in regards
to uttering nonsensical statements.

This is so convoluted it's hard to see what you're saying

Of course it seems "convoluted" to you, because you haven't done one iota of
research on the Xbox's architecture. You can't grasp the concepts, so your
response is to shout your ignorance even louder when presented with
technical facts.

It's not my job to educate someone who's unwilling to learn, and especially
one (cough - Mr. Noreen) who's demonstrated his ineptitude on these forums
on a consistent basis over the years. Unfortunately my mistake for not
catching that earlier, or I never would have bothered - I'd have a better
chance of Eep admitting he doesn't have a clue.

Here's a little homework:

http://www.theblowhole.com/xbox/xboxvspc.html

This is from Alex St. John, who was one of the principal architects on
DirectX.

If you'd care to look rather than just posture, you'll find that I've
"declared" or stated no such thing.

Hate to break it to you, but your posts don't disappear into the ether after
a few days.

"AFAIK the Xbox is based on a stripped Geforce4 MX440 core - which
should mean that it has no quincunx FSAA, no true anisotropic
filtering, no pixel shaders."

 

[Mean_Chlorine]

"Fanboism"? I don't even own an Xbox
Nonetheless.


Of course it seems "convoluted" to you, because you haven't done one iota of
research on the Xbox's architecture.

No, it seemed convoluted because you expressed yourself in a
convoluted way. You were being deliberately obstruse.

http://www.theblowhole.com/xbox/xboxvspc.html

This is from Alex St. John, who was one of the principal architects on
DirectX.

Well how about that - Microsoft trumping up XBox in the face of
criticisms against it. Will wonders never cease.
You almost quoted him verbatim, too, so I guess it was he, not you,
who was being deliberately obstruse and that it was him who was trying
to turn a vice (UMA) into a virtue. Shame you didn't stop to think
what he was saying - or even if it was accurate (does an xbox /really/
kick a modern pc's butt for gaming?).

Hate to break it to you, but your posts don't disappear into the ether after
a few days.

"AFAIK the Xbox is based on a stripped Geforce4 MX440 core - which
should mean that it has no quincunx FSAA, no true anisotropic
filtering, no pixel shaders."

So, exactly what part of AFAIK is it you do not understand?

Wanna try again?

 

[bob cox]

Xbox sucks. Ass.

Someone had to say it. I mean, what kind of system has zero good
games? And don't say Halo. The people who like that game are
brainwashed; they'll like anything with fancy graphics.

 

[James Garvin]

Xbox sucks. Ass.

Someone had to say it. I mean, what kind of system has zero good
games? And don't say Halo. The people who like that game are
brainwashed; they'll like anything with fancy graphics.

It has KOTOR...

 

[Lenny]

Well how about that - Microsoft trumping up XBox in the face of
criticisms against it. Will wonders never cease.
You almost quoted him verbatim, too, so I guess it was he, not you,
who was being deliberately obstruse and that it was him who was trying
to turn a vice (UMA) into a virtue.

UMA isn't neccessarily a vice.

A well-designed UMA system will function rather well, something XB shows
pretty clearly I think. Sure there are drawbacks with the system, but the
same can be said for a non-UMA approach as well. If you weren't so biased
against UMA you would see this.

(does an xbox /really/ kick a modern pc's butt for gaming?).

Depends on how you define 'kick butt', I guess. Some might well say it does,
since it is free of all the incompatibility issues plaguing the PC platform.
You pop in a disc, turn it on and off you go.

 

[Mean_Chlorine]

I found that a fascinating read.
It's especially interesting to anyone who's been participating in any of
the "the Xbox is a PC" discussions.

Doesn't have any bearing on that discussion. There have been, and
still are, PC's with that same style of architecture. It was
especially popular in the early nineties, when ram was slow and
expensive - the problem is just that all PC's with unified memory have
sucked, and that's why it's not popular among performance-oriented PC
builders. Even the Amiga, which was *very* good for its day,
eventually had to switch to using dedicated vram in order to remain
competitive.

Also, the spin-logic in the article is flawed - they're comparing
apples to oranges in order to make the xbox look good. To highlight
the flaw, I'll convert it to a car analogy:

"A Hyundai Accent is much more advanced than a top-of-the-line
Mercedes CLK-55 AMG, because the merc is expensive and its big
wasteful V8 engine guzzles lots of gas driving at 200 km/h from
Hamburg to Berlin. By contrast, the Accent has much fewer features and
is equipped with an advanced 4-cylinder engine which enables it to
drive the same distance very slowly and using far less gas than the
merc.
Therefore an old, cheap, Hyundai Accent kicks the modern, expensive,
Mercedes CLK55AMG's butt when it comes to driving on the autobahn.
QED."

Using unified memory architecture, like using a 4-cylinder engine, is
a cost/benefit tradeoff - it's slower and less efficient, but it's
cheaper, and for display on a TV it's good enough. Trying to pass it
off as a /feature/, or something which somehow sets the xbox apart
from PCs, is just stupid, though.

Anyone who thinks that xbox is not simply a stripped, budget, PC with
proprietary OS, can take a look here:
http://xbox-linux.sourceforge.net/

 

[Lenny]

Using unified memory architecture, like using a 4-cylinder engine, is
a cost/benefit tradeoff - it's slower and less efficient

Actually, it is more efficient, that's why it is used. With separate memory
pools you end up duplicating data in more than one place, wasting bandwidth
copying data between different pools, whilst wasting both space and
bandwidth in your separate memories if you don't need that much capacity for
a particular purpose. This grows worse the more separate pools you have.

That's why UMA is more efficient. One pool that can be divided up according
to the needs of the application, no bandwidth or capacity waste, no data
duplication. Naturally, a UMA system has less aggregate bandwidth. Case in
point, PS2 with its seven (!) separate memory pools has some 60-ish GB/s of
aggregate bandwidth, yet it is still technically and graphically inferior in
most ways compared to XB. Naturally this is not ONLY because XB uses UMA and
PS2 does not, but memory management is certainly less of an issue on XB.

Trying to pass it
off as a /feature/, or something which somehow sets the xbox apart
from PCs, is just stupid, though.

Well it IS a feature, and one that is well suited for its purpose. XB is the
most technically capable console on the market right now, so berating it for
having UMA seems stupid to me.

 

[bob cox]

Stripped down or not (it IS), all it needs is the bare computing
essentials....

 

[bob cox]

UMA may be modified for the system in some way to make it respectable,
but on a pc, UMA is slow inefficient garbage.

 

[Mean_Chlorine]

Xbox sucks. Ass.

No it doesn't. Although it's almost damning with faint praise, it *is*
still the best of the consoles.

The only thing I've got against XBox is precisely that it is a
stripped-down cheapo PC. That, in turn, is a problem 'cause it makes
it easy to port games from the xbox to PC, but not the other way
around - which means that nearly all new PC games have limitations
imposed by the weak hardware of the xbox (including, but not limited
to, reduced texture size, low polygon count, frequent loading pauses,
and poor controls).

Xbox is the new lowest common denominator in pc gaming. And THAT
sucks. Ass.

 

[Lenny]

UMA may be modified for the system in some way to make it respectable,
but on a pc, UMA is slow inefficient garbage.

UMA on PCs have all been implementations with much less bandwidth than XB,
and with much MUCH slower graphics chips driven at resolutions (sometimes
far) higher than XB games runs at.

Don't blame the technique when it's the particular implementation that is
sucky.