Speed of VBO's vs. VAR

Started by
15 comments, last by MARS_999 20 years, 4 months ago
quote:Original post by Trienco
quote:Original post by AxoDosS
I have also experienced this lose of performance. Very frustrating.


at least so far it was always extreme enough to let you know something is awfully wrong. though i prefered the bug where allocating LESS than a few mb would kill performance. wonder if nvidia will someday care to fix their vbo support or if they are just %%§& because the arb prefered atis version (just like with certain dx9 features resulting at first in lousy performance of nvidias cards)


In an attempt to head off an ATi vs Nvidia war;
* Any bugs in NVs VBO impliementation has nuffin todo with them prefering one interface over another, if they picked one over the other it would be for conceptul (sp?) reasons, remember, this extension will allow for things where texture data could be dealt with in the same way, a VAR system wouldnt make sense for that to work.

* The whole DX thing was NVs fault more than anything, they tried to push the 32/16bit standard, however MS decided that 24bit was enuff, which is what ATI designed for. (i seem to recall something about NV not really taking part in the DX9 discussions as well), so in effect they brought it apon theirselves by not taking part

(before i get accused of ''fan-boy''isms, i should point out that until the 9700pro i got last year I''ve only had Nvidia cards from the TNT onwards, so i''m not blind to one side or the other)

Advertisement
hehe, i still have my good old gf3 and avoided ati a long time because they have been a little too infamous for their drivers. though by now quite a few things seem to have changed. and finally needing a card with support for fragment programs: how''s your 9700 doing? as either this or a 9800 (non pro) seems to be a good trade off between price and getting all "dx9" features. also (to get back on topic) i''d be curious to compare any vbo issues ,-)
f@dzhttp://festini.device-zero.de
9700pro has been great for me, i''ve had it about a year now, i''ve not had any issues with the drivers myself and there OpenGL support is muchly improved, all in all a v. good card with much to recomend it.

As for the VBO issues, i dont know of any, but thats not to say they dont exist, but then as the poster said, VBO is close to ATIs own VAO extension so i dont see why it would have any.
Trienco I think I have emailed you before. I also have a 9700Pro and love it. VBO''s work great on it. That is why I asked the question about which is faster? I would recommend a 9700Pro if you can still find one. 9800Pro really doesnt'' have the much more performance over the 9700Pro for the money, but you do get 2.1 or 2.2 shaders though.
quote:Original post by MARS_999 2.1 or 2.2 shaders


Eh? No such thing, AFAIK. . . Using DirectX designations, there's PS2.0, PS2.0 Extended, and PS3.0. The Radeon 9800 has no more capabilities over the 9700 except in general performance (due to a much higher clock speed, of course). The F-Buffer (when driver support for it -eventually- comes out) is the only other difference, as it strips away the instruction limitations of the 9700.

[edited by - Ostsol on November 28, 2003 11:39:08 AM]
-Ostsol
well, all i find are 9700pro''s that cost as much or more as a cheap 9800 (no pro). speed seems pretty much the same and those 2.1 shaders are ati''s own numbering, so it might just hint at the f-buffer. one way or another, i need fragment program support and nvidia doesnt seem to have anything that appeals to my needs AND my wallet.

and the other thing. when i changed from var to vbo i didnt notice any difference and i wouldnt expect any program using more than extremely primitive textures to show a real difference.

mails are another problem. with about 60 spam mails per day and 1 real mail per week i tend to miss the important mails and delete them with the rest.. definitely time for another address.
f@dzhttp://festini.device-zero.de
Ah. . . that''d be "SmartShader 2.1" (marketting name), certainly not pixel shader 2.1. You''re probably right, though, in that the extra .1 is just the F-Buffer.
-Ostsol

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement