Just trying to find out the lowest end graphics cards able to do pixel shading?
Printable View
Just trying to find out the lowest end graphics cards able to do pixel shading?
The first chips that could do pixel shading were the nVidia GeForce3 series (also first to do vertex shading) and ATi RADEON 8500 series. However the technology wasn't widely accepted, although vertex shaders definitely proliferated.
If you're looking at any low-end card today, pretty much any recently made cards nowdays supports pixelshaders. Any chip more recent than a GeForce4 Ti will provide you with older DirectX 8.1 pixel shading technology. If you're looking for the latest DirectX 9.0 compliance, you should look in the direction of any nVidia GeForce FX or Radeon 9xxx. They will last you a while longer in that respect. I'm not saying that older DirectX 8.1 cards aren't enough to play today's games, but they are certainly aging.
So what about a Geforce mx440 64mb graphics card? does that do it. I just have a bit of trouble getting this, the geforce3 series were capable of pixel shading but the recent ones(geforce 4 ti) is capable of far better pixel shading, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by MaXim
It just depends on the version of Direct X that the card supports. I think GeForce 4 MX 440 supports around Direct X 7 or so, but it does have pixel shading. Its good for lightweight gaming, but if you want to really get realism, speed, and graphics, then choose something a little more recent.
I was under the impression the MX series did not have pixel shading... which is what makes them terrible. I would have to research it more though... but be aware there are different pixel shader versions. I believe the very latest are up to 3.0, whereas the past generation did 2.0, and before that 1.1 was the standard IIRC.
This is only really for research for something i can't really find a list of cards that do or do not support pixel shading.
Alas, GeForce4 MX series did not support pixel shading. It only supported DirectX 7 API, which does not include Pixel shading. GeForce3 Ti supported only a very limited pixel shader which was not at all very programmable (version 1.0 and 1.1). GeForce4 Ti brought in Pixel Shader 1.3. Although it was an improvement over Pixel Shader 1.1, RADEON 8500's Pixel Shader 1.4 was yet even more programmable, and that was around the time that Pixel Shading started to be considered with game developers.
Refer to http://www.digit-life.com/articles/gf4/index1.html. It also contains information about the NV17 line (Geforce4 MX Series).
If you want more modern technology, it is best do go with Radeon 9xxx series and GeForce FX, of which all support at least DirectX 9.0 and Pixel Shader 2.0. Beware of Radeon 9200s and below (in terms of nonmenclature, which involves 9100 and 9000). They do not support DirectX 9.0 and Pixel Shader 2.0.
Latest chips like nVidia 6800GT and ATi x600/800 support the Pixel Shader 3.0 specification. I've been told that games released so far make little use of this, and thus you won't see much of a difference between 2.0 and 3.0 yet. Infact, I have a GeForce4 Ti4800 board which plays Doom3 almost identically to a newer system which my friend bought recently (has an ATi 9550 board with 256MB of ram). I still think my machine play it better though ;) it just has less effects that use DirectX 9.0 (like the blurring of the screen when you get attacked by a monster, similar to that of Far Cry's when you get burned).
Thanks for the help.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaXim
The 9550's are nothing to write home about... the 4800's were supposed to be high end. For ATi, the first character usually represents the generation, sort of. The 7xxx series is older than 8xxx, which is older than 9xxx, than Xxxx. The rest is relative relative power, so 9800 > 9700 > 9600 > 9550 > 9500 > 9200. Also be aware of the other differences... such as the even numbers for the second character being newer models in current generations (9700 was the first high end models, 9800 were the later high end models for the 9xxx generation), and differences between PRO, SE, XT and whatnot (XT > Pro, and anything else usually isn't worth your time).Quote:
Originally Posted by MaXim
So the 4800 running similarly to a 9550 is not a big surprise, and I'd think the 4800 should beat it. Also, know that usually the boards with more memory have slower memory, so he takes a loss there. Additionally, more memory doesn't help if you aren't using it ;P I can't use 128mb with a 9700pro (I get 60 fps on DoomIII with most settings cranked all the way up)
I used to think I was a bad-A with my GF4 Ti 4600 that I paid $275 for as opposed to the $400 retail. Back then, this thing was a monster. Alas, where have those days gone?
256MB of video memory will come in handy if you are running Doom3 On 'Ultra' setting. Apparently, Ultra uses about 512MB worth of memory to store the textures. In this case, you'd need at least 1GB of system memory. Having 256MB of video memory will allow the system to store more textures on the video card instead of the slower system memory. Performance hits come in when video memory has to be buffered to system memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Smith
pixel shading == evil.
anything that means the intergrated graphics in my laptop won't even start a game is evil. games should be open to anyone who wants to play 'em. yes they should be ABLE to take advantage of the latest stuff, but they should never REQUIRE it.
Thats deep man. believe it or not i asked this question cos i have a laptop. O_OQuote:
Originally Posted by madcrow
Yeah because Doom3 won't run on my 386 with CGA graphics....stupid ID.Quote:
Originally Posted by madcrow
Technology advances, deal with it.
no 386 ever had CGA unless somebody was just building their own pc and threw in an antique cga card that they had lying around. i don't think that games should have to support blatantly obsolete hardware, but when intergrated graphics solutions are so common and still being made today, wouldn't it make more sense for people to write games that use IG as their baseline rather than stuff that many people either have to buy extra or upgrade to software should follow hardware, not the other way around.