candle_86 wrote:your memory seems to be failing you, I dont mention Tomb Raider because honestly it was the 2nd most forgetable tomb raider, and honestly didn't matter.
Firstly, how does that imply that my memory is failing me? I take offense at these baseless accusations. Why do you have to insult me instead of just sticking to the topic?
Such fallacies are incredibly poor form, and I want them to stop right now.
Secondly, just because you didn't like the game doesn't mean NV3x didn't struggle with the SM2.0 code in that game.
Another fallacy, a non-sequitur in this case.
candle_86 wrote:And the R300 stuff was only good for real DX9 if you where willing to turn down settings and resolution
'Your memory seems to be failing you'.
In 2002, I had a 1028x768 monitor. LCD screens and HD resolutions had not reached us yet.
Firstly, turning down resolution was no issue, becuase there was no crappy scaling on CRTs.
Secondly, even my 9600XT could run HL2 at maximum settings with 4xMSAA and 16xAF and reach 30-160 fps throughout the game.
candle_86 wrote:as for 9600pro, yea I had one myself in 2004 it was ok, but I had to play CSS at medium 10x7 to get playable FPS on my XP 2500 at the time. And by playable I mean playable a consistant 60FPS, my buddy with his 9800pro had to run CSS at 12x10 because at 16x12 it would dip below 60 to often. Same goes for FarCry for both of those cards, along with well every other game.
Again, you are applying 2015 metrics to 2002-era hardware and software.
60 fps wasn't as important back then as it is today, for the simple reason that in those early days of 3d acceleration, most cards or even consoles simply couldn't reach those speeds.
candle_86 wrote:The best DX9 card that lasted the longest wasn't the R300 series at all, it was actually the 6600GT, people where still using them clear into 2009
You realize that there is no way to support this statement whatsoever.
Even so, I'm quite sure we can find people who were still using R300s into 2007+ as well, making them last longer than the much newer 6600GT. As I said myself, I used my 9600XT until I upgraded to a Core2 Duo, which would have been late 2006 I think, only because I needed PCI-e instead of AGP.
I continued using the 9600XT as a secondary system for some years after that (in fact, I still have it).
candle_86 wrote:but you wouldn't know about that.
Again, enough with the ad-hominems.
candle_86 wrote:but your fact are very poor.
I have backed up every single thing I said. I can't say the same for the others.
I mostly receive insults and useless garbage as 'info'.
candle_86 wrote:Lets not also forget SM2 wasn't the biggest deal at the time also.
Perhaps not for gamers, but I am a developer. I started writing SM2 code as soon as I got my hands on an R300-class GPU, and never looked back. Perhaps that makes all the difference... I wrote this lovely R300-code... Then NV30 came around, I tried my R300-code on it... and it was like... "Erm wait... Are they serious!?". Took a lot of rewriting and hacking around the limitations of NV30 to make it render at acceptable quality and performance, where the R300 had no such limitations, so you could just write elegant SM2.0 the way it was meant.