![shader model 3.0 test shader model 3.0 test](https://i.stack.imgur.com/k4Jtb.png)
- SHADER MODEL 3.0 TEST DRIVER
- SHADER MODEL 3.0 TEST FULL
- SHADER MODEL 3.0 TEST SOFTWARE
- SHADER MODEL 3.0 TEST CODE
The smaller performance gains (which, interestingly, occur on the shaders that have image quality issues) are most likely the result of decreased bandwidth requirements, and decreased register pressure: a single internal fp32 register can handle two fp16 values making scheduling and managing resources much less of a task for the hardware.Īs we work on our image quality analysis of NV40 and R420, we will be paying heavy attention to shader performance in both full and partial precision modes (as we want to look at what gamers will actually be seeing in the real world). This is not the case when dealing with full precision normalization, so the many 50% performance gains coming out of those lighting shaders is probably due to the partial precision normalization hardware built into each shader unit in NV40. Almost any time a partial precision normalize is needed, NV40 will be able to schedule the instruction immediately. As we are running in partial precision mode, this should translate to a partial precision normalize, which is a "free" operation on NV40. These lighting shaders (especially the point and spot light shaders) will make heavy use of vector normalization. Shader 2 through 8 are lighting shaders (with 2 being a simple diffuse lighting shader). The most obvious thing to notice is that, overall, partial precision mode rendering increases shader rendering speed. As we have stated before, there were a few image quality issues with the types of shaders ShaderMark runs, but this bit of analysis will stick only to how much work is getting done in the same amount of time without regard to the relative quality of the work. In addition to getting a small idea of performance, we can also look deep into the hearts of NV40 and see what happens when we enable partial precision rendering mode in terms of performance gains.
![shader model 3.0 test shader model 3.0 test](https://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/ATI/radeonx800proxt/pic_15.png)
We would like to stress again that these numbers are not apples to apples numbers, but the relative performance of each GPU indicates that the ATI and NVIDIA architectures are very close to comparable from a pixel shader standpoint (with each architecture having different favored types of shader or operation).
![shader model 3.0 test shader model 3.0 test](https://kompsekret.ru/images/content/541537/8a83cb7c0c3782289fdc734b524ea479.png)
SHADER MODEL 3.0 TEST DRIVER
In looking at data collected on the 60.72 version of the NVIDIA driver, no frame rates changed and a visual inspection of the images output by each driver yielded no red flags. In fact, under the diffuse lighting and environment mapping, shadowed bump mapping and water color shaders don't show ATI wiping the floor with NVIDIA. Even though the results can't really be compared apples to apples (because of the difference in precision), NVIDIA manages to keep up with the ATI hardware fairly well. ShaderMark v2.0 clearly shows huge increase in pixel shader performance from NV38 to either flavor of NV40. It isn't really an apples to apples comparison, but with some of the shaders used in shadermark, partial precision floating point causes error accumulation (since this is a benchmark designed to stress shader performance, this is not These benchmarks are run with fp32 on NVIDIA hardware and fp24 on ATI hardware. With that in mind, here are the benchmarks. We don't want to make a direct comparison, we just want to get a feel for the situation. A cursory glance at ShaderMark should tell us enough to know if that handicap carries over to the current generation of cards, and whether or not R420 and NV40 are on the same playing field. It is a fact that NV3x had a bit of a handicap when it came to shader performance. ATI and NVIDIA both have architectures that should be able to push a lot of shader operations through. First this is only a kind of ball park test. So why are we using ShaderMark you may ask.
SHADER MODEL 3.0 TEST SOFTWARE
As both software and hardware get more complex, results of any given test become less and less generalize able, and games, graphics hardware, and modern computer systems are some of the most complex entities on earth. Honestly, as we've said before, the only way to determine performance of a certain program on specific hardware is to run that program on that hardware.
SHADER MODEL 3.0 TEST CODE
We haven't used ShaderMark in the past because we don't advocate the idea of trying to predict the performance of real world game code using a synthetic set of tests designed to push the hardware. ShaderMark v2.0 is a program designed to stress test the shader performance of modern DX9 graphics hardware with Shader Model 2.0 programs written in HLSL running on a couple shapes in a scene.