je_saist

Well... filed a bug on http://ati.cchtml.com/ ... sent AMD an email... and left a post on their forums. Short of bugging Alex D to hurry up on Multi-GPU support under Gallium3D, I think that's all I can do at this point.

somebody should submit his ideas to the Guinness Book of World Records. I'm sure some of the ideas HAVE to be record breaking.

I dunno. They did do the Pre-Order costume stuff for CoV, and the special sprint powers. CoV was also "given" to all CoH players that had never purchased the Expandalone, and CoH was "given" to all CoV players that had never purchased CoH. So the precedent is set for paid stuff from the past to be given away for free.

That being said, I am against issuing the Prestige Power Slide for free. I'm actually against re-issuing it at all. Much like a badge it's a mark of what you've done "For the Game." Sometimes things should remain exclusive.

Maybe an option though would be to make a new Power Slide animation, with different colors or a different animation styling. Something that satisfies the urges of those who want to glide around, but still preserves the original Prestige Power Slide as a special treat for those that bought the Collectors Edition.

And a lot more people will have ATi cards, Intel GPU's, or Nvidia cards in systems with Intel Integrated graphics, or ATi cards in systems with Intel integrated graphics, or Nvidia cards in systems with ATi integrated graphics, or ATi cards in systems with ATi integrated graphics, or Nvidia cards with integrated Nvidia graphics, or ATi cards in systems with integrated Nvidia graphics.

No matter how you cut it, continued PhysX support is just a bad idea for the CoH developers, or any game developers. Just drop it, move to OpenCL. Everybody's happy regardless of what hardware platform they have now, or what hardware platform they use in the future.

No.

Thing is with Nvidia PhysX is that it locks you to Nvidia cards. The developers would be in a much better position on support to move to OpenCL for physics calculations. OpenCL will give you the same performance advantages as PhysX, but it will work on Intel and AMD systems as well. This will be a critical factor as Intel and AMD roll out CPU+GPU systems over the next 6months. Gamers will be able to utilize the "weaker" integrated graphics chips for Physics or other calculations while using a better add-in card for graphics display.

The added advantage is that the developers only have to write once, and the code should automatically work across all operating system platforms.

This used to be true. However ATi rewrote their OpenGL engine back in 2006 through 2007: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item=914&num=1

AMD also released OpenGL 3.0 in the Catalyst 8.9 set, which was on 9/17/2008.

Nvidia didn't get around to it until December 16th: http://news.developer.nvidia.com/200...0-drivers.html

Nvidia's 64bit OpenGL drivers have also been broken for years: http://www.mepisguides.com/Mepis-7/h...ati-64bit.html

As users of Windows 7 64bit are finding out today, things haven't really improved on the Nvidia side.

So do us a favor, get out of 2006 and please rejoin 2010.


***

Okay, for some background data here. The support of ATi and Nvidia in OpenGL can pretty much be tied to the history of how OpenGL was handled.

Just a few years ago the OpenGL specification was directionless. One of the developer advantages to OpenGL is that the specification could accept various proprietary vendor extensions, but nobody in the OpenGL Architecture Review Board was really setting a path for which extensions should be standardized and which should be discarded. Nvidia made great use of the proprietary extensions of OpenGL with technologies like Ultra Shadow in Doom3. Nvidia used the proprietary extensions that OpenGL could support in order to make their hardware produce images that were better than competitors, while achieving better frame-rates. That's all well and good, but as CoH users have found out the hard way, when you let Nvidia write your shaders and background graphics libary, you'll wind up with a graphics system that resembles Sluggy's Torg after going through Riff's Paper cut bomb. (too lazy to go find that comic).

Starting in 2004, 3Dlabs started Pressing OpenGL 2.0 in response to the stagnation and aimless direction of OpenGL's development. Through 2006 and 2007 the Khronos Group took over the Architecture Review Board and pushed out OpenGL 2.0 ES, a stripped version of OpenGL that much like 3DFX's old Glide API, provided little more than the features necessary for fast-path texturing and shading... aka gaming related functions of OpenGL.

ATi, and other vendors like S3, Trident, and Matrox, weren't known for creating proprietary OpenGL extensions. Rather, they were known for relying on specifications. ATi's reputation for being closely tied to DirectX came from the launches of their Radeon cards, which were originally named after DirectX levels, and the launch of the 9700, in which ATi had worked closely with Microsoft to determine the specifications of DirectX 9, as well as producing a reference card to accelerate DirectX 9.

As OpenGL has become more standardized and regained a direction, as well as an overseeing body that isn't likely to do nothing with the API for years, it has been easier for vendors that build cards and drivers against published specifications to get involved with OpenGL. With these background changes, AMD has interacted more closely with the Khronos group, and OpenGL support has dramatically improved.

AMD, however, isn't in a luxury position to do what they want to do, when they want to do it. They, AMD, do have to follow the money. Unfortunately, right now, the big money for PC-gaming is on DirectX. Personally, DirectX is a multi-billion dollar mistake game developers can't make... and the point is made clear across consoles like PS3 and Xbox 360, as well as mobile platforms like Android and Iphone. Porting Xbox 360 games built on DirectX to the PS3's OpenGL ES 2.0 often results in poorer games. However, porting games built against OpenGL ES 2.0 on the PS3 first, then running the exact same code on the Xbox 360, generally results in good game ports. In the same way, developers focused on multiple markets are finding that DirectX is a pitiful way to reach the most amount of players. OpenGL... well. An app written against OpenGL will run on Android, Iphone, Windows, Linux, Apple OSX, PS3, Wii, Xbox 360... you name it.

So, as portable devices become more popular, we'll hopefully see the shift from DirectX to OpenGL that needs to happen, and we'll see AMD taking a larger and more active role in pushing OpenGL support.

My biggest problem with this is that a GTX 260 starts around $200.

Yet, the ATi card with the same feature set and comparative power, the RadeonHD 4870, is $30 cheaper.

At the same price point as the GTX 260 is the RadeonHD 4890, which competes against the GTX 275. For reference, the GTX 275's are still topping the $250 mark.

Then there is the huge problem that is the RadeonHD 5x00 series. The Radeon 5770, which can pretty much keep pace with the RadeonHD 4870, can be had for around $160.

So... if he's looking to spend $200... he can get a killer deal on a DirectX 10 card from AMD, a card that will outrun the Nvidia offerings at the same price points...

or he could get a DirectX 11 card.

Why on earth would anybody want to buy an Nvidia card right now? It's a plain rip off. You will be getting a raw deal, end of story.

for specifics we'll just have to wait for the code to hit the test server.

CoH will work against Intel Integrated chips, which even the 6200 will easily outrun. The current graphics engine will still scale down / back to cards like the Radeon 8500 series. The developers were pretty clear at HeroCon that the current graphics engine will continue to be maintained after Ultra-Mode arrives so as not to alienate or prevent players that do not have modern graphics hardware from running / playing the game.

His problem sounds like a driver issue, but I already have a really low opinion of Nvidia's drivers. Honestly, they make XGI's drivers look good, and that should be a hard feat to accomplish.

Now, if I understand the original post, I think you simply transferred Windows XP over without doing a complete re-install / reformat of the hard-drive? Microsoft Operating Systems don't handle hardware changes very well, between product-activation and just plain bad coding.

If you are not in a position to fully reinstall Windows from the ground up, I would go get Driver Sweeper : http://www.guru3d.com/category/driversweeper/

Use it to clear out and remove all installed Nvidia software.

Then try to install the 175 drivers: http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp_175.19_whql.html

Don't forget to install the appropriate drivers for your motherboard as well. Since you are using a Geforce 6x00 board, this will be an Nforce4 motherboard and you'll need the the 15.26 drivers : http://www.nvidia.com/object/nforce_winxp_15.26.html

I generally use TechArp as a reference:

Theoretical ATi performance: http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=88&pgno=3

Theoretical Nvidia performance: http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=88&pgno=7

***

As far as how they rank?

Well, starting with the GeforceFX series Nvidia's naming scheme has worked like this:

x2xx - x4xx: Low End cards

• 5200
• 6200
• 7300
• 8400

x5xx - x7xx: Medium Range cards

• 5500
• 6600
• 7600
• 8600
• 9600

x8xx - x9xx : high end cards

• 5800
• 6800
• 7800
• 8800
• 9800

So, with this model number arrangement, a card that has a higher first number, or the same first number with a higher second number, is more powerful.

The actual line-ups are more complicated as Nvidia uses a variety of suffixes like GT, GSO, GTX, and GTS to identify different types of cards. So a 9800 GT is less powerful than a 9800 GTX.

Recently Nvidia changed their marketing strategy since they were using the same model numbers as ATi used several years ago.

Nvidia's current line up is:

GT - low end cards

• GT 220
• GT 230
• GT 240

GTS x40 - low med range

• GTS 240
• GTS 340

GTS x50 - medium range

• GTS 250
• GTS 350

GTX - high end

• GTX 260
• GTX 270
• GTX 280

Nvidia's going to change their marketing scheme again with Fermi, as they'll start branding the Fermi cards with GF 100.

***

The ATi side is a little bit easier to follow.

Back when the Radeon launched, ATi decided to name their cards after the versions of DirectX they supported.

So, the Radeon 7xxx series supported DirectX 7.

• Radeon
• Radeon 7000
• Radeon 7500

The Radeon 8xxx series supported DirectX 8.

• Radeon 8500
• Radeon 9000*
• Radeon 9100*
• Radeon 9200*

The Radeon 9xxx series supported DirectX 9.

• Radeon 9500
• Radeon 9600
• Radeon 9700
• Radeon 9800

Since DirectX 9 hung around for a while, ATi had a problem. Their low-end DX9 cards were simply too powerful to be low end, so ATi started rebadging the 8500 series as lower model 9x00 parts.

the next set went

• x600
• x700
• x800

then the x1x00 series

• x1300
• x1600
• x1800
• x1900

Again, very easy to figure out "where" your card was. If you had an x850, it was more powerful than a x800 or an x700.

Starting with DirectX 10, ATi's strategy changed again, with the RadeonHD lineup.

RadeonHD 2x00

• RadeonHD 2300
• RadeonHD 2600
• RadeonHD 2900

RadeonHD 3x00

• RadeonHD 3300
• RadeonHD 3400
• RadeonHD 3600
• RadeonHD 3800

RadeonHD 4x00

• RadeonHD 4200
• RadeonHD 4600
• RadeonHD 4700
• RadeonHD 4800

RadeonHD 5x00

• RadeonHD 5400
• RadeonHD 5600
• RadeonHD 5700
• RadeonHD 5800

Pretty clear to figure out where each card is from the model numbers. A card from the 4700 is going to be more powerful than a card from the 3600 series.

Things can get fuzzy at the top end, where a RadeonHD 48xx card can keep up with something like a RadeonHD 57xx card. Things generally are consistent though across the Radeon range.

As far as direct analogs go, the series matches up sorta like this:

Radeon 8x00 series = GeforceFX Series\
Radeon 9x00 series = unmatched
Radeon xx00 series = outmatched
Radeon x1x00 series = Geforce 6x00 Series / Geforce 7x00 series
RadeonHD 2x00 series = outmatched
RadeonHD 3x00 series = Geforce 8x00 series
RadeonHD 4x00 series = Geforce 9x00 / GTS 250 / GTX series
RadeonHD 5x00 series = unmatched

To explain this, the Radeon 9500-9800 series cards didn't have any Nvidia equivalents.

The Geforce 6x00 series took the upper hand, and ATi wasn't able to match the Nvidia offering till the x1x00 series of cards, which competed against the 7x00 series as well.

With the 8800 Series, Nvidia again outmatched ATi.

ATi eventually gave a performance answer to the 8x00 with the RadeonHD 3x00 series.

The RadeonHD 4x00 series took on both the 9800 series and the GTX series.

With the RadeonHD 5x00 series, ATi is currently unmatched by anything on the Nvidia side. Nvidia is expected to match the high end RadeonHD 5x00 series with Fermi.

***

I hope this answered your question.

gets worse when you realize that the "9800" could also stand for the Radeon 9800, which was released back in 2003.

Basically, Nvidia, AMD/ATi, and Intel are never going to come to an agreement on marketing their products in a way that you can actively compare the products by the product name. So while it may hurt your head, it's just marketing as usual.

really depends on who you ask, and what you play.

Some games don't benefit from multi-gpu setups. Some games do. Some games only show benefits with Nvidia SLI. Some games shine best with Crossfire.

The advantage to multi-gpu setups is that you can often get equivalent rendering power for less cash. For example, a RadeonHD 5870 will cost you around $400 to purchase. Two RadeonHD 5770's, which cost around $160-$170 each will offer rendering that will get you close to, if not past, a single 5870: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid..._14.html#sect0

two RadeonHD 5750's, which run around $130-$140 each, can keep up with the $300 5850.

So you can spend a bit of cash now, and say get a single graphics card, and then get an identical card a couple months down the line, and have even more rendering power.

Then there's the added advantage of processing technologies like Nvidia PhysX or OpenCl that can utilize "extra" processors. The scope of OpenCL is wider than the scope of PhysX, and game developers are already planning on how to write code that can utilize additional GPU's to deliver better physics, AI, or even better positional audio. With both Intel and AMD delivering GPU/CPU combination's over the next 6 to 8 months, developers will have a growing platform base upon which OpenCL acceleration can be useful.

Personally, I don't build a computer now without making plans for a multi-gpu setup... but that's just me.

... I think that link qualifies as a whiskey tango foxtrot...

then I read some of the links in the paragraph about that item... and those are actually worse / better. I can't decide.

If you really believe that Jack Emmert has nothing to do with CO, and hasn't been involved since Bill Roper was hired, I've got a large amount of ocean front property in Montana to sell you.

Short version: Epic, Pool, and Patron powers were not part of the initial target for color custimization and they require additional tech and UI work to expose the functionality to the player.

Long Version: some of these power sets may never be customizable. The developers have cited the position in the case of Patron powers that you, the player, are borrowing somebody else's power, and in that aspect, they aren't sure if they want to storyline allow you to change the color animation. These and other soft-factors contributed to the developers only focusing on making primary and secondary power sets customizable. There still primary and secondary sets, like stone armor, that aren't customizable on certain powers. These powers will take priority in future development.

You really have no idea just how bloody annoying that tagline is do you? Do you have any idea how often players on these forums have used rumors to justify their behavior or expectations? Till a rumor is proven, leave it alone.

In other words.

Today's rumors ARE NEVER NEWS.