I found this in AnandTech.com, thought you folks may like to see it.
"Thanks to GTaudiophile for this tid bit from John Carmack.
Hi John,
No doubt you heard about GeForce FX fiasco in Half-Life 2. In your opinion, are these results representative for future DX9 games (including Doom III) or is it just a special case of HL2 code preferring ATI features, as NVIDIA suggests?
Unfortunately, it will probably be representative of most DX9 games. Doom has a custom back end that uses the lower precisions on the GF-FX, but when you run it with standard fragment programs just like ATI, it is a lot slower. The precision doesn't really matter to Doom, but that won't be a reasonable option in future games designed around DX9 level hardware as a minimum spec.
John Carmack"
This should prove Valve's point. Or maybe some don't trust Carmack and thinks this is a part of the conspiracy against Nvidia.
<font color=red>listen to me or wait for the next patch!</font color=red>
"Thanks to GTaudiophile for this tid bit from John Carmack.
Hi John,
No doubt you heard about GeForce FX fiasco in Half-Life 2. In your opinion, are these results representative for future DX9 games (including Doom III) or is it just a special case of HL2 code preferring ATI features, as NVIDIA suggests?
Unfortunately, it will probably be representative of most DX9 games. Doom has a custom back end that uses the lower precisions on the GF-FX, but when you run it with standard fragment programs just like ATI, it is a lot slower. The precision doesn't really matter to Doom, but that won't be a reasonable option in future games designed around DX9 level hardware as a minimum spec.
John Carmack"
This should prove Valve's point. Or maybe some don't trust Carmack and thinks this is a part of the conspiracy against Nvidia.
<font color=red>listen to me or wait for the next patch!</font color=red>