Slashdot Mirror

http://www.ati.com/products/RadeonX1600/specs.html

It mentions HDCP for the x1600 at least.

The people you know with 64 chips are idiots then. If you own a copy of Windows XP 64, you should have no problem finding 64 bit drivers for most modern hardware, with the exception of some older HP printers:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp64_81.98.html

http://www.nvidia.com/object/nforce_nf4_winxp64_am d_6.69.html

https://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?de ptID=894&task=knowledge&folderID=367

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/pscmisc/vac/us/en/s m/network_software/universalprintdriver_overview.h tml

And for the uneducated and/or ignorant, the 64 bit version of windows STILL RUNS 32 BIT APPS JUST FINE. The only time an app may not function is if it communicates to a hardware device like a printer or CD burner. Which, by the way, CD burning apps like Nero 6 & 7 support just fine. Also, McAfee has a 64 bit verison of their antivirus software, which is included in the SAME installer as the 32 bit version, so no need for 2 seperate installers. I won't even got into detail about all the 64 bit linux distributions which have been out for several years now.

If you have a 64 bit chip and you couldn't find drivers for modern based hardware, you didn't try hard enough, or at all for that matter. Windows Vista will be 64 bit by default, yet include a legacy 32 bit version as well that won't have all the features of the 64 bit version, such as requiring signed drivers. All you have to do is google for the info, and you will find it.

If you want to run Glass (the GUI) you need to make sure you have a compatible video card. I have found in Vista that the biggest perf issues stem from low memory or not having a compatible video card. Here is nvidia's list of supported video cards, note that there are no notebook cards on it right now. Here is ATI's list of supported video cards. If you want the slick UI, just make sure you get a laptop that supports LDDM.

For dual card systems ATI uses thier own crossfire Technology. http://www.ati.com/technology/crossfire/howitworks .html

Catalyst 6.1

I would expect that the Radeon 9550, being a discrete chip with its own memory (albeit only 32MB) would outperform pretty much any current integrated graphics setup, including ATI's own.

From ATI's 9550 page we can see that the GPU has 4 pixel pipelines and 2 vertex shader pipelines.

The 945GM features GMA950 graphics. From Intel's GMA950 page we can see that this core runs at up to 400MHz, and can render up to 4 pixels per clock. In terms of performance however, from ExtremeTech we can see that the GMA950 performs much worse than a 6200TC, which is probably on par with a Radeon 9550. "To put it more bluntly, it's a complete and total rout for the GMA950". Some games wouldn't even run, possibly due to driver bugs (and people claim that Intel has great stable chipsets with no issues).

However to cut costs I can't see Apple continuing to use a dedicated graphics chip on their low-end products. They have to compete with PC laptops, and people don't know that integrated graphics suck (but are still usually good enough for desktop use).

Youll have to code them first, because they dont exist. Ditto the Half life 2 demo.

You're so right. Luckily I'm a fucking red hot coder and have put together a Half-Life 2 demo for you here:

http://www.ati.com/halflife2/index.html

Don't mention it.

Lots of us run older "secondary" machines with salvaged components.
The 9800 is not that old in that regard, between a couple of friends, we have 8500s, 7500s and 7200s in various machines.

Of course, these machines also have slower CPUs (P3, K6 and equivalents) and lower amounts of slower RAM.

I'd like to know what driver versions would be best for those configurations (I heard some recommendations for 4.12 and 4.3)

The older driver versions are available here.

These TV Wonder USB drivers for XP. Maybe you overlooked this? I assume by external you mean usb...

https://support.ati.com/ics/support/KBAnswer.asp?q uestionID=1167

Yeah, your right. That's a genius idea. They should offer a card that does HTDV. They could call it a HDTV Wonder card.

The HDTV market is still small. That's probably why they have a card especially for that niche (as of yet) market, rather than add the expense of those components to their more mainstream cards.

If you're looking at the high-end All-in-Wonder for an HTPC, you're looking in the wrong place. This is their top-end card that's primarily meant for gaming. It's like complaining that your sports car doesn't get 55 miles per gallon.

If you want an HTPC All-in-Wonder, you should be looking at something like the All-in-Wonder 2006. It's passively cooled, and has the same tuner bits as the last few All-in-Wonder cards. It works in MCE too.

As for resolutions, my ATI X700 (gaming PC) and All-in-Wonder 2006 (HTPC) both support 1280x720 (it's a pretty standard resolution). I'm not sure about 960x540, but I bet you could set that as a custom resolution in Catalyst Control Center.

And for what it's worth, ATI has been calling it an "All-in-Wonder" (not "ALL IN WONDER") for a while now, so it's only this review that's "screaming" the product name, not ATI.

More cost up front? Maybe, but my ATI TV Wonder is still working *years* after its purchase.

If 3D performance at 1280x1024 is what matters most, then the NVIDIA 6800GS looks like the obvious choice over the ATI X1600. Also, both models support Shader Model 3.0 (X800 doesn't).

However, some users might find more value in this new Avivo technology that ATI is hyping. The X1600's Avivo implementation seems to have (or will have when the drivers mature) two significant advantages over the 6800GS's PureVideo implementation: (1) hardware-assisted H.264 HD playback and (2) Avivo transcode, which was covered on Slashdot.

For users building a home theater PC with Blu-ray/HD-DVD drives, and willing to play 3D games at slightly lower resolution, the ATI X1600 just might be the better buy. Personally, I don't trust ATI's driver development (Windows and Linux), so I'd wait for NVIDIA's mid-range version of the 7000 series (7600?).

1. On another note, as polygon counts skyrocket they approach single pixel size

This is not happening. Not anywhere (except maybe production rendering). It is far too time-consuming, expensive, and labor-intensive to produce huge numbers of high-polygon-count models for games. Vertex pipes are currently under-utilized in most games and applications now. Efforts are underway to allow procedural geometry creation on the GPU to better fill the vertex pipe without requiring huge content creation efforts. See this paper for details.

2. A second core that most apps don't know how to take advantage of will make this all the more obvious.

This undercuts the argument you make in the next paragraph. Also, it's not true. Both the PS3 and XBOX 360 have multiple CPU cores. It's true that current-gen engines aren't optimized for this technology, but next-gen engines will be.

3. multicore CPUs are nearing the point where full screen, real time ray tracing will be possible. GPUs will not stand a chance.

This might be true, but so what? Ray tracing offers few advantages over the current-gen programmable pipeline. I can only think of 2 things that a ray-tracer can do that the programmable pipeline can't: multilevel reflections and refraction. BRDFs, soft shadows, self-shadowing, etc. can all be handled in the GPU these days. Now, you can get great results by coupling a ray-tracer with a global illumination system like photon mapping, but that technique is nowhere near real-time. Typical acceleration schemes for ray-tracing and photon mapping will not work well in dynamic environments, but the GPU could care less whether a polygon was somewhere else on the previous frame.

Hate to break it to you, but the GPU is here to stay. Why? GPUs are specialized for processing 4-vectors, not single floats (or doubles) like the CPU + FPU. True, there are CPU extensions for this, such as SSE and 3DNOW, but typical CPUs have a single SSE processor, compared to a current-gen GPU with 8 vertex pipes and 24 pixel pipes. Finally, do you really want to burden your extra CPU with rendering when it could be handling physics or AI?

Local applications effectively uses shared memory, the same way OS X and Windows works.

As I said, I'm not a GUI guy. I don't know the underlying whatever that makes Windows, OS X, or X11 do its thing. However, I do know that to run an X app, you need an "X server" to display it on. From what I do know, the X server is the guy that is responsible for getting the hardware information like keyboard and mouse input and relaying it to the application. It is also responsible for displaying the information onto the display.

Being that all X apps run the same, right out of the box either locally or on another machine, I was assuming that the "glue" between the app and the server as to why X apps look bad. If that is not the case, then my argument for ditching X is even more strong. Its just not good anymore.

I've got a relatively high end 4 Itanium CPU box with dual graphics cards that are pretty high end. these guys. They retail for about $800 a piece.

Even on that box, X apps, even OpenGL ones that you can run on any box, don't look as good.

If a $40,000 computer can't make X look good, then lets bury the old dog out back with the others.

Yeah, this link would have probably been better. http://apps.ati.com/ir/PressReleaseText.asp?compid =105421&releaseID=772964 They pretty much say the same thing though.

Hey, maybe they're going to make hardware manufacturers actually release specs so we don't get stuck with crippled or non-existent support.

have a Radeon 9600. It is approximately 5 years old

Er, no. Your Radeon 9600 is just over two years old.

Actually, the Radeon X600's architecture is from the same generation as the Radeon 9600. The X600 is the PCIe version of the 9600. The generation beyond the 9600/X600 architecture is the X700.

I freakin' hate these inconsistent naming schemes. The Radeon 9200's architecture is the same as the Radeon 8500 (DirectX 8 for Windows users). The NVIDIA GeForce 4 MX uses the GeForce 2 architecure (no pixel/vertex shaders).

I've been playing Guild Wars since May and I love every aspect of it.

However, I'm disappointed that we've gone from calling it a CORPG to an MMORPG. People buy this game expecting "WoW for Free!" when they should be thinking "Diablo Done Right."

If you're looking for a fun, skill-based, multiplayer RPG then Guild Wars is the best you'll find. If you're looking for something that you can play every single day/night, find an active guild that plays a lot of PvP.

Oh yeah, and get your free trial. Don't worry about entering a serial number.

actually the power requirements are on par with nvidias.

both require obscenely high amount of power.. on the order of 200 watts at full load.

and the official specs call for a 450 watt power supply on a fully outfitted system (according to ati).

http://www.ati.com/products/RadeonX1800/Products.h tml

if you want less power requirements, get a lesser card... but then you'll be trading performance for power consumption. it's a choice...

obviously you missed the fact that when gaming at 1600x1200 and are using 4x antialiasing and 8x anisotropic filtering that the x1800xt beats the shit out of the gf7800.

if you're buying a 500 dollar card, are you seriously worried about benchmarks that are run without aa+af? this card even does HDR (hi dynamic range) plus AA, something that the gf7800 can't.

this card is way more sophisticated and highly refined that the brute force 7800. the 7800 isn't bad but that this card can do with 16 pipelines what the 7800 can't do with 24, says a lot.

and that's just raw performance with todays games. never mind the fact that the 1800xt comes with 512megs of super fast ram... ready for well into the next generation of games, whereas 256meg 7800's are already obsolete for the high end of the next generation. sure 256 will be enough if you pare down the resolution and lower the texture detail. one example is the game F.E.A.R... on the 1800xt it absolutely trounces the 7800 in performance.

my advice... read ALL the reviews you can get your hands on. there are too many discrepencies if you only read one or two. if you want to get a more full picture, get to reading.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2552

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/r520/

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/r520reviewxvxv /

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1867116 ,00.asp

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_x18 00_xt_xl/

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/262/

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=ODIy

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=3603

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.cfm?article id=734&cid=2

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews /ati_radeon_x1800_x1600preview

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=172

http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?id=407

http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/8864

and check out the wicked new 3d tech demos... both are very impressive but the toystore demo is jawdropping.

http://www.ati.com/designpartners/media/edudemos/R adeonX1k.html

wmv9 hi def format but plays fine in mplayer or VLC.

ATI has been releasing the fglrx drivers for some time. https://support.ati.com/ics/support/KBAnswer.asp?q uestionID=20174

The ATI Radeon 9600 is also available fanless (in the SE and vanilla range it ships fanless; some reports of success replacing the Pro's fan with a Zalman heatsink); I have a vanilla 9600 and it runs Half Life 2 and Far Cry quite happily on my 2GHz Athlon 2400XP with an impressive feature-set (not maximum, but stuff like grass turned on) at 1024 res. It just has an old-style heatsink.

GamePC had a feature on fanless graphics cards about 18 months ago.

Sorry, you don't need specialized hardware for motion blur. And I'm not quite sure what you mean by "universal processing units suck". Pixel shaders are pretty damn fast these days, and they're putting a lot more of them into GPUs.

There are plenty of good motion blur algorithms that work in 3D (with extrusion in the opposite direction of velocity), 2D post processing using shaders, and accumulation buffer techniques, all of which run well on modern hardware. Dedicated motion blur hardware would be redundant, and a total waste of die space.

Here's a few examples of motion blur algorithms for modern GPUs running on "universal processing units that suck":

http://download.developer.nvidia.com/developer/SDK /Individual_Samples/featured_effects.html (see the spinFX demo)

http://download.developer.nvidia.com/developer/SDK /Individual_Samples/samples.html (see "Motion Blur as a 2D Post-Processing Effect"

http://search.ati.com/nasearch.asp?Query=motion+bl ur&go.x=0&go.y=0&DefaultLanguage=16&Catalog=NASite &rdoCatalog=NASite&Start=&Total=&Stat=New (this is a search on "motion blur" on ati's developer page, there are several papers describing motion blur techniques)

AFAIK the hardware is a little different because there are "Mac" versions of cards:

http://www.ati.com/products/mac.html

I will have to stand corrected on Direct3D performance. My personal experience came from larger batches (on the level of 1K polygons at least) where the difference is fairly slight. As this presentation from GDC nicely shows the difference is indeed notable on smaller batches.

They do memory differently, I would be hard pressed to say that either of the ways is better though.

I'd imagine that there are worse issues for the layering than that as well. That one is not that huge since the reads in OpenGL are so mind-numbingly inefficient that they are near useless anyway (somewhat pragmatic view of the issue here though :).

I think I'll shut up now, you apparently have a much better clue about the issues than I do.

about as well as they do with desktop products

Yeah, except that desktop systems aren't asked to suspend very often.

Suspend is broken in the ATI fglrx drivers, and has been for the eighteen months that I have owned my current laptop. For this reason I use the 2D drivers in the standard X.Org release, although I am hopeful that the r300 project is showing some real traction now.

fglrx is getting better and better. We can't it to suddenly become perfect. fglrx today is much better than flgrx a year ago. As far as I know, fglrx supports the graphic cards on laptops aswell. Read the release notes to see which cards are supported: http://www2.ati.com/drivers/linux/linux_8.14.13.ht ml#172394

I think this price range is possible

For those folks who want to pay extra for an elegant and intergrated PVR solution and not the more expensive EyeTV. An ATI Theater 550 Pro video processor with H.264 hardware encoding.
http://www.ati.com/products/theater550/index.html
With a new iLife software solution to easily record TV shows (TiVo) and does post processing of these recordings to a small H.264 file to build content for a future video iPod and for video podcasting (a.k.a vodcasting).

These are nice updates all around. I just bought the new iBook 12".

Not only does it get 512 MB soldered onto the mobo (with one free RAM slot), it also gets that motion sensor for the HD, trackpad scrolling, and most importantly a fully Core Image compliant GPU, the Radeon 9550 .

Furthermore, since I'm an education customer, I get a free iPod mini. (They rebate the cost of an iPod mini if you buy a Mac at the same time, but you can buy either the iPod or the iPod mini. Note however, the Mac has to be on the same bill, and neither the Mac mini nor the eMac qualify for this killer deal. Luckily the iBook fully qualifies though. :))

This should last me quite nicely until the Intel 'Books come out. I'm hoping for either a widescreen 13" dual-core Pentium M Yonah PowerBook, or a 4:3 12" single-core Celeron M Yonah iBook, in the first half of 2006. Actually, the current G4 iBooks are so nice, I may just wait until version B of the Intel Macs come out. By that time the x86 binaries will be more common (and more mature), and Apple will have had time to work some of the hardware transition kinks out too.

https://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?de ptID=894&task=knowledge&folderID=27

ATi has been supplying add-in video boards for Macs for years. Don't expect them to stop now. A Mactel OS X driver will be available as soon as necessary.

It may not be fully stable yet (although is has worked smoothly for me for about a week)

Which card have you got? That project looks like a lot of fun.

I have filled this goddamn form out a dozen or so times, phoned, and even sent snail mail asking for their hardware docs, each time kissing ass and telling them how wonderful they are. I'm listed as a developer for Gatos, and they still won't talk to me. I think the "SCO Linux" option on their target platform list is a good enough indication of how much attention that section of the web page gets. WTF does that even mean, SCO Linux.. RedHat, SuSE, and Debian aren't on there, is that some kind of jab?

I think its highly doubtful I'll ever see any docs, so its probably time I just get a card and start hacking.

Good idea. In fact, such a good idea that they already do.

> Slowly, the computer is becoming an all in one console.

Not if ATI are involved with it. Seriously. The result will be truly awesome hardware with truly appauling drivers. That, a gaming console, does not make! Great hardware is useless if the drivers are flakey. I have owned two Radeons, and have had a few years now of driver hell and will never buy another ATI product again - no matter how tempting. The Windows XP (and 98/ME for that matter) Catalyst drivers and MMC software suite is an embarrassment to ATI.

> PS- ATI, we need Linux drivers!

PS- ATI has already given us Linux drivers! And they work too.

You might also have noticed the content of all the sites is nearly identical. Just a rewrite of the ati press kit is suppose. They all miss benchmarks (the whole purpose of sli is speed).

Here is a list of some more sites:
beyond3d
techreport
tweakers.net (dutch, but the content is identical to other sites
the faq from ati

Next in line: these same sites (i left anand tech and tomshardware out) will bring the benchmarks all the same day the nda on the benchmarks expires

1. The 32-bit flash plugin works if you run it in a 32-bit browser program, even on a 64-bit OS. As long as one of your web browsers is 32-bit, you can run flash from within that one. A good solution is to install both mozilla and firefox and make one of them the 32-bit version and the other one 64-bit.
2. Proprietary ATI linux drivers for AMD64 are available.
3. Java applets are similar to flash -- the Sun java browser plugin will work if you use a 32-bit browser.

http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-JasonMit chell.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-RichardH uddy.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-NatalyaT atarchuk.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-EvanHart .wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-BillLice a-Kane.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-BillLice a-Kane2.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-Thorsten Scheuermann.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-NatalyaT atarchuk.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-DanielGi nsburg.wmv Thats all i could spider. The rest are akarmi

http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-JasonMit chell.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-RichardH uddy.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-NatalyaT atarchuk.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-EvanHart .wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-BillLice a-Kane.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-BillLice a-Kane2.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-Thorsten Scheuermann.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-NatalyaT atarchuk.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-DanielGi nsburg.wmv Thats all i could spider. The rest are akarmi

http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-JasonMit chell.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-RichardH uddy.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-NatalyaT atarchuk.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-EvanHart .wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-BillLice a-Kane.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-BillLice a-Kane2.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-Thorsten Scheuermann.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-NatalyaT atarchuk.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-DanielGi nsburg.wmv Thats all i could spider. The rest are akarmi

http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-JasonMit chell.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-RichardH uddy.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-NatalyaT atarchuk.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-EvanHart .wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-BillLice a-Kane.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-BillLice a-Kane2.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-Thorsten Scheuermann.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-NatalyaT atarchuk.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-DanielGi nsburg.wmv Thats all i could spider. The rest are akarmi

http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-JasonMit chell.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-RichardH uddy.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-NatalyaT atarchuk.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-EvanHart .wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-BillLice a-Kane.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-BillLice a-Kane2.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-Thorsten Scheuermann.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-NatalyaT atarchuk.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-DanielGi nsburg.wmv Thats all i could spider. The rest are akarmi

http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-JasonMit chell.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-RichardH uddy.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-NatalyaT atarchuk.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-EvanHart .wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-BillLice a-Kane.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-BillLice a-Kane2.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-Thorsten Scheuermann.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-NatalyaT atarchuk.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-DanielGi nsburg.wmv Thats all i could spider. The rest are akarmi

http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-JasonMit chell.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-RichardH uddy.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-NatalyaT atarchuk.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-EvanHart .wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-BillLice a-Kane.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-BillLice a-Kane2.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-Thorsten Scheuermann.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-NatalyaT atarchuk.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-DanielGi nsburg.wmv Thats all i could spider. The rest are akarmi

http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-JasonMit chell.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-RichardH uddy.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-NatalyaT atarchuk.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-EvanHart .wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-BillLice a-Kane.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-BillLice a-Kane2.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-Thorsten Scheuermann.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-NatalyaT atarchuk.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-DanielGi nsburg.wmv Thats all i could spider. The rest are akarmi

http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-JasonMit chell.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-RichardH uddy.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March7-NatalyaT atarchuk.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-EvanHart .wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-BillLice a-Kane.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March8-BillLice a-Kane2.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-Thorsten Scheuermann.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-NatalyaT atarchuk.wmv http://www2.ati.com/stream/gdc2005/March9-DanielGi nsburg.wmv Thats all i could spider. The rest are akarmi

All of ATI's presenations are availble as streaming video if anyone is interested: http://www.ati.com/developer/gdc_video.html

Or you can just download the slides in PDF form:

http://www.ati.com/developer/techpapers.html

All of ATI's presenations are availble as streaming video if anyone is interested: http://www.ati.com/developer/gdc_video.html

Or you can just download the slides in PDF form:

http://www.ati.com/developer/techpapers.html

Not an application, but how about the latest ATi Radeon drivers?

64-bit AMD Opteron workstations were available two months before the G5 Powermacs were announced. If you call the G5 Powermacs "workstations" (dual processor, PCI-X), then AMD was first. If you call G5's "desktops" (no EEC memory, no workstation-class graphics cards), then PPC was first (before the Athlon 64 three months later).

2. I want a quiet system, and that means no fans. A high-end graphics board that sucks energy and produces heat is not just a neutral "I don't need it", it's a negative "I don't WANT it".

C'mon. A new high-end computer should have PCI Express. The Radeon 9600 is last generation's mid-range graphics. It is outperformed by this generation's low-end (GeForce 6200 and Radeon X700). Only the ultra high end cards need loud fans.