Slashdot Mirror
Ask NVIDIA Interview
A reader writes: "There's a pretty lengthy interview with NVIDIA, which covers many interesting current topics, including the Xbox, BeOS support, Mac support and the NV20." And they covered more quality control - that's been my major problem with the cards.
I'm the proud owner of a brand new system that sports a 1GHz processor and a GeForce2 vid card. However, I'm getting a disappointing 60fps in my favorite time-killer counterstrike. What's up with that? :-)
Where can I find the latest and greatest tricks and techniques for tweaking your cards? Thanks.
it's an ultra
And for anyone who runs anything other than (or in addition to) windows and linux, then just about any other card is better, since it will probably work.
Besides, even assuming the drivers wouldn't crash my machine willy-nilly, I have better things to do than fight my package system to manually graft in these ridiculous drivers into what is otherwise a well- and tightly integrated system.
As always, it depends on what you have and what you do, but for me, their drivers are not an option.
--
Change is inevitable.
Change is inevitable.
Progress is not.
Check the updates. They've had D3D and OGL support for Unreal 1 for some time.
This is not true. T&L support for the radeon is on the way.
This is also not true. The specs are under NDA but the DRI developers have them.
And this one deserves special comment, because it's borderline insulting. From dri-devel, MGA400 driver that Gareth has just done some work on:
The DRI is already pushing the limits of most of the hardware it supports. Mesa has recently gone through significant re-architecture work to prepare for the limits of future hardware.
Granted, I haven't checked for updates in a long time (its been about a year since I finished Unreal), but it would be cool to play some of those "Voodoo or Software Only" games on another card.
--
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
If your 12-year old neighbour can afford a $300+ graphics card, then they are likely too busy defending their turf from the other playground crack dealers to be whopping your ass at Q3A.
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
I'm going to be buying a new computer in the very near future and I want to get a good graphics card. I also want to support companies that have been "good" towards open source, so your advice is exactly what I had planned to do.
:) )
But should I buy ATI or Matrox? I don't play many 3D games, but I do want to get decent performance when I do. I also want good 2D because that's what I use most (I want AA text too
So my question is, which is "better" for me, ATI or Matrox? I appreciate that ATI has faster 3D, but is it as well supported in XFree 4.0.2? How does its 2D compare to Matrox? If the ATI has better 3D and comparable 2D, why did so many people mention Matrox and so few ATI in the recent Ask Slashdot on this topic?
Help?
Thanks,
Stuart.
You ACTUALLY believe OSX is right around the corner? What a sad, sad existance you Mac users lead.
Tell me something. How many times has Apple promised to revolutionize MacOS, and how many times have they shelved the revolutionary version in favor of hacking up the old 1980's technology again?
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
As i understand it, the nVidia code that goes into xfree86 is rendered unreadable before it is submitted.
I don't want to get into the details of how this violates the xfree86 license, or why you may or may not want to do such a thing. I just want to ask one specific question.
Now that you've crushed the competition, when might you consider laying off this practice?
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
Yes, right now NVidia support for Linux is OK.
But will it stay the same? Who knows?
Why NVidia doesn't support BeOS ? They won't even allow Be to write their own driver!
I find this VERY disturbing..
I'm trying currently to choose a new videocard and I think that a Radeon might be a saffer bet.
Are you clueless? If it hadn't of been for the openness of the PC architechture, you wouldn't be playing on Linux. Or BSD, or maybe even BeOS.
You play that "I'm happy with what I got, sorry it doesn't work for you" game and seek sympathy because you want the "Best performance out of my gear." Well, that doesn't work with nVidia because their gear is closed.
Hell, the GPL grew out of a conflict between RMS and Xerox over printer drivers... What is so different?
I won't cry if you use Windows to play your games. I'll keep whacking away on Open Source drivers.
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
It's more like buying a hummer, but not being allowed to drive it on sundays?! So yeah, sell and get a Matrox G400 (my current favorite)
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Argh. I'm a crack baby. Shoot me.
Please tell me I'm not the only one that thought this was a slashdot interview...
--K
Since it's been made rather clear the drivers will not go open source, is it possible that *BSD users will see a port of the Detonator drivers?
It's hard for me to buy a card if my free platform of choice is unsupported.
--K
You ACTUALLY believe OSX is right around the corner?
Well, apparently Apple thinks so, as you can pre-order it (ships 03/24) in the Apple Store...
However, since you're obviously extremely brilliant and clueful
(as demonstrated by your posting), they're probably wrong, and you are likely right.
--K
And from my vantage point, as a BSD user who doesn't play the 'Open Source or Die' game,
I see it as follows: I can't use NVIDIA cards for 3D. Period.
I really wish the 'L33n00x !z k3w1' crowd would realize that Linux is not the only free OS out there.
Carmack has said himself that when the next Doom game comes out in a test release, it will be nVidia only for Linux.
That doesn't really sound like Carmack. From his postings to slashdot,
he sounds like he supports interoperability through OpenGL,
'course it may be that only NVIDIA cards support necessary OpenGL extensions, or it'll be NVIDIA only in just the test release.
Regardless, my next card will prolly be a Matrox.
Yeah, the 3D is pokey compared to NVIDIA's, but Matrox 2D quality supposedly can't be beat,
and the 3D drivers are open.
If I bought a GEForce, I'd essentially be buying an overpriced, inferior 2D card.
--K
hi
I belive the Nvidia took <B>alot of IP</B> from 3dfx
what about the gigapixel IP
tile based rendering is often better solution such an solution is powerVR
everything is going towards LOW power LOW bandwidth
(these are both subjective low compared to now not before)
often better solution such an solution is powerVR
everything is going on chip ( SOC )
expalintion of PowerVR
PowerVR's unique tile-based rendering approach and on-chip Z and Frame buffer processing drastically reduces memory bandwidth leading to a scalable and significantly lower-cost graphics solution than traditional 3D approaches and enabling new applications for mobile digital devices, set-top-boxes and Internet appliances. PowerVR is uniquely capable of empowering high-performance graphics on consumer devices. PowerVR's patented low-bandwidth architecture is essential to provide high quality digital graphics in affordable consumer electronics solutions. Traditional 3D architectures simply cannot provide comparable graphics processing power at an affordable cost.
yes its marketing speak but its true
regards
john jones
My Asus AGP-V7100/2V1D is recognized by Xfree's pci scan as:
(--) PCI:*(1:0:0) NVidia GeForce2 MX rev 161, Mem @ 0xe0000000/24, 0xd8000000/27
And it works just dandy!
Adults are obsolete children. - Dr. Seuss
Nvidia needs to publish a list of which Nvidia based cards And Bios support the bandwidth and modes for using the DVI interfaces with the SGI 1600SW.
Does anyone know if there be a Dual DVI Nvidia DVI card that works with the 1600SW? Quad?
This screen requires a digital transmitter with lots of bandwidth and some cards with outboard transmitters won't work with it (eg IBM's Riva TNT2 M64 DVI-I which has a Silicon Image 154).
Cards that will support this screen are: Matrox G400/DVI, Hercules/ Guillemot Geforce1 DDR-DVI (PCI !!!), Geforce2 MXs with an outboard Transmitter, Geforce2 Pros with an outboard transmitter and Geforce2 Ultra AND Nvidia Quadro cards like the SGI V3/VR3. Do not bother with GeForce2 GTS/DVI cards. They will not work. They have an onboard transmitter that only supports 10x7 screen bandwidths.
Currently I am using the Asus AGP-V7100/2V1D working with the 1600sw and multilink adapter on Mandrake Linux + XFree86 4.0.1 + NVidia's
binary drivers. It works well except the console looks ugly (in most modes Grub lets me pick). Without using the FBConsole is there any hope for this console support? And it was a bit of a hassel getting the current binaries working in X... But it looks great.
Adults are obsolete children. - Dr. Seuss
And I'm a linux user who does not play the "Open Source Or Die" game who cannot use the NVIDIA drivers. Because I don't have an Intel CPU. If you give me *any* gnu-style .tar.gz, I can *always* install it.
But the truth is, ATI and Matrox want the Linux market because it isn't as 3d demanding, and they aren't so competitive in that area. NVidia can focus on the 3d performance markets.
--
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Why should I? As a user of Linux who does not play the "Open Source Or Die" game with my hardware and drivers, please give me a good reason as to why I should do this! From my vantage point, I see it as follows:
- Currently, the nVidia driver is one of the fastest around. Could it be faster if it was open? Sure, I believe that fully, but it is pretty damn fast.
- As a every day user of Linux who doesn't download the latest Enlightenment or KDE beta or XFree86 release, I can stand to be behind in my releases to keep compatible with my windowing server.
- Carmack has said himself that when the next Doom game comes out in a test release, it will be nVidia only for Linux.
- He then goes on to add that he himself will start working on the drivers for the ATI cards to bring them up to speed so it can play his game decently.
- Sorry, but since this demo is probably a year away, and since JohnC typically knows his s#!t, he believes that nVidia is the best solution right now. From posts here to Slashdot, he seems to know his stuff.
- I am not saying that he endorses nVidia for their driver practices or anything, this is stuff I have walked away with from things he has said.
So, as a gamer who would like to see the best performance out of my gear, and basing my current opinion off of things I have read, please convince me otherwise. I believe, though, most users of Linux feel this way and just want their stuff to work.Bryan R.
Bryan R.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
The point is that they could release specifications to the parts that are NOT licensed from others, and allow the community to write the drivers...
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
At least he's settled all the rumors about whether or not BeOS will have nVidia support - and they won't have any. These guys are unbelievable.
Eugenia is certainly less than a newbie - she's an editor at BeNews, co-founded BeUnited, and dates one of the Be engineers. *But* she has been known to be pretty blunt about stuff in the past and I can understand how this would turn people off.
Personally I don't see it but I'm probably used to her by now. Either way, their answer was pretty blunt. Overly blunt. Hmmm... nVidia's partnership with Mircrosoft must be wearing off on them.
Agreed.
By the wording of NVidia's answers I have been left with an overwhelming feeling that any answers from developers have been significantly mangled by their marketing and/or PR department.
Reading the aritcle I was disappointed at how curt they were with answering potential "meaty" developer questions.
What does NVidia wish to achieve with the interview?
Generate interest in their products for future purchase.
Who reads Sharky Extreme?
Hardcore computer users.
Do the responses from the interview generate more (buying) interest in Sharky Extreme readers?
No. I can't speak for all, but I feel Nvidia side-stepped many of the questions and I was un-impressed with the quality of answers.
I love their products, but find their PR representatives doing them a disservice.
Plus, there is a very evil problem with the Geforce 2 MX. If you have an Asus A7V mobo, don't buy this card. I can't do anything OpenGL or DirectX without it freezing the system completely.
I specifically have the cursed configuration: A7V, 1 Gig Athlon, Creative SB Live! It seems that the raid version of the Asus socket A works fine. I'm going to try updating the bios to the latest version listed, otherwise I return it.:(
Thanks to tomsharware.com
The party's over
What _I_ want to ask is when we'll start seeing some working DVI support on nVidia-based cards. The GeForce1 works OK with DVI, but at limited resolutions. GeForce2 support is right out broken. They claim to have fixed the problem in the GeForce2MX chip; but no MX boards today ship with a DVI out, and I don't know if there are plans for any.
ATI and Matrox seem to have it working, why not nVidia? I want a dual output DVI GeForce board! Why is that so hard?
nVidia's driver contains intellectual property owned by other companies -- information that they're legally bound not to release. They've posted this info in the past. They'd like to release an open source driver, but starting from scratch isn't very appealing when they already have a driver that works very well.
ck
the code is not obfuscated anymore, get over it, Nvidia fucked up when they changed the code right before 3.3.4 was released. the got roasted on it, so they fixed the problem in 3.3.5. the fact is that its just not that fast compared to their inhouse developed drivers.
The question was asked, in hope; the question was answered, in PR-speak.
BeOS gets the finger.
Dirk
I keep trying to pick fights, but I can't shake this Excellent karma.
oh puh-lease. of course it costs money to build hardware. it costs ford more than that to build a car. does the average person expect ford to weld the car hood shut ? no ? why not ? cos its ridiculous. and as for obfuscating the API -- its an INTERFACE to the hardware. intellectual property doesnt come into it. you can reverse engineer NVIDIAs card with a electron microscope more easily than reading the API to it. they could release a non OpenGL certified open source driver AND a binary driver which is openGL ceritifed. NVIDIA may be a hardware company but the software sells the hardware not the other way around. all anyone needs from NVIDIA is the SPECS not the stupid chip mask.
It's a good thing, too, because I'd hate to see those sludge-talk skills go to waste. In response to a few dozen direct, eloquent questions, they let slip the following valuable insights:
In my experience, there are two things you can always count on with this company: (1) that their products will be great, and (2) that anything they say is so full of crap that it's not worth the paper it's not printed on, much less the time needed to read it.
cheers,
mike
A) My guess is that NVIDIA will support the NV20 on OS X as well. (I think they've publically commited to it.)
B) AGP 8x? Please! There was a 3 year gap between the release of AGP 2X (the LX chipset) and AGP 4X (the 820 chipset) AGP 8X is still a few years away!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Umm, the 7.xx drivers blow (20% less performance) Avoid them until they stabilize a bit.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I agree, but calling someone "dickheads!" isn't probably the way to get better BeOS support.
A polite petition would probably work better.
*shrugs*
Has RaMbUs sued you yet?
Followup: If so, do they want the death of Nvidia or just your firstborn sons?
I look at it from this standpoint: Free/OSS software != Free/OSS hardware. Not even by paradigm.
1.) In the vast majority of the consumer world (Meaning the Windows, Macintosh, and UNIX), not only are the drivers closed-source, but this is an acceptable practice. Drivers are provided free of charge (gratis); drivers aren't a source of income.
2.) To have a truly 'Open' 3D Driver of high performance, it is necessary to include the 3D code, or at least the hardware interface to the Graphics API (in the case of Linux, Mesa, or OpenGL). nVIDIA chose to use certified OpenGL, not Mesa. I'm not entirely current on Mesa's status; nevertheless, OpenGL is seen as a better option to many buyers, as it is a guaranteed "OpenGL ARB"-compliant implementation, rather than a non-"OpenGL ARB" certified implementation of OpenGL. A certified OpenGL implementation cannot, I believe, be released as 'free' software.
3.) Having the hardware interface for their card published (as Open-Source) makes it easier to reverse-engineer the hardware. ATI wouldn't care about doing so, but about every other manufacturer would, as even Matrox's 3D is lacking. This is essentially a 'security-through obscurity' scheme, but in the hardware world, it's all you have.
4.) nVIDIA is a *HARDWARE* company. R&D on hardware isn't anywhere near the curve that it is on software. It's much more difficult to design a chip than write code. Chip fab is so obscenely expensive that it isn't really possible to have the Free-Software equivalent of hardware. Unlike software, the machines & tooling to fab hardware can't be duplicated on a whim, and they are extremely expensive. The source materials also cost money (although trivial after machinery & tooling costs). The tooling to make the chip is at least $250k... forget energy, materials, labor, environmental regulations, etc. costs accumulated in physical production. So if there are any bugs, it costs millions.
Too many people don't realize the difference between hardware and software when it comes to Intellectual Property. The software business gets many rights that hardware makers don't; and they have far fewer of the penalties.
Free software takes only a compiler, time, and a coder to generate a useful, reliable, high-quality product.
You *CAN'T* do that with hardware. But, we'll suppose you have a Free Hardware design.
Now 'compile' it from the design code to a useful, reliable, high-quality chunk of silicon.
... For under $250,000.00 US.
Free software exists because it's inexpensive enough to be a hobby... a passion. All it takes is time and effort.
Free hardware can't say that. Only Billionaires have the resources to create free hardware.
So give nVIDIA some credit and a chance to get a return on their investment in hardware and tooling to create the chip. The only ones who are really able to take advantage of an open-source driver are the other hardware manufacturers, who would use it to reverse-engineer the hardware, or the users of an OS without a driver. Since Windows, Mac, and Linux covers all but the smallest part of the OS world that uses 3D, and he *BSD clones are used (and advocated) primarily as a server that doesn't even need X... not a graphics workstation or gaming station, it shouldn't even be an issue to anyone... except for QNX and BeOS users.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
... in the latest linux and windows drivers? It such a shame to see something so common mercilessly turned into a weapon to hang one's machine. I guess you guys don't want to turn your monitors off.
need to be addressed before anyone should even bother putting an NV20 in a G4... such as the 4x AGP which Apple has just -now- come out with. 6x/8x AGP will be the standard by the release of NV20. Driver issues are also major. I can't belive nVidia and Apple even BOTHERED making drivers for the GeForce 2 MX for Mac OS 9 when OS X is right around the corner. All Mac software development should be towards AltiVec (PowerPC "G4" 7400/7410/7450) optimized, native Mac OS X code. Wasting time with Mac OS Classic (Mac OS 9 and the such) or even Carbon is just that, a waste of time. *sigh* Study up on the OS X IOkit, core gfx, core audio, and Cocoa and forget the cruft of the past.
If it's a geforce2 mx, that sounds about right, it doesn't have the ram thruput or the fillrate for much higher than 60 fps at a decent resolution and normal texturing. If you have the horsepower of a 1 GHz system you really outta match it up with something with a better raster engine: GeForce 2 GTS, Pro, Ultra. Or, if you're doing professional gfx, consider a Wildcat or E&S. Also, any machine with a 1 or 1.5 GHz CPU really outta be decked out all around to feed that bad boy, otherwise you're better off with a 700 - 800 MHz CPU. Consider getting a board with dual channel PC800 Rambus or DDR-SDRAM "PC2100". Some good fast drives too, disk is the slowest thing on a system short of network.
Will Microsoft allow game developers to use Linux?
Ahhh, so I wasn't the only one reading that article with Nvidia using the 'borg voice'
Well why the hell did they buy 3DFX then? Was it just to take out a competitor?
What is to become now of the 3dfx opensource effort, given nVidia's anti-opensource leanings? The linux.3dfx.com site is gone, and the placeholder 3dfx.com site explicitly lists nothing for linux drivers.
What has become of the existing code? I know some of it has been merged into the XFree86 trees, but the rest?
"That's all I have to say about that" --Forrest Gump
unless their crack dealin' daddy bought it fo dem
a geforce2 mx is pretty limited by memory bandwidth, so its not surprising that a DDR Radeon beats it. i bet your Radeon was a lot more expensive than your 32MB GeForce MX too...
Matrox couldn't really be considered to be on par with ATI and nVidia...their G400/G450 design isn't looking so flash compared to the others...open source drivers can buy you only so many warm-fuzzies, when you're getting the FPS crap smacked out of you by your 12 year old next-door neighbour's closed-source driver 64MB GeForce2 Ultra.
I just recently upgraded to a similar configuration, an A7V, 1 Gig Athlon, SB Live!, and an Asus 7700 with a Geforce 2 GTS and 64 MB of DDR RAM. It would freeze up on my quite often when running Direct X programs. I tried the latest Detonator driver from Nvidia and quite a few other things. Finally, I got a BIOS update from Asus and that fixed the problems. I think it was rev. 1050D.
Wow, I hate to say that, but that was an amazing waste of an interview. They basically admitted nothing (as nakaduct said), except that they like seafood and are not releasing BeOS drivers. The rest of it was a wash. Nothing about where they're going or what they're doing. Useless.
Hell, I'd at least expect them to say something about when the NV 20 is due.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
Then you either got a really, really fucking cheap Radeon, or you ridiculously overpaid for your MX. The card from nVidia in the same league as your Radeon is the full GeForce2 GTS, of which the MX is a crippled, cheap version. Comparing performance to your Radeon is completely unfair.
But they're *not* in the same league in terms of price. Your case is the exception, not the rule, and frankly I'm still wondering whether or not to believe you got a very expensive card for $50 more than the price of a very cheap card. Go check out some hardware vendors prices on the Radeon and a GeForce2 MX and compare them.
you wouldn't expect the "Mako Shark...mmmmm" at the end of the article. Cannibalising one's own namesake, eh?
47.5% Slashdot Pure(52.5% Corrupt)
I have a GeForce2 MX with 32 megs of RAM. I also have an ATI Radeon 64 Meg DDR. Even under linux, the Radeon beats the GeForce, both in terms of performace (with Q3A) and quality, IMHO.
Now all we need is for the DRI drivers for the Radeon to use the T&L unit on the card.
Ranessin
Not all that more expensive. I think it was maybe $50 more.
Raneesin
Where did I say anything about the cause of the performance difference? Hell, I didn't even mention the phrase "open source" anywhere in my post. Yep folks, we've got a real genious here.
Ranessin
Frankly, cards should be compared, performance wise, if their price is in the same range, shouldn't they? What do I care if the MX and Radeon are two different classes if they cost me approximately the same.
I got ripped off for getting a great price on two cards? Can I have some of what you're smoking?
Ranessin
As a consumer, I could give a shit if the cards I compared are in the same league in terms of performance. What I care about is if they're in the same league in terms of price. They were (and yes, I got the Radeon for a good price).
Ranessin
All one has to do is some research and they can find a *very* good price for a Radeon 64 meg DDR.
Ranessin
It's the normal state of things if you know how to shop, moron.
Ranessin
Someone: Will you include technology X in future cards? What do you think of competitor X? What about product X?
NVIDIA: NVIDIA is the world leader in graphics solutions.
--
Well, at least for the important stuff anyway. Open source NVIDIA drivers don't exsist for a good reason. It's not because they are greedy bastards and its not because the open drivers will reveal patent infringement (as i once thought..), its because some technology is licenced from other companies/people/whatever and they are bound to not reveal stuff by contract. They just don't have a choice.
--
It was because it was cheaper to buy the entire company than to have to pay 3dfx a bunch of money because of patent infringement. The fact that they took out a competitor was just icing on the cake.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a nvidia Voodoo card either, BTW.
Funk_dat
FUNK!
We should really be more concerned with the developments of ATI and Matrox. Their 3D drivers are open source and are part of XFree4. NVidia has chosen to ignore DRI and stay closed source.
Why is this interview pertinent? Dear god the first question NVDIA responds with corporate bullshit, and vague talk of the topic as if the NVDIA interviewee had no clue what it was. Humus then goes on to ask really great questions involving implementation of specific features, etc and NVDIA practially shoots him down with a generic bullshit answer like "We are always interested in supporting wide spread accepted APIs" Not a good read. Don't read it.
___________
I don't care what it looks like, it WORKS doesn't it!?!
How about asking Nvidia what happened to my $200 of 3dfx stock? :-)
Given a reasonably level playing field, who would win a fight between a bear and a shark?
Closed drivers suck for FreeBSD too.. My TNT2 is my first and last purchase from nvidia.
@ .
... is that there is no news in the interview. About the only definitive answer was that BeOS is not going to have nVidia as a pal.
The rest was boring "nVidia is getting better" stuff with discussion about memory management (which is no longer news).
In reality they are evolving, not making any breakthroughs.
.. if only.
Personally, i'm rather offended in the way which NVIDIA handled the one and only question regarding support for the Be platform. Being a BeOS user myself, I can attest to the frustration of those users who are missing out on the highend capabilities of a GeForce2 just because of their choice of OS... it's not so terribly bad in itself, after all there ARE other vid cards to be had that do support Be (my Diamond Monster Fusion still works great) but its the inherent attitude that I sensed in the article. Starting with heading it up under "Miscellaneous"? Im sorry, but thats just disrespectful.. especially when you look at some of the other categories that were given their own headers. Another note: i dont really appreciate the attitude put forth by the question itself and I believe that this may have had a great deal to do with NVIDIA's blunt "NO" response... If the question had been asked with a little more tact and a little less newbie, we might have gotten some useful information as to WHY they were saying NO, but know who can guess? There's my little rant, feel free to reply, flamers dont waste my time. Thnx Syn
your vsync hasn't been disabled. I get those frame rates with my MX on a 1ghz T-bird