Slashdot Mirror
ATI R300 and R250V
Chuu writes "The ATI R300 (Radeon 9700) and R250V (Radeon 9000/Radeon
9000 Pro) reviews are out, at all the
usual suspects, but the one you want to
pay attention to is over at anandtech.com, since somehow Anand got permission to publish his benchmark results for the R300
while the other sites were stuck with whitepapers. The results? The R250V is a GF4MX killer, which is not saying much. On the other hand, the R300 absolutely trounces the GeForce4 Ti4600, running
54% faster in
Unreal Tournament 2003 and 37% faster in Quake 3 at 1600x1200x32 on a Pentium4 2.4ghz."
The reason Anand got to post his benchmarks is because he doesn't have actual numbers... just correlated data. The R300 didn't post 256 fps in UT2k3, it just did x% better than a GF4 Ti4600.
Of course, as he points out, the GF4 numbers are available, and it only takes some simple math to extrapolate from there.
The card looks very impressive. It's out 4 months before the NV30. Maybe by then ATI will have drivers worth a crap too.
The page you really need to go is this. It talks about not just raw FPS, but about running UT2003 with 4X Anti Aliasing enabled at 1600x1200x32. This is where ATI trounces Nvidia with a whopping 251% faster performance.
Though the framerates at 1600x1200 on UT2003 are not exactly playable (there goes my hopes of running DoomIII at 1600x1200 on this baby) ATI has finally produced a card worthy of their name.
Nvidia has atleast six months to go before they can have something to show. And running the 927 leaked build of UT2003 on a GF4 Ti 4600, you dont get playable framerates beyond 1024x768 with every detailed notched up.
Rapid Nirvana
Now we can all play games at 3x the refresh rate of the monitor.
Sure you can. Hell, you've been able to for years now. Just drop down to the lowest resolution available, turn off all the effects, textures on lowest quality, and look at the not-so-pretty pictures.
What? You want all that? You want fog, bump mapping, realistic lighting, high quality textures, and anti aliased to boot? At 1280x1024? Well, then keep upgrading. Because while the R300 comes closest to that of any card to date, I doubt it'll be able to handle it for long. Real time graphics still aren't even approaching the level of Toy Story, much less that of Final Fantasy (the movie), or (*gasp*) photorealism.
When we can do realtime 3D effects that are indistinguishible from reality, we might be there. We aren't even close yet.
Oh, and you contradict yourself - you ask for disposable form factors and then ask for an open laptop standard. Hint - if it's disposable, it's not going to be open. Unless you're talking about something as silly and trivial as alkaline batteries.
That depends on what your definition of drivers is....</voice>
If by "drivers" you mean "closed source drivers for the FireGL card based on this chip that support all the card's rendering features, but none of the video capture or tuner functions of the inevitable AIW version", then I would guess about 8 months.
If you mean "closed source drivers that support all the rendering, video capture, tuner, etc. functions of this card" from ATI, then I suggest you monitor Mr. Andy Krist's credit cards for purchases of cold weather gear - this will happen about the same time the MBA selects Dr. Hawking as a star player.
If you mean "Open source drivers that support some of the rendering, none of the video capture, and none of the tuner", then I would guess about 18 months.
Sad but true. A pity - were there to be good drivers for this card (good = open source, all features supported by the standard APIs (Xv, Video4Linux2, DRI)) then I would pay up to $500 for one.
Now, the question is, what about all the Mac owners?
www.eFax.com are spammers
Hello? Anyone listening?
:)
Yes, an excellent troll; you've sounded passionate enough and invoked "cheaper!" enough to confuse some moderators into giving you points. Let me go over your completely misleading rants:
Now we can all play games at 3x the refresh rate of the monitor.
We don't PLAY games at that rate; we benchmark them there for comparison with other cards. I have a 15" LCD that I game with. I run my refresh at 60Hz, which I am imaging you are translating to "a maximum displayable 60 frames per second." I'll let someone more technical than myself debunk that one.
I just got a very nice MSI GF4 Ti4200 (for $145 from GameVE.com, free shipping, only because newegg doesn't carry them and they are extremely overclockable cards with a great software bundle). If I ran this card in my LCD's native resolution of 1024x768, with the basic graphics settings, I pull approximately 180 frames per second in Quake 3. If, however, I go to the driver settings, crank up Aniso filtering, and turn on 4x FSAA (anti-aliasing is beautiful, btw), and set all settings to max quality in the game, I get about 85 frames per second in Quake 3. That is what my GF4 MX440 card was pulling with no options on.
We need cheaper and more integrated. Get rid of the DIMM and PCI slots and all the legacy hardware. Put the memory on the motherboard and create a disposable form factor and an open laptop standard.
Again, very nice karma troll. Cheaper is nice, and integrated has its place, but we do not need it. We don't want to put memory, cpu, and all peripherals on the board, for a variety of reasons. The two bigs ones are 1) repair/replacement after failure, and 2) CHOICE. If you want to buy a $20 video card to put in that AGP slot, you can! If you want to buy a $400 Matrox Parhelia to run 3 monitors in Quake 3, you can! Anything and everything between, as well! Everybody has a different budget and a different set of needs. Let the consumer decide.
Disposable form factor? Is that tongue in cheek? Do we want disposable PC cases? Or just good standards like ATX? I know plenty of people who have had ATX cases for 5 years and have housed 4 different generations of hardware in them.
Open laptop standard? Good idea, but many OEMs already work from something similar. The problem is the high cost of development on miniturized, highly integrated systems like laptops, especially when they need extremely tight cooling systems. Someday there will be a standard, where you can go into a store, buy a chassis (for 12, 14, 15, 17 inch LCDs), assemble the mobile parts, and walk out the door... but why bother? There are tons of cost-effective, and vendor-serviced laptops available in any conceivable configuration RIGHT NOW. Just because you can't get it for $1.99 at 7-Eleven does NOT mean the market is broken.
So my summary is that we don't need more integrated, and cheaper is good, but we have cheap already. You were trolling, and I was feeding you. Any questions?
SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a
> Now we can all play games at 3x the refresh rate of the monitor.
:)
> We don't need faster anymore.
Nonsense.
A *lot* of people want movie quality graphics in real-time. Imagine playing a game with the visual quality of "The Matrix", but completely interactive!
There are a ton of physical effects that still can't be done in real-time (yet), due to the memory bandwidth and geometry complexity.
e.g.
High resolution (4Kx2K) color/z/stencil buffers used for ray-tracing, radiosity, and displaying thousands of models each with a million+ vertices (used by CAD/Medical/Games), etc, come to mind.
Then when you add in compositing / blending multiple alpha layers you just burnt all your left-over speed (if you had any). DOH!
There is a reason that Pixar and other CG studios render scenes at the *sub* pixel level @ 64 bits/pixel. We're talking about 100+ triangles PER pixel. Because detail, such as hair which is less then a pixel wide, needs to be "super-sampled". Right now, games show hair by approximating the surface of it which makes it look "blocky". UGH.
So if you want graphics to stagnate, and never look more "realistic", then sure, stick with your GeForce4 (or below.) It will continue to be usefull for the years to come.
The rest of us will be trying to dazzle the world with new visual FX making people go "Wow!".
When we can do realtime 3D effects that are indistinguishible from reality, we might be there.
I find it interesting that untouched realism is frequently just not fun. There are aspects to games that require tweaking or simplifying the environment so it isn't frustrating or impossible to make progress.
Masters of game-making understand that fun isn't derived purely from realism and that some unrealistic elements are the only way to make a game interesting and playable. For example, do you really want a football to get lost in the sun, so the receiver screws up and you lose the game? Or do you want clues in a mystery game to be so well hidden that you have to have take the hours of a real forensic investigation to find that triply-ricocheted bullet embedded in the neighbors compost pile?
I really think that super-realism in games is a pipe-dream, and the only way to achieve it is in a Star Trek-style immersive holodeck...or, perhaps, just going outside.
It also seems to be harder to find the basic time-waster games, since, I guess, it is a waste to put classics like Tetris or Solitaire on gigaflop-class consoles. In a way, this really is not progress at all.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
We, 3dfx owners know how a company they are... Since we are without new drivers since nvidia bought 3dfx.
No need to describe, I guess 3dfx owners with a clue understood what kind of a company they are... In hard way...
Oh me? When it ships (or shipped already), I am buying it... I won't buy from a company which left me in "digital cold" just because they bought my card/chip maker...
mod me as you wish, I couldn't stand not saying this stuff...
You've not got the slightest idea what you're talking about. Nvidia did not buy 3dfx. They bought the intellectual property of 3dfx. They bought most of the 3dfx design work, technology, patents, etc. They didn't buy any of the office space, manufacturing plants or employees. They bought the IP because they thought that there was something in it that would be useful in their future chip designs.
3dfx Interactive is still a company and is still in business, in a manner of speaking. If you want more info on the nVidia purchase of 3dfx IP, you can read about it here, here, or here. But don't go blaming nVidia because your favorite graphics card company stopped producing and supporting your product.