Slashdot Mirror


Nvidia Talks About Next-Gen Geforce, Plus Pics

Per Hansson writes "Techspot was at Comdex in Sweden a few days ago; we have now posted a small interview with Nvidia along with some high-res pictures of the Geforce FX on this page in our new comments system." This is one of the strangest looking video cards I've ever seen (and it isn't cheap), though it may look different by the time you can buy it in a box. Which is not yet, despite all the hype.

338 comments

  1. For who? by jhoegl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is "market specific?" What market? Ill tell you this, They best not think people will go for a 2 slot card for "heat management". I do agree with the passive heat sinks on the reverse though, very good idea!

    1. Re:For who? by Sepherus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Run a search for the Abit Siluro OTES. It has an immense fan very similar to the new Geforce and takes up two slots too. Its proven very popular with gamers and overclockers, who are the people who'd spend the money to get a card on release day anyway.

    2. Re:For who? by SpectreGadget · · Score: 1

      Is this really a big deal for people? On both my machines i have at least two slots completely empty. On one that's after the audio card, USB2, and DVD decoder card (old DVD drive). Anyone doing a fair amount of gaming isn't going to be using a micro board with one slot.

      --
      Jim Harry
    3. Re:For who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though only two slots require PCI connections, it appears that it actually requires 3 slots, since the fan extends in space into the 3rd slot's. (See the "in computer" pic)

    4. Re:For who? by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ever since AGP rolled out, most system builders have written off the first PCI slot.

      The first reason is that the first PCI slot tends to conflict with the AGP slot in terms of resource managment. This may no longer be a problem, but old habits die hard.

      The second reason is the damn heat-sink and fan is on the bottom of the card. I'll never figure this one out, but why did the hardware enginers do this? The heat from the heatsink rises back into the card and makes the ambient temp even hotter. Most people leave PCI 1 open to help dissapate this heat.

      A third reason is that most people are not going to fill their slots anyway. Good mobos today have good sound, 10/100 NIC, and USB2 onboard. Add a good video card, and the rest of your slots are pretty much empty. Even if you add another card, just follow the urinal code. Never place 2 cards too close for comfort.

      In short, the 2 card rule has been the de-facto standard for years now, why shouldn't nvidia embrace it for their own purpose?

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    5. Re:For who? by Keeper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The second reason is the damn heat-sink and fan is on the bottom of the card. I'll never figure this one out, but why did the hardware enginers do this? The heat from the heatsink rises back into the card and makes the ambient temp even hotter. Most people leave PCI 1 open to help dissapate this heat.

      Hot air rises. Heat radiates outward.

      Ie: The efficiency of a heatsink is not altered by it's orientation.

      "But the hot air gets stuck under the card!"

      Unless the temperature of the air contained within your case varies significantly (which it doesn't with a normal case with a couple of fans sucking air through it), orientation of the heatsink/fan does not matter. Your case doesn't have a mini atmosphere inside of it with updrafts and downdrafts.

    6. Re:For who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hot air rises. Heat radiates outward.

      Radiates in what? Yes, air...

      Your case doesn't have a mini atmosphere inside of it with updrafts and downdrafts.

      Sure it does. Cold air in from the bottom front, hot air out the top back. Look at where the placement is for the extra rear case fan (generally). If the video card blew the hot air upward, it could get sucked out right away by that fan. Instead, it blows down and get tangled up in the PCI slots.

    7. Re:For who? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Radiates in air?

      Did you miss Physics 101?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    8. Re:For who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, I like the 'urinal code' reference. So true. What's the AGP port then?

    9. Re:For who? by Sdrawcab · · Score: 1

      As the proud owner of an otes card (bought to replace my damn defective Gainward POS), I can say that the fan is not really that BIG, it just spins really FAST, like 7200 RPM! It's kinda noisy, but you get used to it.

    10. Re:For who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably the disabled toilet.

    11. Re:For who? by den_erpel · · Score: 1

      > A third reason is that most people are not going to fill their slots anyway. Good mobos today have
      > good sound, 10/100 NIC, and USB2 onboard. Add a good video card, and the rest of your slots are
      > pretty much empty. Even if you add another card, just follow the urinal code. Never place 2 cards
      > too close for comfort.

      When I bought my mobo, I thought my five slots would never be filled.
      Guess?

      1. SB card
      2. network card
      3. UATA 66 card
      4. 2nd network card for NAT
      5. TV-card

      The fact is just that I would not like to see some card taking space it should not be, and certainly not preventing me from using slots.

      In your case, let's take away the SB, NW and UATA card, still I have no slot left in the newer motherboards (+2nd nw card and TV card): most have only 3 slots left (yes, since everything is integrated in the mother board, why adding PCI slots).

      One slot is blocked by NVidia. In a not hypothetical case (thus real) an development environment (3D gfx), I want to add a DSP development board.

      Shoot. I have the slot, but I cannot use it :(

      --
      Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
    12. Re:For who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? Explain, Einstein. What's the medium? Is it a vacuum inside your case?

    13. Re:For who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      radiation doesn't depend on a medium you fucking loon. You never seen the sun?

    14. Re:For who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In short, the 2 card rule has been the de-facto standard for years now, why shouldn't nvidia embrace it for their own purpose?
      this may be true, but two things come to mind from reading this article and taking a look at the photos:
      1. why don't motherboard designers just skip a PCI slot where they'd normally put Slot 1, so as to give the AGP slot more headroom?
      2. the GeForce FX cooling rig appears to take up TWO extra PCI slots worth of space. Although it only takes up one additional mounting bracket, the rig itself definately seems to extend into the area where a second card would be located - notice the soundcard is actually in slot 3, not slot 2?
    15. Re:For who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant. Comparing electromagnetic radiation with a fan blowing hot air. I see the error of my ways. Please, help make Slashdot a smarter place, and go get hit by a bus.

  2. Clearly a first-gen sample by abbamouse · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Obviously this is a first crack at the FX. I'd bet serious money that within six months of its release, a version will be ready that requires only one slot. Consumers hate incoveniences like this -- what if a cap on the motherboard gets in the way of one slot? Moreover, those who wait six months are more likely to be price-conscious consumers -- which means their systems are less likely to have gobs of space open (cheaper mobos = fewer slots).

    Still, I want one. Now.

    --
    Make cheese not war 8:)
    1. Re:Clearly a first-gen sample by bafu · · Score: 1

      If they give third parties enough leeway, there may be both one- and two-slot versions available when it hits the market.

    2. Re:Clearly a first-gen sample by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a price tag of $640, I doubt this is aimed at someone running a cheapo motherboard and general consumers. I don't think two-slot cooler is as much of a problem as you are making it out to be.

    3. Re:Clearly a first-gen sample by TheOverlord · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When I talked with the guys from BFG (who are already taking preorders) at the HardOCP Workshop, they had a FX card on hand that you could look at up close. I asked one of their guys about the huge ass coolers and they said that the manufacturers had the choice to put their own type of cooling on it if they wanted. So I'm sure there will be some 1 slot options out there if the customers demand it...

    4. Re:Clearly a first-gen sample by okie_rhce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please, The market that this card is aimed at could care less that they lose a slot. Reason 1 being that the AGP adjacent slot normally shares and IRQ with the video card. Reason 2 is the target market is also obsessed about cooling, having a card in that slot reduces circulation. Look at the Abit GF4 Ti 4200 with the OTES, that's a production card. And the last reason being that the trend towards onboard peripherals has increased. Onboard audio has gotten better and LAN/USB 2.0/1394/RAID is onboard now on many high-end boards. Oh, and the people who buy those high-end boards will be the ones buying the GF FX. Hell, with all of that onboard and there being 5 or 6 pci slots, you really think that burning one slot is gonna keep someone from buying the GF FX? I don't have a PCI card in the AGP-adjacent slot, don't use the onboard sound and have a PCI nic. I still have 2 PCI slots left.

    5. Re:Clearly a first-gen sample by Mac+Degger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What I wonder is why just not put all the transistors, the chip and the ram...on the other side of the circuitboard! No-one looses a pci slot that way.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    6. Re:Clearly a first-gen sample by sfe_software · · Score: 1

      What I wonder is why just not put all the transistors, the chip and the ram...on the other side of the circuitboard! No-one looses a pci slot that way.

      That would certainly look funky. Then again, I still think of PCI/AGP cards as "upside-down"...

      I believe that extending the size to that side of the card would be considered "out of spec", and some motherboards would have a problem with that. My Aptiva board for example has the CPU clip/thing (Slot-1) very close to the AGP card, so in that box at least this wouldn't work.

      --
      NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
    7. Re:Clearly a first-gen sample by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reason 1 being that the AGP adjacent slot normally shares and IRQ with the video card.

      Is that really an issue with non-crappy motherboards?

    8. Re:Clearly a first-gen sample by ameoba · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OTOH, a number of ATX motherboards I've worked on recently don't use the far-right (towards the CPU) slot, putting the AGP in the 2nd slot. In cases like this, one could not only have a 2-slot cooling system, but have a convenient exhaust vent attached to the card-cage, if they were to use the extra space behind the card.

      Considering that even good motherboards barely break the $150 mark, while high-end GPUs can be $400+, it doesn't make much sense to make the GPU fit the mobo, when you can find a mobo to work with your GPU of choice.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    9. Re:Clearly a first-gen sample by miracle69 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What I wonder is why just not put all the transistors, the chip and the ram...on the other side of the circuitboard!

      But but.. That would make sense!

      Remember, heat rises, so it makes perfectly good sense to make sure all of the heat-producing components are beneath the waferboard in a tower!

      --
      Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
    10. Re:Clearly a first-gen sample by Zathrus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This wouldn't solve a thing. In fact, it'd cause huge numbers of problems.

      First off, the reason it eats 2 slots is because the 2nd slot is used for the blower. If you invert everything exactly where are you going to vent the blower? There's no standardized hole available for this kind of thing.

      Second, it would render it incompatible with most motherboards. You'd hit either an I/O header, the CPU slot, or (most likely) support electronics like capacitors and the like. There is generally not a great deal of space between the AGP slot and anything above it because there are minimal (if any) specs requiring distance. A small number of MBs had problems with high end graphics cards right now because of heat sinks on the back of the cards -- they usually end up hitting caps, which is the last thing you want to do (ever short a cap? Not good)

  3. Good Old Video Card by hikousen · · Score: 5, Funny

    What are we up to now? Three months to obsolescence? It was just last Fall that we heard about the ultra-mega-super Radeon 9700 that could render 47umptyzillion somethingorothers every picosecond (only $400 while supplies last)?

    I wonder if we're ever going to get to a point where "this is the hardware. You have 10 years to do something cool with it" instead of "oh, look, your program is obsolete again! Your graphics are dated! Another 10 man-years down the drain! Place your bets... (spin)"

    sigh...

    --
    LadyStar - Your Magical and Mysterious Adventure Awaits
    1. Re:Good Old Video Card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just noticed now that things get obsolete very fast in the computer hardware world?

    2. Re:Good Old Video Card by Saeger · · Score: 4, Funny
      Place your bets... (spin)

      I'll put $40 trillion on "The Law of Accelerating Returns", and laugh at you for putting your money on "Moores Law Has To Hit A Wall Dammit!!!!1!!!1" :-)

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    3. Re:Good Old Video Card by 1nv4d3r · · Score: 1

      What are we up to now? Three months to obsolescence?

      It would be good if we could go to a model where the scene is described in software in pretty-much its final form, and new generations of hardware do a better and better job of rendering it.

    4. Re:Good Old Video Card by goatasaur · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact that something may not be as fast (or as expensive) as the newest new computer hardware has nothing to do with obsolescence. It is only obsolete because they want you to believe it is obsolete.

      There's very little reason someone with a video card made a year or two ago would need one of these. My Radeon 8000 works fine, thanks. $400 for a 10-frames-per-second improvement isn't what I call revolutionary progress.

      --
      ~D:
    5. Re:Good Old Video Card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh, even Gordon Moore himself thinks his non-law will hit a wall. see: http://news.com.com/2100-1001-203750.html?legacy=c net

    6. Re:Good Old Video Card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At the moment it's easy for gamers and developers of software to imagine uses for next generation video cards. Hardware will continue to become obselete as long as humans want to do more with it. Something simple like a graphics card can be imagined to have limits though... for example: Imagine I have a video interface directly to my brain from my video card. Once that video card can render, in real-time, as much information as my brain can distinguish then there's no need for more powerful hardware...right?

    7. Re:Good Old Video Card by b0r1s · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. Everyone who complains of immediate obsolesence is either a naive fool or has too much money and nothing to spend it on.

      A common sense view of the situation would be: yes, you have a Radeon 8000: you shouldn't even consider a GFFX. The GFFX SHOULD be marketed at people who have Nvidia TNT2's and 3DFX boards: people who are getting to the point where they want to upgrade have an extra option, people who don't need to upgrade shouldn't.

      Common sense. It's pretty easy.

      --
      Mooniacs for iOS and Android
    8. Re:Good Old Video Card by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why does the announcement of a $600 board from nVidia render a $400 from ATi obsolete? When Mercedes announces a new S-Class does it render the BMW 3 Series obsolete? WTF are you on about?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    9. Re:Good Old Video Card by Sophrosyne · · Score: 1

      It probably already can, a video card works at 10 (to the 8th power) kph, while your brain uses sodium-potasium pumps to build up a charge... the nueral conduction speed is only about 100kph 10 (to the 2 power) kph.... the problem becomes building an interface between the computer and your brain...which of course people predict will be possible with nano machines... who knows.

    10. Re:Good Old Video Card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I agree to a point. The upgrade treadmill is turned on, and it's cranked up pretty high.

      However, I should say that the improvement is MUCH more than 10 FPS. It's probably more like a tripling in the frame rate over an 8000... if you're to get Doom 3 for example you may get 60 FPS with the latest hardware (3 GHz Pentium and an FX) where you'd get 10 or 20 with your current setup.

      What seems true... whenever hardware performance gets really high... games come about to use all that extra performance. You do have to admit that UT2K3 with all textures turned up looks a LOT better than the original Doom ;-)

    11. Re:Good Old Video Card by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's very little reason someone with a video card made a year or two ago would need one of these.

      Two words: Quake III.

      You are right that 98% of games will run on hardware two years old. However, there is a subset of games that demands the latest and greatest hardware to experience the game. There's no "conspiracy" here, just that certain developers aim at the leading edge. If you don't want to play those games, there's no reason to upgrade.

      Personally, the day Quake III comes out is the day I upgrade my video card. :)

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    12. Re:Good Old Video Card by Otter · · Score: 1
      Personally, the day Quake III comes out is the day I upgrade my video card. :)

      You mean Doom III, presumably...

    13. Re:Good Old Video Card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I wonder if we're ever going to get to a point where "this is the hardware. You have 10 years to do something cool with it""

      Well 10 years is a long time, using Moore's law (2x every 18months) they'll be packing over 100x the transistors in current chips at the time. 100x is a pretty big difference.

      Why not consider 5 years. That is only 10x the performance.

      Which also happens to be a single console generation! We've been at the point of "here is cool hardware, you've got 5+ years to figure it out" for the last 30 years thanks to consoles and the Amiga 1000/500/2000.

    14. Re:Good Old Video Card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 fps improvement? More like 100fps improvement, plus a shitload better visual quality.

    15. Re:Good Old Video Card by Have+Blue · · Score: 1
      I wonder if we're ever going to get to a point where "this is the hardware. You have 10 years to do something cool with it"
      We're already there.
    16. Re:Good Old Video Card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont know about you, but I would love to have too much money and nothing (more important) to spend it on. That, I guess is common sense though.

    17. Re:Good Old Video Card by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Man, I hope he does!

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    18. Re:Good Old Video Card by MisterFancypants · · Score: 4, Funny
      Personally, the day Quake III comes out is the day I upgrade my video card. :)

      You said it, man. When Quake III comes out I'm gonna PARTY LIKE IT'S 1999!

    19. Re:Good Old Video Card by Jus+ad+Bellum · · Score: 1

      You know I find this sort of interesting.

      It's sort of like the Video Card companies and ID (or whatever the game company is called now) have a symbiote relationship. I mean without a graphically intesive program there is no real need for a graphical processor. Of course everyone will say CG in movies/TV or good CAD, but most used to be done on render specific machines (at a higher cost, but no lost time from solitare and minesweeper). But what happens if Quake/Doom III is a crappy game, or lacks any orginality (1st person shooter being repetitive!!! What are the odds). Then the driving market for the Video Card dries up....

    20. Re:Good Old Video Card by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      except that you only get 5... :-]

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    21. Re:Good Old Video Card by goatasaur · · Score: 1

      Not all FPS's are repetitive. Play Deus Ex, or Undying, or etc... those are two that stick out in my mind as defining FPS's.

      --
      ~D:
    22. Re:Good Old Video Card by alannon · · Score: 1

      You seem not to understand the difference between computer hardware and cars. Cars have improved only in tiny amounts in the last 40 years, usually in matters of efficiency, safty and convenience, not performance. Even then, those changes are small. If the new S-Class went twice as fast as the BMW 3 Series, and there were no practical speed limits on the roads, then YES, it would render it obsolete.

    23. Re:Good Old Video Card by Jus+ad+Bellum · · Score: 1

      True I have heard Deus Ex is good, have not seen Undying though. Doubt I could play either though because i'm running a Pentium 233.

      But I still have to say most of the current FPS are just a fancy multiplayer versions of Castle Wolfenstien. Not to totally come down on FPS; I do enjoy playing the odd game of Counter Strike on a friends computer when I get a chance.

    24. Re:Good Old Video Card by goatasaur · · Score: 1

      America's Army is pretty cool, too.

      Huge community, and most of them are friendly people.

      --
      ~D:
    25. Re:Good Old Video Card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ATI == BMW?

      LOL, hardly. ATI is the Hyundai of the graphics card world. Seems nice on paper, is cheap, but turns out to be pretty shitty when used. Witness ATI's suck-ass OGL drivers; Even the brand new 9700 cards STILL suck because of ATI's crappy drivers! (I come from the 3D graphics design world and I can't count how many 3D apps just plain don't work with ATI's drivers... haha, flame on all you ATI zealots, you still suck)

    26. Re:Good Old Video Card by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oops... I suppose that's probably a freudian slip about the "differences" between Quake and Doom. :)

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    27. Re:Good Old Video Card by Prune · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... Kurzweil has been known for hyperbole.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    28. Re:Good Old Video Card by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 1

      plus, there is the combonation of specially crafted shaders made for Maya 4.5 and an artist who can use them that makes the new card really cool, other than that, i can wait

      --
      YOU SUCK BALLS!
    29. Re:Good Old Video Card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He just got released from prison. Give him some time.

    30. Re:Good Old Video Card by nr · · Score: 1

      Gordon Moore forgot about Nanotech.

    31. Re:Good Old Video Card by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Meh. Back in MY day, you needed a computer upgrade for each Ultima game. I also remember working all night on my 286's CONFIG.SYS for the magic setup that would give me the cool extra animations in Wing Commander.

      That was back when Ultima games were good. *sigh*

      Doom III...'scuse me while I wait to see if they ship a GAME in the box, not just a shiny technology demonstrator/same old deathmatch rehash.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    32. Re:Good Old Video Card by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      no it wouldn't, because the S-class and the 3 series operate in different market segments and command very different prices. Apples to oranges.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    33. Re:Good Old Video Card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      combonation?

      are you fucking stupid, or what?

    34. Re:Good Old Video Card by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      What are we up to now? Three months to obsolescence? It was just last Fall that we heard about the ultra-mega-super Radeon 9700 that could render 47umptyzillion somethingorothers every picosecond (only $400 while supplies last)?

      More importantly, it has a fully floating point graphics pipeline, and massive shader programmability (SIMD).

      I wonder if we're ever going to get to a point where "this is the hardware. You have 10 years to do something cool with it" instead of "oh, look, your program is obsolete again! Your graphics are dated! Another 10 man-years down the drain! Place your bets... (spin)"

      It depends a lot on the genre of your game, and what the gameplay involves. For instance, I suspect we can render a chess set or deck of cards well enough that current software might be playable for folks 1,000 years from now (given appropriate hardware, of course).

      On the other hand, let's say the game (or milsim) involves crawling through the jungle as a soldier. Ideally you want totally realistic graphics. That means physically based vegetation that blows in the wind, millions of polygons for all the individual leaves, bugs, flowers and so on. Also you will want the scattering and absorption of light radiation to be as correct as possible, since perceived color and contrast are very sensitive to those issues (i.e. realistically seeing the enemy guys in camo, or not). Ultimately, you could probably throw the entire Earth Simulator at the problem and still not have enough compute cycles to do a completely adequate job.

      Cards like the Radeon 9700 Pro and the GeForceFX are a big step towards being able to render the scene with realistic lighting. The cards still won't push enough polygons for a (for instance) completely believable flight simulation experience, there is still plenty of room for improvement there.

      Now (if you made it this far) for my main point - the rapid rate of progress shouldn't really matter to you as a game designer.

      The reason is that you should be using a standardized API (I recommend OpenGL, or at least a layer to abstract the 3D library so you'll be able to use OpenGL in the future), and you should design your game to be scalable. You should probably use Cg right now for shader programming, at least until OpenGL 2.0 comes along with a standardized shader programming language.

      Look at id's excellent line of games. Cross-platform, and the graphics engines scale from low-end systems with mediocre graphics accelerators up to state-of-the-art monsters running at 1600x1200 with every 3D option turned on. There are so many ways to scale the graphics - a really clever implementation would permit the game to take advantage of new card features 10 years from now. You actually might be able to even without that - for instance the user might be able to turn on various advanced options through the driver.

      sigh...

      Your reaction is the opposite of what it should be. You should be ecstatic that realtime 3D graphics are approaching photorealism. That is a tremendous opportunity, not a problem (for game designers).

      I suppose it is a bit of a problem for the gaming consumer, since the advances are coming so fast and furious right now that every upgrade looks like a "must-have"... ;-)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    35. Re:Good Old Video Card by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

      Last I checked the GeForceFX is $400, available for pre-order from BestBuy.com

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
  4. 3DFX-like Production Problems? by fidget42 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Inquirer has an article that takes a look at the GeForceFX. Hopefully things won't turn out as they did for 3DFX.

    --
    The dogcow says "Moof!"
    1. Re:3DFX-like Production Problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah hopefully they don't get bought out by Nvidia!

    2. Re:3DFX-like Production Problems? by pommaq · · Score: 1

      Well, that's something they face with every rollout. Production problems weren't the reason 3dfx went under at the time, it was a few rather unlucky business decisions. 3dfx had almost monopolized the 3d accelerator business some years ago, but their buyout of STB and decision to start producing chips in-house were what killed them off (Tim Zegers wrote a little postmortem about it).

      Yeah, nVidia is in a very strong position right now, but such things can change overnight (after all, they shot 3dfx out of the water during one single product cycle themselves). I don't think they're seriously threatened yet, given the hype surrounding the FX chip - but failure to deliver on their promises can put them in dire straits pretty quickly!

  5. Ugly little bugger by Siriaan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Honestly, there's gotta be a smarter way to cool that thing than a huge, ugly, entire-slot-using heatpipe. Either that, or developing a new way to crunch graphics numbers other than using a single chip..... SLI on one card using two slightly slower chips? Power consumption would go up, but you could use floppy power connectors in lieu of a new bus solution that provides more voltage grunt, and it'd be easier to cool.

    1. Re:Ugly little bugger by Lurgen · · Score: 1

      Why does everybody sound so worried about how many slots this thing takes up?

      I barely use my PCI slots - I've got a sound card in one, a network card in another, and that's it. Even if I added a SCSI card, and maybe a TV Tuner or DVD decoder card, that's a mere 4 slots taken up. Sillier still, I have on-board sound. And all new board seem to include on-board network cards.

      PCI slots are less relevant every year. I waste two of mine with my extra USB ports on a backplate, and another one with a serial port that never gets touched. nVidia are welcome to chew up two slots on my system, provided their hardware fits around my CPU heatsink and hard disks.

      Incidently, 10fps improvements don't seem to be nVidias approach (unlike 3dfx and ATI). I went from an original GeForce to a GF2, and it was easily a 25% jump. I then skipped the GF3 (didn't need one, the GF2 was plenty), and went to a GF4 4200 (8xAGP) - again, a huge jump (50% or more). I only buy their cards when they've been superceeded, and only once they drop below about US$120. This way, I never waste too much money on parts, and always get good value.

      Final comment? Moore was wrong. *grin*

    2. Re:Ugly little bugger by r00zky · · Score: 1

      Ugly??
      How you dare to understimate such acomplishment?
      It's the first 3D card with incorporated hair dryer!

      --
      I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
  6. Still no dual-DVI! by altek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why don't manufacturers start doing dual-DVI outputs? Granted, most LCD's have a second analog input, but what's the point of having one DVI output then?

    I wish they'd start putting dual-DVI outputs on them. Maybe one of the other companies that makes them (MSI, PNY, Leadtek, etc) will offer one finally. AFAIK they don't even offer a hydrahead adapter for the one DVI port to split to two (doubt its possible without a proprietary output like the Radeon VE's).

    --
    THE MAGIC WORDS ARE SQUEAMISH OSSIFRAGE
    1. Re:Still no dual-DVI! by SigveK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about this?

    2. Re:Still no dual-DVI! by phoebus1553 · · Score: 1

      FYI they do have dual DVI on extremely high end cards. We have a dozen or so machines with Quadro4 900XGL cards that have them. By extremely, we're talking $1000 per card here, not your everyday joe-consumer card. I don't know the technicals behind it, but I'm sure there's a reason. One thing we noticed is that you can't get Pro/E running with OpenGL mode on in dual display land with the windows dual head configuration, and the nVidia TwinView truely suX0rs. Do you like having dialog boxes in the middle of the screen and things like that? Thought not.

      --
      ----- - The beatings will continue until morale improves
    3. Re:Still no dual-DVI! by blank · · Score: 1

      my card: http://usa.asus.com/vga/agpv9180/overview.htm

      it does dual DVI. granted i don't have two LCD displays on them but they do work with the VGA adapters to support dual VGA.

      i don't know if DVI is supported in x-windows though.

      --

      bah. start over

    4. Re:Still no dual-DVI! by mike3411 · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Mod me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    5. Re:Still no dual-DVI! by obi · · Score: 1

      matrox has or had one...

    6. Re:Still no dual-DVI! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how many frames per second can a flat panel do? (i.e. refresh rate....or in the case of a flat panel...how many times per second can a pixels value change)

      because if it's still 60hz....i'm sticking with my sony 80pound beast. i get over 100 hz at 1280x1024...and my geforce cards can actually keep up with it.

      (how often do you see guys running geforce cards with 300fps potential...running a monitor at 60hz)

    7. Re:Still no dual-DVI! by hirschma · · Score: 1

      The Gainward rocks, and yes, you can do X across two monitors with OpenGL in both (or accross both). FYI.

    8. Re:Still no dual-DVI! by sfe_software · · Score: 1

      AFAIK they don't even offer a hydrahead adapter for the one DVI port to split to two (doubt its possible without a proprietary output like the Radeon VE's).

      I'm not sure what that last part means (VE?)... but I have a PNY ti4600, using the DVI/VGA adaptor that came with a Radeon card (to drive two analog monitors). Doesn't seem there was anything proprietary there, and I was pretty sure that the analog-compatibility for DVI connectors was standardized. It was an assumption, but it worked.

      No less, I agree that they should put two DVI ports on them, and supply at least one adaptor. One day I'd like to go all LCD (or Plasma by then, but digital anyway). I'd hate to have to run one analog (or buy another card).

      And maybe the DVI/VGA adaptors should be in the form of a short cable (the current ones add about 3" to the required-space behind the PC, and it really is a lot of weight on the connector)...

      --
      NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
    9. Re:Still no dual-DVI! by tbmaddux · · Score: 1

      Lots of Mac upgraders buy cards designed for Windows machines (they're cheaper) and flash them with Mac firmware. Maybe you could try the opposite, since most of the graphics cards bundled in Macs are dual digital output (one ADC and one DVI).

      --
      Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
    10. Re:Still no dual-DVI! by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should check the specs next time:

      * 128MB DDR-2 memory

      * Full 128-bit color processing technology for true-to-life 3D environments and crafted 3D characters with dramatic contrast

      * Intellisample anti-aliasing technology with updated 6XS mode for realistic graphics free of jags and hiccups

      * Video mixing renderer (VMR) supports multiple video windows with full quality and features in each window

      * 2048 x 1536 maximum 3D resolution

      * Complete DX 9.0 implementation; AGP 8X

      * Dual 400MHz RAMDACs; 0.13-micron process technology for high-level integration and clock speeds

      * DVD and HDTV-ready MPEG-2 decoding supports resolutions up to 1920 x 1080i; DVI for compatibility with flat-panel monitors with resolutions higher than 1600 x 1200; dual DVO ports

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
  7. Re:For who?-Got money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " This is "market specific?" What market? Ill tell you this, They best not think people will go for a 2 slot card for "heat management". I do agree with the passive heat sinks on the reverse though, very good idea!"

    At $600+ dollars I'd say the "got money to burn" market. Enthusiast indeed.

  8. Genuinely curius by batobin · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Unfortunately the amount of time I spend at work doesn't allow me to play many games, but seeing this article made me curious: is the demand for faster video cards still high enough to warrant so much development?

    My reasoning comes from the simple fact that the human eye is unable to perceive extra frames beyond a certain number (I've heard this number to be around 25 or 30). I realize that owning a video card that averages at, say, 40 isn't ideal, because when you get into a lot of action you'll drop frames. But the statistics I see on the newer cards show that even the most complex games, on the highest resolutions, get WAY too many frames. The gamer is never going to notice dropped frames. And yet every few months a new card comes out, and lots of people get excited and shell out the bucks (enough to warrant the R&D I suppose).

    I'm honestly not being cynical. Can someone explain why an average gamer (or even an extreme gamer) should buy the newest and best?

    1. Re:Genuinely curius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My reasoning comes from the simple fact that the human eye is unable to perceive extra frames beyond a certain number (I've heard this number to be around 25 or 30).
      Did you pull that number out fo your ass? The human eye can percieve way more frames then that, maybe you meant the point where we can distiguish between single stills being displayed and something that actually moves. Movies and tv work @ 30 frames or so because they use techniques, blending or something like that, so they dont appear jerky. Play your favorite FPS @ 20 frames per second, it'll be jery as hell. Better yet, set your monitors refresh rate to 20hz, you'll be able to see it scanning.
    2. Re:Genuinely curius by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the most complex games, on the highest resolutions, get WAY too many frames

      you're kidding me, right? Get UT2003 in 1600x1200 with everything maxed out and even on a 9700pro you won't see more than 30 or so fps on certain maps (alone, just looking around, in heavy firefights I'd suspect it'll drop to the teens: I don't have a system like that but I'm basing this on vidcaps I saw when UT came out).

      Human eye is unable to perceive extra frames beyond a certain number

      bs, it also really depends on what you're doing. If you're in a driving game going straight ahead and you get 30fps, you *might* not notice the difference between your 30 and 90fps. In a shooter or other game where the screen moves around quite a bit, I'm sorry but I can see the difference between 30fps and 70fps quite easily...

      The moment somebody creates a card that is able to mantain refresh-rate-synced-updates (say 85fps) in any available game at any resolution regardless of what is going on, it's the moment a new game will be announced that will take a card 4x as powerful to do the same.

      It really never ends... of course if all you'd like to do is play counterstrike you can get by quite well like myself with a really old p3-450 + geforce1.

      --
      -- the cake is a lie
    3. Re:Genuinely curius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument only hold water if today games were indistigable from reality. They arent. Until we can render Braveheart mass combat in 60 FPS real time, we need a better video card :)

    4. Re:Genuinely curius by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Its true that there's a maximum frame-rate that the human brain (not eye) can perceive. Its somewhere between 60-120 in most humans. Film is displayed [in the US] at 24 frames per second, video is 29.97. This leads to the common misconception that 30fps is the max framerate that means anything.

      There is also the fact that these are "average" frame rates: if your average fps is 30, you're going to quite often be getting sub-30 fps, resulting in jerkiness. So the ideal FPS is somewhere around an average of 75-135, so as to remain in perfect smoothness. (this refers to your question about why a gamer would want a new card).

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    5. Re:Genuinely curius by espresso_now · · Score: 0
      It really never ends... of course if all you'd like to do is play counterstrike you can get by quite well like myself with a really old p3-450 + geforce1.
      You mean I didn't need to buy a P4 2.4 GHz + GeForce 3 Ti500 to play Counter-Strike?!?!?! Damn! I could have fed my kids with that money!
      --
      Of course, and I highly suspect it, I may be talking out of my ass. -oqti
    6. Re:Genuinely curius by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh, a quick addendum re: fps.

      Part of why film [at the aformentioned 24fps] seems smooth is that motion blur is recorded on the film: when an object is moving too quickly for hte light to capture a still image on the film [due to exposure], it captures a blur. Our brain loves to use that blur to assemble motion. Since computers lack this motion blur, they need more fps.

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    7. Re:Genuinely curius by daoine_sidhe · · Score: 1

      Well, I agree that the latest cards are usually overkill, but I'll try to address the question-

      The newest cards can generally push more frames than is strictly necessary on existant games, but there are always newer graphics technologies that require the extra processing power. For instance; per-pixel shading. Really, though, that developement is usually around 6 months to a year behind the hardware now. Who really cares if the GeforceFX can push 20% (just a random number, BTW) more frames than the Radeon 9700Pro? Does it really make any difference at that point? Not now, but maybe in six months. And in six months, maybe the GeforceFX will be somewhat affordable. I'll continue buying just behind the latest tech., and I don't really see any reason to buy right on the bleeding edge.

    8. Re:Genuinely curius by espresso_now · · Score: 1

      And you have to also consider the fact that the movie is being projected on a reflective screen in the dark.

      --
      Of course, and I highly suspect it, I may be talking out of my ass. -oqti
    9. Re:Genuinely curius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also the shutter on the projector opens twice for each frame to reduce flicker, so it is technically 48 fps.

    10. Re:Genuinely curius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Damn! I could have fed my kids with that money!
      No! You shouldnt have reproduced in first place ;)

    11. Re:Genuinely curius by sl3xd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      bs, it also really depends on what you're doing. If you're in a driving game going straight ahead and you get 30fps, you *might* not notice the difference between your 30 and 90fps. In a shooter or other game where the screen moves around quite a bit, I'm sorry but I can see the difference between 30fps and 70fps quite easily...

      It's interesting to note that the US military has done extensive testing in this area, specifically so that they can build simulators as absolutely 'real' as possible, and not produce any extra frames (and the increased cost involved in delivering them). According to a few engineers from Evans and Sutherland, who at least used to build the image generators for them, the vast majority of fighter pilots were unable to distinguish between framerates above 60fps.

      Of course, then there's the whole 'aliasing' you get whenever you actually have a 'frame-based' video, compared with 'real life'. Case in point: Ever notice how helicopter blades, propellors, wheels, etc. seem to spin 'backwards' on TV? It's sample aliasing. Even your own eyes see this whenever your light source 'blinks', which is the case in nearly all artificial light. Take a bicycle tire, put it between your eyes and a flourescent light, and spin it; you'll see the aliasing artifacts with no problems. Take the same bicycle tire outside (in sunlight), and do the same thing-- no more aliasing!

      To realistically remove all aliasing, we'd have to have much higher framerates than 60fps; however, it's generally considered a 'normal' thing, since we grew up seeing it, and nobody fusses about it.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    12. Re:Genuinely curius by VoiceOfRaisin · · Score: 1

      "you're kidding me, right? Get UT2003 in 1600x1200 with everything maxed out and even on a 9700pro you won't see more than 30 or so fps on certain maps (alone, just looking around, in heavy firefights I'd suspect it'll drop to the teens: I don't have a system like that but I'm basing this on vidcaps I saw when UT came out)."

      thats cause ut2003 is VERY cpu bound. your cpu isnt fast enough. look at the flyby benchmarks vs the botmatch benchmarks. its like a different game. the truth is, ut2003 does NOT stress videocards very much at all. hell a geforce *1* has no problems with it as long as you got a good cpu. i know, ive tried it.

    13. Re:Genuinely curius by espresso_now · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Are the moderators today just retarded??? Or do they totally lack a sense of humor?

      --
      Of course, and I highly suspect it, I may be talking out of my ass. -oqti
    14. Re:Genuinely curius by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Nice explanation! I particularly liked this bit - "Movies and tv work @ 30 frames or so because they use techniques, blending or something like that,".

      You must be some kind of top-notch MCSE or basement dwelling troglodyte to offer this kind of penetrating insight.

      Good job, fucko!

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    15. Re:Genuinely curius by batobin · · Score: 1

      No, I didn't pull it out of my ass. That's not saying it's correct though. :)

      Someone else posted what I meant to say. The brain has a limit to how many frames it can see. But it's much higher than 30. That sounds more reasonable.

      Thanks for your explanation (and everyone else who posted under my thread).

    16. Re:Genuinely curius by batobin · · Score: 1

      I guess I fell victim to that "common misconception". Thanks for the info!

    17. Re:Genuinely curius by batobin · · Score: 1

      Good plan. I've noticed also that buying just behind the latest tech decreases power consumption/fan noise/size too. Developers usually end up sacrificing those factors for more speed when creating something top of the line. But after a few months their manufacturing will get to the point it should have been in the first place, and you'll get a "normal" looking/sounding card that pushes the same performance.

    18. Re:Genuinely curius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, each frame of the film is displayed twice.

      Films still flicker like hell though.

    19. Re:Genuinely curius by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 1

      This brings up something interesting: if you look at a new Philips digital tv, you'll probably find a feature called DNM (Dynamic Natural Motion). What this does is, it takes a video-source of any type and ups it to 60fps, interpolating [quite well] between frames. The result is that even things shot for film (i.e. originally 24fps, now on DVD at 29.97fps with no interpolation) look like they were shot at 60fps, resulting in the visual feel of [home]video! Its disturbing at first (it feels cheap, some how, since we associate the look of video as being cheaper than film), but after watching for awhile it becomes addictive...

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    20. Re:Genuinely curius by iconian · · Score: 1

      Throwing out frame-rate numbers on what the brain can perceive without backing up these numbers, apparently, is a good way of milking karma points from gullable moderators.

      You can demonstrate, informally, how much framerate you can perceive through monitor refresh rates. Change your refresh rate to 60 hz. If that bothers your eyes like it does for most people, that probably means you can perceive changes that occur greater than 60 times a second (or 60 FPS). Keep upping the refresh rate until you know longer feel a difference between the present one and the previous one. That probably means that your minimum frame-rate threshold is somewhere in between the two refresh rates.

    21. Re:Genuinely curius by batobin · · Score: 1

      And to reply to my own comment: I'm sorry. I'm a horrible speller. Curious. It's so easy to criticize when the editors do it, but here I am making the same mistakes.

      Boy do I feel like a schmuck.

    22. Re:Genuinely curius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also wondered how it is possible for us to notice difference, so I did a little research. The answer is both 30 and about 80.

      The eye is made up by 2 "components" (tappar, stavar, in swedish). The first sences colors, and second senses only light intensity. (or virce versa). The ones that sence colors can only persive 30 fps, while the ones that sence light intensity can do as much as 80 fps.

      You can test this! Your eye has lots of color sensing cells in the "yellow spot", so it is more difficult to se flickering if you look straight ahead at your monitor. Try to lower your refresh rate to 70 hz, look straight onto the montitor. Then look a few degrees above the montitor (or left/right), and you will much easier notice the flickering!

    23. Re:Genuinely curius by nmg196 · · Score: 1

      > you're kidding me, right? Get UT2003 in
      > 1600x1200 with everything maxed out and even
      > on a 9700pro you won't see more than 30 or
      > so fps

      So what's the problem? Your eye can only see about 30fps anyway - so your proving the point that existing hardware is fast enough.

      Nobody needs any more than 30fps - even your monitor can only draw about 85fps max at that resolution - and even if it could do more, the phosphors don't fade enough to actually show you all the frames anyway.

      People that sit there for hours trying to get an extra 10fps when they're already getting 120fps (on a 70Hz monitor) are really quite sad.

      Unless you can upgrade your eyes to see more than about 30fps, there really is no point. Games designers should be trying to improve the quality of the picture so it draws the best possible image at 30fps, rather than simply trying to dump out as many frames as possible to look good in the reviews.

      Nick...

    24. Re:Genuinely curius by Rothron+the+Wise · · Score: 1

      That probably means that your minimum frame-rate threshold is somewhere in between the two refresh rates.

      Another factor is the amount of afterglow in the phosphors of your screen. Also note that your described experiment will only work on a CRT-type display.

      --
      A witty .sig proves nothing
    25. Re:Genuinely curius by robosmurf · · Score: 1
      It is not true that the eye can only see 30fps. At 30fps you do get the illusion of motion, but there are various display artifacts which distinguish different frame rates.

      There are many reasons why you might want more than 30fps. These include (but are not limited to):

      • Matching monitor rate: Eyes (particularly in peripheral vision) can easily detect flicker up to around 85Hz. If you want to avoid tearing and other nasty artifacts, it helps having the frame rate matched to your monitor sync.
      • Tracking fast moving objects: This is the main reason. Eyes are very good at tracking moving objects. If you are only displaying at 30Hz then the object may move a significant distance between each frame. As the eye is continuously moving between each frame this will cause the object to look blurred when it shouldn't. This can be very obvious in cinemas during tracking shots.
      • Faster response to game events: The faster your framerate, the lower the lag between input actions and the display. Of course this has diminishing returns, but for FPS games can be a serious problem.
    26. Re:Genuinely curius by robosmurf · · Score: 1
      Although the motion blur does help things look better, this is not a perfect fix for low framerates.

      If you track a moving object with your eye in reality then the object is not blurred.

      Thus the motion blur helps things look more realistic when you are not following them closely.

      This limitation is very noticable on panning shots across scenery. In an ideal display system these should appear to the eye exactly as sharp as a still shot. In current movies this is not the case.

    27. Re:Genuinely curius by chrisvdp74656 · · Score: 1

      What you are missing is the motion blurring that the human eye calls movement. With a high frame rate, two or three frames get overlayed on your retina before the cells can fire; this gives the motion-blurred effect on screen that you don't get at ~25fps. This is also why cinemas can get by at around 25fps.

      I think.

      Chris

      PS. This means that you don't need a card that will do 85fps constantly, but a card that will motion-blur between frames at 25fps properly.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    28. Re:Genuinely curius by i+chose+quality · · Score: 1
      My reasoning comes from the simple fact that the human eye is unable to perceive extra frames beyond a certain number (I've heard this number to be around 25 or 30).
      my neck hair stands up everytime i read some of this bullshit. sorry. :) i can't understand how a misconception like that can hold itself for so long. your eyes are able to perceive way more frames, than any video card can deliver at the moment.

      read this if you don't mind filling your gaps.

      from the article:
      "Our eyes can indeed perceive well over 200 frames per second from a simple little display device (mainly so low because of current hardware, not our own limits)."
      --
      the computer is online
      i am not at it
      what a waste of ressources
    29. Re:Genuinely curius by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "I'm sorry but I can see the difference between 30fps and 70fps quite easily..."

      no you can't. It is just not possible.
      If you can tell the different, then you we're NOT getting 30fps.
      The only real argument for increased FPS is that the higher your base line is, the higher it will be when you have 32 people all shooting each other at the same time. I have seen 100fps drop to 10 fps in those situation.(usually just before I explode ;)

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    30. Re:Genuinely curius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that should be 60/2.

      From your post, I have learned 2 thing:
      1) you don't know how analog monitors work
      2) you don't understand how the eye works.(Eye/brain interaction, actually.)

      so naturally you're an expert on the topic.

    31. Re:Genuinely curius by batobin · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, I wasn't entirely wrong. The eye can perceive much more than 30 FPS, but the brain peaks at 60-90. About 10 other people have already replied to the thread with this information.

  9. Small market maybe? by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    Ever stop to think how few people would have two LCDs that use DVI and wnated to waste them on a dual head configuration instead of use them on two seperate machines? It is highliy likely that they wouldn't even be able to recoup the costs of a single run of such cards.

  10. No by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder if we're ever going to get to a point where "this is the hardware. You have 10 years to do something cool with it"

    Only when, if ever, we can render something like the Final Fantasy movie in real-time. Something tells me Moore's "law" will have broken down before that though.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:No by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Only when we can render the Final Fantasy movie in real time, and then they can work on making things easier to write and require less design work.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    2. Re:No by jericho4.0 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Final Fantasy in realtime? No problem. I think we'll see that level of rendering sooner than you think. All it takes is more textures per pass, and that number is going up quickly.

      What I want is for the hardware to support a realistic and comprehensive physics model in said Final Fantasy universe.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    3. Re:No by erpbridge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, let's put it this way: you'll be able to buy that card, and the machine to do it with, in about 5-10 years. It'll probably be the card that comes out at the same time as the Pentium 5-5000 or 6000 (7500 at latest), which isn't as far away as you might think. The average machine will have about 1 Gig to 1.5 Gig of RAM then, and about 400 GB hard drive will be availble (200 GB will be the norm for the people like Dell and Compaq). I think (without knowing what Square's processing requirements were at the time of making FF the movie) that this system will be able to render something like FF realtime, but that type of rendering will pale to another breakthrough movie of the time.

      Moore's law will not have hit a wall by then, but I think you will be able to do your Final Fantasy and Shrek rendering by then... but there will be another couple all-CGI movies about a year before that will elicit the same post as you said, and will be answered the same way: wait 5-10 years, it'll happen.

    4. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The average machine will have about 1 Gig to 1.5 Gig of RAM then

      I have a gig of RAM right now.... :-D I'm not always sure why though... I think its to make up for my shitty video card (which can't be upgraded, thanks Steve Jobs...).

    5. Re:No by evilmrhenry · · Score: 1

      Graphics and Physics are good, but. . .

      Graphics.
      Physics.
      AI.
      Sound.

      Once we get these at real-life quality, the holodeck is the next logical step.

    6. Re:No by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      you're probably like me (1.5GB) and have noticed that OSX will happily hog half a Gig with only three or four apps running...

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    7. Re:No by erpbridge · · Score: 1

      I said the average machine. To find out what the average new machine is that people have, just go get a couple circulars and find out what Wally World is pushing and what each of the manufacturers is pushing for their low end machine (that's what the average joe getting a new PC buys, anyways... the lowest cost machine that's specced for 3 years, and tries to run it 6).

      Right now, the average machine is running about 128-256MB RAM (about half of the P4 machines are specced with PC100 or PC133 SDRAM, and half with PC2100 RAM (which is actually 233 MHz, if memory serves). I personally run my desktop machines with PC2100 512MB RAM, and find it works fine.

      And yes, I should've made my estimate for the future something more like 2GB RAM.

    8. Re:No by erpbridge · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm talking PC, not Mac (speeds are totally different for projections of the two...)

      If I was to take a Mac and try to project what it's specs are, I'd say just go get a current PC circular and find what the processor specs are, and that's a Mac's specs in 5 years, just use all the other things I listed and substitute in the different processor speed.

      I hope that you're talking about a 1.5GB hard drive... if you're talking about having 1.5 Gig RAM, you're severely over specced for the moment unless you're running graphic apps like Photoshop or Digital Video like Bryce or Maya.

      Of course, I'm a PC person (and at that, Windows). I know next to nothing about what proper Mac specs are, or how heavy they should run. (I've been meaning to install Linux, it's just that I'm so busy with work and watching anime that I haven't gotten to learning it.)

    9. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, I have seen you post many many times, and your sig is driving me crazy because I just don't get it. any feedback?

    10. Re:No by zaffir · · Score: 1

      It's already been done. Well, kinda. It ran at about 3-6 FPS, and the very complex layered scenes couldn't be done on the fly, but they were pretty close to real-time rending - and with "geforce 3 equivolent" tech - back in August.

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    11. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the holodeck is the next logical step

      At which point, all technological improvements stop. Well, from men anyway. Once there are virtual french-maid cheerleader fantasy worlds, that's it. We're done.

    12. Re:No by packeteer · · Score: 1

      Actually many P4 machines have RD-RAM or DDR-RAM. PC2100 runs at 266mhz hence the "double data rate" SDRAM name, PC133 x 2 = PC2100 altough many people now use PC2700 or DDR333 RAM. RAM size isnot the main issue here anyway. If bandwidth from the RAM to the CPU doesn't increase fast then on chip cache is going to have to get larger. If chip makers have to cram in more cache they dont have room to push clock rates and new features such as "hyper-threading". RAM has gotten large and cheap enough so that it will not be a problem in most new computers. 2GB RAM in the future wont matter if the CPU cant run a complex enough program to use it all.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    13. Re:No by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Alan Partridge is a fictional sports presenter, TV chat show host and local radio DJ created by comedian Steve Coogan. Alan had a miserable childhood, which ended the day he won the essay writing competition at school - simultanepusly transforming Alan the boy into Aln Partridge the ego. My sig is the first cry of Alan Partridge the man, the ego, the legend. The BBC will sell you any amount of Partridge merchandise if you're interested.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    14. Re:No by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      hmm

      the idea that PCs are 5 YEARS ahead of Macs is fairly ludicrous, though I'd certainly accept that - right now - Macs are running with a 12-18 month raw performance defecit. Yes, I do use my machine for Photoshop, AE, FCP, Combustion et al, though I still find 1.5GB to be rather difficult to justify when NOT caching video to RAM. HDs on this machine are 2X72GB Fujitsu MAN on an ATTO UL3D and 2x120GB Diamondmax for non-media use.

      The Mac community at large is expecting Apple to move to the IBM PPC 970 at some point this year which should move raw integer and fp performance (SIMD performance is already excellent) to approximately where the best PCs are now. However, seeing as this move will probably be 6 months away at least, there may still be a performance defecit to deal with, particularly as we'll then be in a post Opteron world.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    15. Re:No by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1
      Moore's law is meant to bunk out around 2010 (or so) so we can expect hardware to improve about 20 fold before then. Add to that the ability to all run quad processor and quad vid processor rigs and I think we could be making out way towards final fantasy in real time. We certainly won't be too far off the mark.

      And before you all scoff, remember that DSP and custom chip logic for specific jobs (e.g. 3d chips and 3d audio chips) can get a lot more bang for buck from the hardware.

      There is so much potential computing power that hasn't been harnessed. What about video cards that don't concentrate on triangle rendering speed, but instead work on rendering fractals at high speed. If you ever got to see fractal image compression in action then you will be aware of how much more powerful the fractal is than block oriented compression systems.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    16. Re:No by erpbridge · · Score: 1

      I'm just comparing Apple's fastest clock speed number with Intel's fastest clock speed number. Looking at what those values for the past three years until right now, then extrapolating it out about five years is how I got that figure.

      Now, I know that the Apple experts out there say that an Apple 1000 MHz blows a P4 2.8 computer out of the water. I'm not arguing performance, I'm just taking the raw numbers and following the pattern they have been comparatively in the past, and guessing at what they will be in the future.

    17. Re:No by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      that's great except that Apple uses a "conventional" RISC CPU rather than and x86 type CISC/RISC hybrid. Therefore, comparing Mhz numbers is pretty pointless. You might as well compare on board ethernet speed or PCI bus width!

      I bought myself a PowerMac G4 450 dual around 30 months ago - at that time a high speed PC CPU was around 1Ghz but my PowerMac came with Gigabit ethernet, 64 bit PCI and firewire on the mobo - almost unheard of on the PCs of the time. For many tasks the 1Ghz Athlons and PIIIs were faster than my Mac, but for multi threaded apps (Photoshop et al) I'd get more performance as well as the speed benefits of those other interface technologies. As I said, apples to oranges.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    18. Re:No by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean like this and this?

      Nvidia rules. I just wish someone had "borrowed" (re: pirated) that technology demo, I'd love to try and run it on my PC..

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
  11. Bah! Humbug! by kruetz · · Score: 5, Funny

    In my day, video cards didn't even use these new-fangled slot whatsits. We didn't even have monitors back then - the video card had to do all the drawing and thne DISPLAY it to us as well. And we didn't have RAM or ROM either, so we had to remember each byte ourselves and give it to the video card when necessary. Not that it ever TOLD you when it needed a byte, OR which byte it needed. You had to memorise the order in which bytes were required - the list was provided in invisible ink on the back of the installation manual (which we DIDN'T have) and it was written in reverse-polish ascii pseudo-hexadecimal with a Russian accent. AND it could do everything we needed! And it didn't even need a heatsink (but the horses that powered it did need a break every now and then, and you had to train them not to go potty on the computer ... that was a real CORE DUMP)

    --

    This sig intentionally left bla... dammit!
    Who's got the whiteout?
    1. Re:Bah! Humbug! by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Horses!?! And what are these vidio carts you're talking about?! In my my day we had to push a ball of copper up and down a hill all day, using the prince albert in our knobs to generate current, and let me tell you, it was uphill BOTH ways! And you had something that DREW your pictures FOR you?!? We got a rusty nail with which we had to draw the pictures in our retina! The refresh rate was murderous, but we liked it, anyway!

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    2. Re:Bah! Humbug! by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      You drew pictures on your retina with a rusty nail, eh?

      LUXURY!

      At least you HAD pictures. We had to push text messages on stone tablets straight up a VERTICAL WALL to get any data to the video card. And the video card wouldn't output pretty little pictures or any of that fancy moddern rubbish, just pure binary. For a 1 it would jolt you with an electric shock and stick you with dull knives, and for a 0, it would stick you with dull knives and jolt you with an electric shock. And we liked it!

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
  12. Slots aren't as valuable as they used to be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've just put together a new computer an Nvidia nforce2 ASUS A7N8X motherboard, and you know how many PCI slots I use? None. My video uses the AGP, but then sound is on board (and it's good), usb/firewire/serial-ATA RAID/regular ATA, etc are all on board PLUS two NICs. Sure, I could add SCSI (but how many home users do?), or a TV tuner (already built in to my video card), or a variety of other things, but I really have no need for these PCI slots. I'm surviving quite well without them.

    1. Re:Slots aren't as valuable as they used to be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Problems with slot issues was a major issue in the past with AT systems. But now with ATX combined with onboard video, audio, NIC, USB, Firewire...etc. What else do you need for general purpose computing? The only major use for PCI slots these days are for modems.

    2. Re:Slots aren't as valuable as they used to be... by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 1

      Is the quality of your sound as good as a PCI Slot soundcard like a soundblaster? Probably not. Does it support 3D Audio or Surround Sound? In some cases PCI slots are worth a $ or 2.

    3. Re:Slots aren't as valuable as they used to be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's using the onboard nForce/nForce2 audio. That's really really good audio...

    4. Re:Slots aren't as valuable as they used to be... by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      "Does it support 3D Audio or Surround Sound?"

      Absolutely. It also supports on-the-fly Dolby Digital 5.1 encoding.

      It may not be as good as a SB Audigy, but it is perfectly fine for anyone but an audiophile. Audiophiles probably won't want a hot, noisy GPU in their system anyway.

    5. Re:Slots aren't as valuable as they used to be... by Toraz+Chryx · · Score: 1

      I'd give Nvidias Soundstorm marks against an Audigy, although an Audigy2 would outstrip it..

      CL cards tend to have crap drivers though, anyone that wants more than Nforce2 level audio gets kicked to a Terratec 6Fire DMX by me.

    6. Re:Slots aren't as valuable as they used to be... by Some+Dumbass... · · Score: 1

      My video uses the AGP, but then sound is on board (and it's good), usb/firewire/serial-ATA RAID/regular ATA, etc are all on board PLUS two NICs.

      Of course, not every new motherboard (much less slightly old ones) is so heavily integrated.

      Even then, the problem is that the GeForce FX is a high-end user's card. The users who will run into slot problems with the GeForce FX are the same ones who will want more expansion cards than the averague user. I assume they'd want at least a better sound card (Audigy, Santa Cruz, or the like). I would guess that they're more likely to have SCSI drives (or a card for the latest version of Serial-ATA), TV-tuners (not built in to all video cards!), dual monitors (not all video cards support these either), or other oddball devices (slot coolers?) than the average user as well.

      Having said that, with the 5-6 PCI slots standard on most motherboards nowadays, losing one probably doesn't matter much to anybody :) The real problem will be people who use tiny cases (like those Shuttle cases) or other small motherboards.

  13. Space problems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really hope that they will find a way to make it take only one slot. I have a A7N8X Deluxe motherboard, and it would be impossible for me to install this card and use the onboard sound card's cd/line in plug. I also have a few other motherboards with capacitors between the AGP and PCI slots that could be a problem.

  14. Non-slashdotted pictures at Toms hardware by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Informative
  15. Mirrored pictures by Guillaume+Ross · · Score: 0

    For those who can't load them right here

  16. Using 2 Slots by mehrar · · Score: 1

    ... 2 slot card for "heat management"....

    Remember, the "2nd slot" would normally (always?) be occupied by a PCI GFX card in a ATX form factor motherboard that features AGP. The AGP and PCI slot are usually (always?) mutually exclusive so the fact the GeForceFX card uses the unused back panel slot to vent 60W is a good idea IMO.

    --- Rahul.

    1. Re:Using 2 Slots by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Huh? That's how I get my dual monitor setup; geforce in the agp, old pci gfx card in the 1st pci slot (some cards still complain if they're not in the first slot). Losing my first pci slot is NOT worth it, as I need my second monitor for photoshopping and 3dsmax.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    2. Re:Using 2 Slots by Ashran · · Score: 1

      > Remember, the "2nd slot" would normally (always?) be occupied by a PCI GFX card in a ATX form factor [formfactors.org] motherboard that features AGP
      This is not true. Usually the first PCI slot is sharing resources with the AGP slot - thats why the lost slot doesnt matter much.

      Technically speaking you can put a PCI Gfx card into every PCI slot, they are all the same.
      (You just have to watch out for shared irq's etc - but thats true for the first slot too)

      --

      Before you email me, remember: "There is no god!"
    3. Re:Using 2 Slots by Datafage · · Score: 1

      So get a dualhead graphics card, that makes it easier with less driver and IRQ issues anyway...

      --

      Nicotine free Amish .sig.

    4. Re:Using 2 Slots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if the upcoming geforce is like the geforce 4s, it is dual head capable

    5. Re:Using 2 Slots by sfe_software · · Score: 1

      That's how I get my dual monitor setup; geforce in the agp, old pci gfx card in the 1st pci slot (some cards still complain if they're not in the first slot).

      First, I've never had a PCI video card complain/care about which slot it's in (at least not in the last 7 or 8 years). Second, I'm sure the FX supports dual outputs like the ti4600 I'm currently using on two 17" monitors does (that's the one thing that sold me; they don't readily advertise this, but it'll drive two at once easily, both accelerated, and either one can run your full-screen games).

      Connecting two analog monitors simply involves getting an adaptor, and the digital output becomes a second analog one. Takes some trickery in the driver to get it to function "properly" (so Windows sees it as two separate cards -- the only option that I can stand), but I've had no problems since ditching my two Voodoo3's for the ti4600.

      Anyway, I don't like the fan setup myself either. But where I used to care about precious PCI slots, I don't anymore. Between on-board components, dual-output AGP cards, and USB-this and USB-that, I have some 4 PCI slots available in my main PC... so I'm willing to live with the two-slot deal.

      --
      NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
    6. Re:Using 2 Slots by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Huh? That's how I get my dual monitor setup; geforce in the agp, old pci gfx card in the 1st pci slot (some cards still complain if they're not in the first slot). Losing my first pci slot is NOT worth it, as I need my second monitor for photoshopping and 3dsmax."

      Starting at $150 you can get NVidia Geforce cards that natively support dual monitor, even if they have the DVI output on the back. You just need an adapter to go from DVI to Analog.

      I am running a Geforce 4 TI 4600 right now with dual monitors at 1600 by 1200, works great. Before I was using an Xtasy Geforce 4 MX that had two analog ports, it worked great as well. Get one of those cards, plug both your monitors into them, and you won't regret it. As a bonus, keep your PCI card and you can plug a 3rd monitor in. I have a friend that's doing that today. He seriously has 3 monitors hooked up that way.

    7. Re:Using 2 Slots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And if the upcoming geforce is like the geforce 4s, it is dual head capable
      gospel from the self-proclaimed expert of giving dual head
  17. how do you describe a fly? by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If I zoom in will I be able to see the blood pumping through it's wings?

    Or a bunch of flowers.
    Is each individual pollen grain to be described?

    Will the water eventually splash?

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:how do you describe a fly? by 1nv4d3r · · Score: 1

      If I zoom in will I be able to see the blood pumping through it's wings?

      Or a bunch of flowers.


      Much more likely to see blood than flowers.

      The point was, if I play DOOM today, I don't see any advantage out of several generations of graphics cards. Not even a better resolution without changing the software. If the game just told the graphics card where the polygons and lights etc are, then DOOM would look better every year, no?

      It's a better separation of responsibility. It may cost a few fps over a custom solution, or actually look less stunning at first (since this generation of cards may not do all you'd want). But since a new generation of graphics hardware comes out so often, it seems like a winning proposition that gives software a longer lifespan.

      The industry didn't evolve in that direction, though, so we may never know.

    2. Re:how do you describe a fly? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1


      try jdoom

      In all honesty you obviously know absolutely nothing about the subject.

      In original doom the mobs were sprites. They are not 3d entities. The maps were lit and rendered in an extremely processor intensive way so that when the time came to display them the CPU wasn't bogged down in light mapping.

      Why would someone in 1993 decide to include bump mapping and environment mapping and real time lighting and smoke data to a computer game that wouldn't be able to be seen for 10 YEARS!!!

      And you are wrong, the industry did evolve in that direction, well two actually. OpenGL and DirectX are systems where the scene is described at a higher level precisely for the reasons you mention [although usually it's for the requirement to degrade gracefully rahter than extend shelf life]

      I'm glad that Doom & Heretic et. al. look outdated because I want the next crop of cutting edge stuff.

      You cen bet that no-one will be including smell & touch data in their games to extend the shelf life of these products when such technologies exist.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    3. Re:how do you describe a fly? by 1nv4d3r · · Score: 1

      I'm just looking for modularity. Just like I am talking about separating the rendering from the scene description, I could say the same thing about the physics engine. Why is it tied to the games so closely, when it could be separable? Why can't we use the best one we can find in all our games?

      Maybe that sounds laughable because no one has done it. Why can't I use emacs as the editor for this post? If I find an editor I like bettor, why can't I switch to it for all purposes? Everywhere, the task and its implementation are tied together.

      I'm not saying it's easier. It's an ideal that software hasn't really achieved in any area yet (and I do know a bit about this). In the areas of software that I work in, separating the code into clean and separately upgradeable components is the biggest uphill battle we fight because it's:
      1) cheaper to throw together a big ball of code
      2) easier to throw together a big ball of code
      3) more profitable if the product costs more to maintain (people pay us for enhancements)
      4) less likely that a competitor will make use of one of our components if it's hopelessly tied to our product

      I started to mention OpenGL in my last post as a step in the right direction, but didn't because, as you mention, I don't know enough about it. Tell me, if DirectX and OpenGL are a separation like I'm after, then why are we so focused on the redering engine in each new game? My (perhaps wrong) assumption is that they are doing something outside OpenGL as an enhancement. While not as drastic anymore as Doom's 2d sprites, these shortcuts do show their age after a while, and the more general graphics hardware and subsystems keep advancing around them.

    4. Re:how do you describe a fly? by mdwebster · · Score: 1

      Some aspects of graphics processing are like this. The most obvious two are Anisotropic texture filtering and Anti-Aliasing. You can enable these in the hardware of modern day graphics card and see improvements playing older, hardware-accelerated games.

      Supposedly with the ATI card you can turn on a feature called TruForm that will interpolate higher-polygon models from lower, effectively smoothing out rough edges. Don't know how well that works though.

      Some features you have to right the game engine to support though, like having higher resolution textures available or bump-mapping those textures or doing environment mapping for shiny surfaces.

      The thing is, these newer cards can do things the older cards didn't. Extensions of the API's are written to support these new features. Newer engines support these newer features (or support them in a novel way, i.e. prerendered bump-mapping extrapolated from higher-poly models in doom3) and make things look better.

      When and if the code of a game becomes open, the newer enhancements often are written into the older engines by enterprising young coders. Thing is, most companies don't open their source (Id being a notable exception).

  18. Too little, too late... by Fulg0re- · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The GeForce FX is in my opinion, not going to be what the world has expected from nVidia. It is simply too little, too late - 6 months too late. It may have the performance crown for a month, but it will be short-lived.

    ATI will simply respond with the R350, which is likely going to be an improved R300 core, as well as DDR2 and manufactured with the .13u process. In case some people haven't noticed, the leaked benchmarks of the GeForce FX show it to only be marginally faster than the Radeon 9700 Pro. Not to mention that it's 500MHz vs. 325MHz. It seems that ATI is faster in terms of IPC's.

    It would be unfeasible for nVidia to respond until the summer with the NV31/34, at which time ATI will announce the R400.

    I will have to give nVidia one thing though, their drivers are excellent. This is perhaps the only thing they have going for them at the moment. However, ATI is pumping out a new driver set almost every month, and at this rate, they will soon reach parity with nVidia.

    1. Re:Too little, too late... by alen · · Score: 1

      Every time Nvidia or Intel bring out a new core, architecture or any other next gen product the benchmarks always suck because the games are written to take advantage of old tech. Same thing happened when Nvidia came out with the original GeForce. No games supported it and the benchmarks showed it. Within 6 months developers come out with games to take advantage of the new features and the new architecture is shown to be better than the old one.

      This has all happened before. When Intel came out with the Pentium 2 it was only marginally faster than the classic pentium. And the Geforce 256 wasn't any faster at games that were already on the market. But if you try to run current GPU optimized games on old hardware, it's going to bring it to a crawl.

    2. Re:Too little, too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sold my Geforce3 card and bought a slightly used Matrox G450 with dualhead.

      I don't need buggy closed source drivers. The only game I play is an obscure mod for Quake 2 which runs fine on the G450, and has a much sharper image than the nv.

    3. Re:Too little, too late... by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      "ATI will simply respond with the R350, which is likely going to be an improved R300 core, as well as DDR2 and manufactured with the .13u process."

      Uh...huh

      Please tell me where I can find more information on this R350.

      Do they have final silicon? Is it in production? Drivers? Debugging?

      If not, it's most likely eight months out.

    4. Re:Too little, too late... by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      I just looked up some info on the R350.
      It's Q2 2003 planned. Still .15 micron. DDR2 memory, probably higher clock, possibly with an extra TMU per pipeline.

      Not very impressive.

      GeForceFX is at the beginning of it's live. TSMC's .13 micron process will improve and NVidia will be able to scale it up.

      Without a process change, the R300/R350 is nearing the end of it's life. It can only be clocked up so much.

      "It would be unfeasible for nVidia to respond until the summer with the NV31/34, at which time ATI will announce the R400."

      So ATI can release a new product in the next five months, then announce another new product three months later? ATI would be foolish to do so.

      "FX show it to only be marginally faster than the Radeon 9700 Pro. Not to mention that it's 500MHz vs. 325MHz"

      First: The GeForceFX is not a pixel pushing monster. NVidia has stated that. It is a part designed to be ready for all that DX9 can put out.

      Second: Who cares? You're the kind of person who would claim that the P4 is inferior because a lower clocked Athlon can do the same work.

      "The GeForce FX is in my opinion, not going to be what the world has expected from nVidia."

      We expect faster GPUs every year. The GeForceFX is a faster GPU. Is it a Radeon 9700 killer? Not really. Today's games aren't really pushed by today's GPUs because the're designed for "Intel Integrated 3D graphics", or "NVidia GeForce4 MX 420" at best. UT2003 will run at insane framerates on both cards - and there won't be a lot of distance between them. Doom 3 will probably be a different story.

    5. Re:Too little, too late... by Datafage · · Score: 1

      All the driver revisions in the world can't make up for good programmers, just remember that.

      --

      Nicotine free Amish .sig.

    6. Re:Too little, too late... by Fulg0re- · · Score: 2, Informative

      "So ATI can release a new product in the next five months, then announce another new product three months later? ATI would be foolish to do so."

      First of all, ATI is on a 6-month product cycle. It is highly probable that R350 will be announced in February, and will generally be available in March/April. Count on that.

      Thereafter, ATI will announce the R400 this Summer (likely in July/August), and release it in the Fall. Do you really think ATI has been sitting back and relaxing since last August when the announced the Radeon 9700? You're kidding yourself if you think that. (Reference: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6606)

      "GeForceFX is at the beginning of it's live. TSMC's .13 micron process will improve and NVidia will be able to scale it up."

      You assume too much about nVidia's/TSMC's .13u process, and how it should allow for better scaling than ATI's .15u process. It makes me wonder why the GFFX requires a "vacuum cleaner" for cooling, while the ATI's don't with their larger .15u process. That must suggest something about the scaling due to the clear differences in heat production. I should also mention, ATI also uses TSMC, so any gains they made with the .13u process will also be ATI's gain (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6661).

      "First: The GeForceFX is not a pixel pushing monster. NVidia has stated that. It is a part designed to be ready for all that DX9 can put out."

      Actually, the GFFX has gone beyond the DX9 spec. Chances are, nothing will even come close to using all of its features in the DX9 generation of games. The Radeon 9500/9700 adheres to the DX9 spec, so it's feature-set won't be left behind.

      "Second: Who cares? You're the kind of person who would claim that the P4 is inferior because a lower clocked Athlon can do the same work."

      Isn't is obvious? This is a matter of heat and scaling as I've previously mentioned. In addition, even if ATI doesn't move to .13u with the R350, they will with the R400 because they are a product-cycle ahead of nVidia.

      I should also remark, sure the GFFX is a faster GPU. Again, consdering it's only marginally faster than the Radeon 9700, and is coming out almost 6 months later, is it really what people have been expecting from nVidia? I would have to say no, and I think most hardcore enthusiasts would have to agree. It's simply too little, too late.

  19. you're bastards... all of you by AtomicX · · Score: 1

    OK, now who Slashdotted the site, come on now - who was it (50 million /nerds raise their hands gleefully)

    1. Re:you're bastards... all of you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guh huhuhuhuh! Guffaw! Guffaw!

  20. Gee ya know. by Martigan80 · · Score: 1

    They could probably save more money on the cooling solution if they just freaking use enough thermal paste!!!

    --
    This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
  21. FX, the real meaning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sounds like FX means Fucked in eXtreme. If nvidia gets a bad result with this card, it would start to make sense.

  22. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That comment would be funny if Gates ever said it.

  23. Only about as worried as if Intel reported probs.. by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Inquirer has an article [theinquirer.net] that takes a look at the GeForceFX. Hopefully things won't turn out as they did for 3DFX.

    Disclaimer: I have no idea about the economic status of Nvidia. But I do see them in pretty much every computer advertized, and they've generally delivered very successful products since the first Geforce chip, so I assume they got a strong finacial position. And if you can't solve it even if you got more money to throw after it than the rest, well maybe you deserve being dethroned. That's what competition is all about, isn't it?

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  24. Having a taste of M$ specs by curious.corn · · Score: 1

    This happens whe M$ gets the liberty to set hardware standards... like DirectX 9. After years of software bloat, here come meaty example of hardware bloat!

    Yuhoo...

    --
    Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
  25. May it set a prescedent... by Neophytus · · Score: 1

    Manufacturers may start to think that peripherals that take two slots are 'OK'.
    With cards of this nature it may be necessary to have a powerful active cooler, but in smaller cases this sort of design would either be incredibly cramped or not fit at all. Heres hoping that by the time it hits the consumer market the cooler is a little smaller.

  26. Think Water cooling by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 4, Insightful
    One of the nice things about liquid cooling is that it's expandable. If I were to get one of these cards, I'd wait for a water block to become available for it and just add it to my liquid cooling system.

    People call liquid cooling dangerious, unneccesary, and extravigant, and then buy video cards that have cooling such as this one, cpu coolers that are enormious, and put half a dozen case fans in their case to try to keep the temperature down.

    --
    I do security
    1. Re:Think Water cooling by Ancil · · Score: 1

      People call liquid cooling dangerious, unneccesary, and extravigant, (sic, sic, sic) and then buy video cards that have cooling such as this one

      Water cooling a consumer electronic device is dangerous. And this things fan might be ugly but it's unlikely to cause a fire and kill the guy living upstairs from you.

      Not that I'd buy a monstrosity like this (or your water-cooled system). But there are fire codes for a reason.

    2. Re:Think Water cooling by Turbyne · · Score: 1
      and put half a dozen case fans in their case
      Only 6 fans?!! My system is running 13!!
      (Yes, I'm serious.)
      --
      ~A'Ëq'i4d)^'$ÊSÈòB
  27. 2 slots NOT a bit deal by mrhuman · · Score: 1

    having it take up two slots is not a big deal. it is stupid to install anything next to a video card with a fan. it will most likely block the airflow (totally with the help of some dust, pet dander and smoke residue) and the card will die.

    all current cards require 2 slots, 1 for the card and 1 empty to give room for fan/heatsink.

    1. Re:2 slots NOT a bit deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So now they need 3 slots... two for the card, and one to give room for the fan/heatsink

  28. why the hurry? by BenjyD · · Score: 1

    Why do the graphics card manufactures feel the need to completely update the capabilities of their cards every six months? What's the point? As it is, there is such a huge range of cards out there that many games don't even take advantage of the features in a Geforce2, let alone geforce4.

    If they'd just let things stabilise a bit, the PC world would end up more like the console world, where a limited system is driven to its limits because it's a staionary target. That way, you get excellent graphics without a card that requires a whole PCI slot for its cooling fan. Did you see some of the things they managed to do with the PSone after a few years?

    1. Re:why the hurry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dont get the point of all this. These companies are going to tbe the first to bring true VR immersion into our existence.. stereoscopic display 128 bit color 100,000 * 100,000 resolution at 200 FPS constantly, perfect reality immersion simulation.

      This geforceFX will seem like PACMAN in a few years.

    2. Re:why the hurry? by Queuetue · · Score: 1

      Did someone mention a porn application?

  29. This will be what breaks NVIDIA, just like 3DFX by erpbridge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This sounds just like what caused the death-knell of 3DFX: company bets the bank to make a monster video card that blows everything out of the water, and holds off on a whole scheduled version release (once every 18 months) to make this monster card... and blows it big time.

    3DFX used to compete with NVIDIA. When NVIDIA released a new line of cards, so did 3DFX, or when 3DFX released a new line of cards first, so did NVIDIA.

    When the GeForce2 cards came out, everyone waited for 3DFX to release their competitive line. About 4 months later, 3DFX released a couple Voodoo4 cards, but not much in the way of competition, and nothing spectacularly advanced above the Voodoo3's. However, they also let out news of plans to make a market breaker card, the Voodoo 5-6000, which would take up fall case length (and bump harddrives), have 5 fans on it, and require an external wallwart-style DC adaptor for power supply. It was a $600 card meant for the mega-gamers and graphic designers out there. This was a huge card... and their biggest flop, for once it came out, NVIDIA was already releasing the GeForce3's which had better specs and lower prices overall.

    Now, Nvidia does something just like that. This card is double-height (the second slot worth is ducting for external air intake and exhaust) and is full case length. It's got monster specs, and has thrown off their regular 18-month cycle of new cards. This new one is $600 as well.

    Sounds to me like some of the execs of 3DFX have gotten on the board of NVIDIA via the buyout, and are trying to make another Voodoo5-6000. I hope it doesn't end the same way, with this company going down the tubes as well.

    1. Re:This will be what breaks NVIDIA, just like 3DFX by FFFish · · Score: 1

      Heh. Wouldn't that be poetic justice: ol' 3DFX moles infiltrate nVidea and lead it over the cliff...

      This quote is revealing: "[Nv]: Well, now that TSMC has their production running at .13 micron we have of course helped them make some mistakes and learn by them, so ATI will probably have an easier switch than us. Though we believe it will take a significant amount of time for them to make the switch."

      How nice of nVidea to pave the way for their competition! ATI's gonna save millions.

      Significant amount of time to switch. Er, yah. Right.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    2. Re:This will be what breaks NVIDIA, just like 3DFX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, your entire rant is uninformed. The reason for this delay was because they were moving their chip fabrication process to 130nm. That investment means they can now resume their 6 month cycle for the next couple of years. ATI is probably going to have to do the same soon, causing them a delay.

    3. Re:This will be what breaks NVIDIA, just like 3DFX by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Shit, let's just hop that it isn't Matrox who takes over from ATI ;)

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    4. Re:This will be what breaks NVIDIA, just like 3DFX by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Problem.

      Volume.

      ATi doesn't ship lots of chips to be sold to OEMs on the cheap. nVidia does, and will still do. This was 3dfx's problem, and this will be what keeps nVidia alive. Whether or not it'll keep them competative or have them go the way of the Trident or not is another story.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    5. Re:This will be what breaks NVIDIA, just like 3DFX by erpbridge · · Score: 1

      bump parent post (#5115596) up. Has a good point.

    6. Re:This will be what breaks NVIDIA, just like 3DFX by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      ATi doesn't ship lots of chips to be sold to OEMs on the cheap. nVidia does, and will still do. This was 3dfx's problem, and this will be what keeps nVidia alive. Whether or not it'll keep them competative or have them go the way of the Trident or not is another story.

      Patently false

      ATI ships more chips than nVIDIA by a long shot; ATI has long been considered the 'King' of OEM chipsets. It's their OEM volume that has kept ATI alive in spite of nVIDIA's onslaught. It is only recently that nVIDIA has begun to ship anywhere near the volume of what ATI has done in the past.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    7. Re:This will be what breaks NVIDIA, just like 3DFX by sl3xd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a bit more to this as well:

      You can't just take a current chip design, shrink it from the 180nm to the 130nm process, and expect it to run. If it does, it would be a miracle of a cosmic sort. As far as changing processes go, it's somewhat reminiscent of taking an SUV, and pulling out the engine, and putting in an electric motor-- and expecing everything to work fine, except 'faster' or 'better'. Ain't gonna happen

      Most chips are written in a HDL (Hardware Descriptor Language); ATI and nVIDIA use, among others, VeriLog and VHDL. Both of these languages have their behavioral-level code, which is somewhat reminiscent of a traditional C program. (Make no mistake, HDL's are a totally different ballgame to a programming language). Then, after you have the behavioral code working (meets timings, etc.), you synthesize (compile) it.

      Here's where it gets tricky:

      Synthesis involves taking your process (fab size, power, material, and other characteristics), and create an optimized layout of gates to perform the tasks described by the behavioral code. The synthesized code almost definately does not behave exactly like the behavioral code-- but the synthesized code is close enough -- just barely, to meet the critical timings, and the whole thing works.

      Quite often, the synthesized code will utterly fail, and the offending part will have to be identified, diagnosed, and fixed. But the fix will probably break something else. It's like putting carpet in your bedroom, and suddenly the ceiling caves in. Fix the ceiling, and the walls turn pink. Repaint the walls, and the bed becomes sentient.

      The thing to remember is you get used to the 'personality' of a given fab process, and begin to pre-emptively put in fixes to avoid seeing them at all. But the instant you change fab processes, the entire 'personality' of the synthesis changes, and all bets are off. The entire design will have to be re-synthesized, re-simulated, and re-debugged. And that's before it hits silicon.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    8. Re:This will be what breaks NVIDIA, just like 3DFX by whovian · · Score: 1

      Bump (interesting). Sounds cool but probably frustrates the heck out of the engineer!

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    9. Re:This will be what breaks NVIDIA, just like 3DFX by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      That's why we get the big bucks.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    10. Re:This will be what breaks NVIDIA, just like 3DFX by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Oops. My bad, I went by my memories when I worked at an outsourcer that worked with Dell and Micron, I remember distinctly most machines shipping out with nVidia chips. Forgot that Dell went with Rage chips on thier massively manufactuered boards. Micron went with nVidia's 128ZX's

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    11. Re:This will be what breaks NVIDIA, just like 3DFX by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      i forgot to make the note that 3dfx still didn't ship default on many OEM machines and that was thier downfall. However, I do remember old grannies having GeForce2's back in early/mid 2001...

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  30. I'm of 2 minds... by GearheadX · · Score: 1

    I'm of two minds about this card.

    On one hand, it's a powerful piece of hardware if any of the hype we're getting fed is remotely accurate.

    On the other hand, is it really a good idea to completely reinvent the wheel? Have we really pushed the computing power available to us in the old methods of rendering things in 3 dimensions?

    1. Re:I'm of 2 minds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hold a sec.

      Sure every and each single bit of technology in a GeforceFX exists already somewhere, in some form.

      But nVidia puts it all together, making an appliance for those who want to work with it.

      Stacking an empty plastic case, a display,buttons, a paper with the mp3 patents, wires, batteries, some simple OS, an Apple logo and whatnot ontop of each other won't make an iPod, but that's all that an iPod 'basically is'...

  31. Sneaky... by shepd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Building in a cooling solution like that which is totally unrepairable by the end user is a great way to build in forced-obsolescence.

    I think I'll stick with my radeon. If the fan quits, I'll just replenish the oil.

    Kudos to Nvidia, though, for finding a way to force their users to buy new cards in the future! This'll certainly be the wave of the future, like fibreglass bodies on cars!

    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    1. Re:Sneaky... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a joke. Of course if you have any basic skills you can rip off the cooling system and place a watercooling block or fan on the heatsink.

    2. Re:Sneaky... by shepd · · Score: 1

      Yes, your solution is quite a joke.

      You don't repair coputers much, do you?

      Customer: My engine block on my '78 lada is cracked.
      Mechanic: Oh, that's OK... I'll just use a million pan-ties, some arc welding, gum (hubba-bubba is best), hammers, a laser cutter, and an engine block from a Ford Pinto.
      Customer: Uhh... is that safe? Will that work?
      Mechanic: Well, I've never tried it before, but hell, I don't see what's the matter with it! And engine block is an engine block is an engine block!
      Customer: Well... you know... you're not putting parts for a Lada on my car. You're using Ford parts. Is that normal?
      Mechnaic: Hell no! But you'll save $200! Hell, why don't we just rip out that crappy Russian rotary engine and plonk in a big block from a Cuda!
      Customer: Ohhhhkay... Why don't you let me think about it...

      Heh... replacing the entire cooling solution as a "fix". Funny. What a joke, indeed. You ACs are all alike.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  32. ghosting by scheveningen · · Score: 1

    i'll repeat myself on this topic:
    One of the artifacts of lower frame rates is ghosting, a form of temporal aliasing.

    From sgi
    Ghosting. A true FAQ is why multiple images of objects like trees, house edges, the horizon, etc. are seen as the viewer turns. This is a form of "temporal aliasing" and is an attribute of having a frame rate which is less than the video refresh rate.

    The problem is that a single image is scanned out onto the monitor several times before being changed. The repetition of a frame means that the image is temporally inaccurate for motion. Real moving objects do not stay in one place for a couple frame times and then move.

    What's actually happening is that your eye is following an object, moving with the same angular velocity, which keeps the image stationary on the retina. Between two video refreshes of the same frame, your eye has moved, but the image on the screen has not. Consequently the image of the second frame appears at a different location on the retina, and you see a "ghost" image.

    So a simulation running at 20Hz update on a display refreshing at 60Hz, the object will appear tripled. On large objects such as horizon silhouette, the effect manifests itself as multiple edges.

  33. Hmmm... by mschoolbus · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wonder if they are coming out with a laptop model also... =P

  34. TS MIRROR by wiZd0m · · Score: 1

    Fast mirror here.

  35. ATI is screwed!!! by Sophrosyne · · Score: 0, Troll

    Everyone keeps asking what is up ATI's sleeve.... I can tell you: a big insider trading scandal. K.Y. Ho and his wife screwed over ATI for 6 million... I mean with a name like K.Y. Ho the guy deserves the money- but the company is already at the bottom of the market, and K.Y. is essential for ATI's succsess.
    Ho has very tight relationships with manufacturers, one of ATI's advantages. This scam is going to kill ATI, even if they get off their stock price is extremely low. here is the link to the story

  36. Games are for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Games are for nerds and hermits.

    I believe MAVAV already proved that.

    People should stop wasting their time in fucking kids toys.

    We have bigger issues to worry about.

    1. Re:Games are for nerds by Lurgen · · Score: 1

      Correct! And as both a nerd AND a hermit, I'm gonna buy me one of these. Now fuck off.

  37. Reminds me of a moded Voodoo 3000 by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 1

    that had a 486 fan atached to that huge aluminun heatsink. took 2 slots. I ended up without slots because of it, 2 nics and a SCSI card, so no more big cooling in video cards for me. thank you.

    maybe when they move to a smaler interconect size (what they're using in this card ? 0.13 micron ?) it runs cooler. then I'll buy.

    --
    What ? Me, worry ?
    1. Re:Reminds me of a moded Voodoo 3000 by gordyf · · Score: 1
      maybe when they move to a smaler interconect size (what they're using in this card ? 0.13 micron ?) it runs cooler. then I'll buy.

      That's kinda funny - part of the reason this card took so long was the move to .13 micron. They're not going to make it any smaller for quite awhile.
  38. Creator3D & Elite3D by VoidEngineer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Check out some of the equipment from Sun Microsystems, SGI, IBM, and Stereographics.

    A bunch of their equipment is designed for a 10 year obsoletion-cycle. Cost's a hefty penny, though. Designed for business and major research universities.

    At the University, we were using Creator3D graphics cards from Sun Microsystems. That was in 1999, and the general consumer market still hasn't caught up with that tech. Me, I'm still looking around for auto-stereoscopic monitors. Sharp is coming out with a consumer model next year, I hear.

    1. Re:Creator3D & Elite3D by Namarrgon · · Score: 1
      At the University, we were using Creator3D graphics cards from Sun Microsystems. That was in 1999, and the general consumer market still hasn't caught up with that tech.

      Is there something magic about the Creator3D cards that I don't know about? According to Sun, they could do 3D at 1280x1024, had 15MB of framebuffer RAM, and could only do 1.4M tri/sec. There's no indication that it even supported texture mapping.

      At first glance, the consumer market had already caught up in 1999 - the GeForceDDR comfortably exceeded those specs. These days, an $80 gfx in your Dad's new PC could probably beat it out. Heck, even the integrated gfx in an nForce2 board has higher specs.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    2. Re:Creator3D & Elite3D by VoidEngineer · · Score: 1

      Is there something magic about the Creator3D cards that I don't know about?

      Yeah, the built in stereo-video coprocessor thingy. The Creator3D pushes multiplexed left/right signals to a dedicated stereo-port, for your VR goggles.

      You got the specs right, but what the online specs may not mention is that the Creator3D actually pushes that 1280x1024 (x32bit color) at a blazing 116hz, for separation into 58hz Left and 58hz Right signals. That means it has just enough juice to handle true-color, photographic quality stereo VR applications. Great for CAVE applications.

      Of course, one has to have an autostereoscopic monitor or stereo goggles / stereo projector system. That, in turn, can set a department or a person back from anywhere between $2,000 to $50,000 depending on what kind of equipment you want.

      As I understand, most of the hacks to get GeForce and nForce cards to support true stereo 3D require top/bottom video spliting, which just doesn't work as well. Although I havn't used one of them GeForce cards in some time, so maybe they've got a stereo-port on them now-days. I'd be a bit surprised, as it's not a home consumer kind of toy, really. As I recall, the Creator3D series runs somewhere around two thousand dollars for that built in multiplexed stereo adapter and coprocessor thingy (but I could be way off, on that). Goggles are an extra $800 each.

      But as to your original question: Yeah. Big, big magic with a Creator3D card. Slickist video card I've ever seen.

    3. Re:Creator3D & Elite3D by Xner · · Score: 1
      Heck, even the integrated gfx in an nForce2 board has higher specs.

      Current nForce2 boards have no IGP.

      --
      Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
    4. Re:Creator3D & Elite3D by Octorian · · Score: 1

      Eh... The Creator3D is really just one of those "we support 3D, but don't buy this card if you care about 3D" board. Sun's overpriced number for the card is around $715, but they can be had easily on eBay for thr $100-170 range. They are pretty nice 2D cards though, and people like 'em when they want to run at high-res.

      Now as far as 3D performance, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the High Impact board in my SGI Indigo2 workstation blows the crap out of it. Oh, and the I2 I have is from '96, but the copyright data on the card is '95. (and it's not even the highest-end option for the machine) Oh, and that card also supports stereo viewing.

    5. Re:Creator3D & Elite3D by Namarrgon · · Score: 1
      Ah, it multiplexes alternate frames for stereo.

      Actually, nVidia have been doing this for a number of years too. Full stereo drivers (not some kind of hack) are available from their site that offer a lot of flexibility (e.g. different stereo methods, per-app convergence settings etc). The cards don't need a dedicated port, as one can simply use the vsync signal to flip sides - this works with pro equipment right down to $50 consumer LCD-shutter "toys".

      Speed isn't an issue either - the cheapest GeForce MX card can do 1280x1024x32 at 150Hz (75Hz left & right signals) and can still pump out triangles & pixels a lot faster than the old Creator3D.

      There were 3dfx-based consumer stereo setups in 1999, and I believe nVidia introduced their stereo drivers in 2000. Cards & cheap LCD-shutter glasses have been around for a long time; they were popular for a while as a novelty for playing 3D games.

      Thing is, Sun equipment is expensive; it uses a number of dedicated ASICs and has a limited market, and is priced accordingly. The money isn't there for serious development. Consumer 3D cards generate far more revenue, and have therefore progressed amazingly in the last four years, to the point where ATI's and nVidia's consumer cards are now being sold (slightly tweaked) to professionals, easily exceeding all other professional cards in speed and features, without sacrificing quality.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  39. why, you ask? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who are scoffing at companies building freakishly high performance cards like this just have no idea where computer games and real-time imaging are heading, or haven't taken a few seconds to let their imagination work.

  40. there is this little problem, see by lingqi · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ...crunch graphics numbers other than using a single chip..... SLI on one card using two slightly slower chips...

    it's called silicon real-estate.

    it's also called packaging cost.

    it's called data routing on the board (FR4 is very, very slow unless you use a LOT of traces, which is very, very diffcult).

    I think it may also be called lower MTBF.

    and how about "debugging is a pain?"

    either way, though - don't expect "multi-processing" on but the most high-end incarnations - when they have squeezed out of every bit of performance per-chip.

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

    1. Re:there is this little problem, see by Animaether · · Score: 1

      Such as the E&S simFusion 6000 ?
      http://www.es.com/news/2002+press+archive/1202a .as p

  41. People complain about the extra slot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And i dont understand this... When people will use up a slot for a serial port.... Last time i cheked, most atx cases provided for places to mount serial/parallel connectors in places other than the expansion slots.

  42. Faster is slower by Veteran · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While all of the modern 3D chipsets have impressive frame rates for running 3D games they tend to suck badly for much of anything else.

    The chips are very slow to switch from text to graphics and vice versa.

    I had a board with a slightly older Nvidia chip set. I wasn't very satisfied with the stability of the Xfree drivers for it so I tried the Nvidia Linux drivers. Their driver took five minutes to switch between text and graphics modes.

    Older chipsets were much more practical for day to day use; the super speed models remind me of trying to drive a AA fuel dragster to the office every day.

    1. Re:Faster is slower by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, thats just crap badly written software/drivers.

    2. Re:Faster is slower by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      That's a linux driver problem, nothing to do with the card itself.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    3. Re:Faster is slower by Veteran · · Score: 1

      No, it does have to do with the chipset, nobody had any trouble with mode switching on the slower chip sets..

      Yes, I am aware that the Nvidia written driver for Linux was the cause of the ridiculously long switch time.

      Early in the history of accelerated video cards it was pointed out that the faster they got for graphics - the slower they were in text mode. The very fast processors we have today mask that particular problem.

    4. Re:Faster is slower by Datafage · · Score: 1

      The driver IS the issue, you said it yourself in your second sentence here, and the issue doesn't exist at all in Windows, so its not the hardware.

      --

      Nicotine free Amish .sig.

    5. Re:Faster is slower by cobar · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you have some configuration issues. I'm running a Geforce3 with the 3123 drivers and it takes 3-4 seconds to switch from X to console and the same to switch back. If you're seeing that starting X, chances are that you've set your hostname wrong/having difficulty resolving dns.

    6. Re:Faster is slower by Pius+II. · · Score: 1

      It's the driver. I have the same issue with my TNT1. Which, by the way, runs UT2003 good enough for me(TM).

    7. Re:Faster is slower by DeathPenguin · · Score: 1

      I've been running nVidia drivers in Linux ever since the 1251's were first released and NEVER have I had a problem with switching as described earlier. Going from X to console takes about 2 seconds. For what it's worth, here's the hardware I was using:

      Athlon T-Bird / SiS735 / 512MB DDR266 / GeForce 3 (Original)
      Dual Athlon MP / AMD760MP / 1024MB DDR266 / GeForce 3 (Original)
      Athlon XP / SiS745 / 512MB DDR333 / GeForce 4 Ti4600

      2D performance in general has been noted to be somewhat sluggish. I mean, Sim City 3K must've only went 100FPS in comparison to my 200FPS in Quake 3...

    8. Re:Faster is slower by DeathPenguin · · Score: 1

      I think you found his problem. It sounds more like something is timing out rather than a problem with the driver.

  43. $600 vid card & a $20 modem ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did it strike anyone else as weird that they would have a 600 dollar vid card and a lousy $20 modem in the same box... I would at least expect a Gigabit nic or something... Geez... some people.

  44. WHY WHY WHY WHY?? by t0qer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, this goes out to all the video card manufacturers..

    Why hasn't anyone put the GPU on the OPPOSITE side of the card yet? Every AGP card I see, the GPU is ALWAYS facing towards the PCI slots in the system where it.

    A. Blocks out other PCI cards
    B. The fan causes noise and instability if it is running too close
    C. It exhaust the heat onto those other cards.

    Instead of trying to put the carridge before the horse, why not just mount the GPU on the opposite side? There's no PCI slots to get in the way, and you could fit a HUGE cooling solution there.

    Hey Nvidia if you want to hire someone with more common sense design tips like this i'm availiable. I'll slap your engineers with a cluestick for ya.

    1. Re:WHY WHY WHY WHY?? by RollingThunder · · Score: 3, Informative

      Presumably, the spec for the motherboard doesn't guarantee that the area on that side of the AGP slot will be free and open - CPU's may be allowed to be there, and thus either their ring of capacitors, or heat sink, would get in the way.

    2. Re:WHY WHY WHY WHY?? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      While you couldn't do that (the spec for the AGP slot doesn't give you enough room above the card) for your standard product, it seems to me like you could also create a reversed product with a disclaimer that the user should verify that it fits before buying the card. Most Mobos won't have a problem and it will have the added advantage of giving your video card a clearer air intake (and will reduce the amount of heat trapped on the bottom of the card).

      On the otherhand, I have seen some motherboards that stick big capacitors right above the AGP slot which would cause problems for your "HUGE" cooling solution.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:WHY WHY WHY WHY?? by atam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      C. It exhaust the heat onto those other cards.

      I would rather it blows the hot air to the other PCI cards than to the CPU. Most modern CPUs are already hot enough by itself. So putting the GPU on the other side will essentially blow the hot air towards the CPU, which would make it hotter still.

    4. Re:WHY WHY WHY WHY?? by Turbyne · · Score: 1

      Why not release 2 versions? Make 80% of the cards on the PCI side and the rest on the other. Users will decide for themslves which one they want.

      --
      ~A'Ëq'i4d)^'$ÊSÈòB
    5. Re:WHY WHY WHY WHY?? by Turbyne · · Score: 1
      I would rather it blows the hot air to the other PCI cards than to the CPU. Most modern CPUs are already hot enough by itself. So putting the GPU on the other side will essentially blow the hot air towards the CPU, which would make it hotter still.
      You own an Athlon, don't you?
      --
      ~A'Ëq'i4d)^'$ÊSÈòB
    6. Re:WHY WHY WHY WHY?? by t0qer · · Score: 1

      sorry but I had to LOL at that one :) Good crack at AMD

    7. Re:WHY WHY WHY WHY?? by Toraz+Chryx · · Score: 1

      Go check out the power output from a 3.06Ghz P4

      if you think Athlons run hot you ain't seen NOTHING yet..

    8. Re:WHY WHY WHY WHY?? by Malc · · Score: 1

      Every case and mobo I've had in recent years had a spot for a case fan right above the AGP slot, plus the CPUs were further in to the case than the AGP. It seems like a good suggestion to me: the hot air from the graphics card going straight in to area being vented directly out of the case.

  45. KY Ho? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *snicker* *gag* HAHAHAHAHAHAhahaha...

    Sorry, I had to.

  46. Not at 1600x1200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The matrox card does not allow two DVI outs at 1600x1200 :(

  47. THe premise of video card is obsolete.... by Julius+X · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Once again, we're seeing a very elaborate (and ungainly) design for the next ultra high power graphics chip. As technology progresses, we're accustomed (as it should be) to the new products to be the same physical dimension (or smaller) as the older products. This is how we have such concepts as the PDA, the microATX form factor, just to name a few.

    The graphics card arena has been a major exception to this for the last few years. It's one of the few industries that I can think of where the product is actually GROWING in size and becoming more combersome as the technology becomes increasingly faster and more complex. I believe this is a sign that, not unlike how we discovered in the Pentium II/III era, that card/based processor packages are poor product design that are a) larger than necessary b)gum up the works, and c) only enhance the problem of cooling, thus needing continuingly more complex cooling systems.

    The current AGP(or PCI or whatever) bus expansion card methodology for video cards can be seen as going through the same problem, especially in the case of the GeForceFX. We've seen these problems previously in the designs for the GeForce3,4, made much fun of them in the case of the 3dfx Voodoo5 6000 cards, and even the latest ATI cards are requiring more power than the AGP bus can provide. Doesn't this show that there is an inherent flaw in the packaging design for this technology?

    GPUs need to take the same road that CPUs have taken (and now restored since we now use socket based motherboard solutions again) and be sold soley as the graphics processor, with the memory substructures and soforth built onto the motherboard. This increases the efficiency and ease that the GPU can communicate with the central bus and the rest of the system. In addition, you will no longer need to build an elaborate cooling strucutre to make up for the lack of ventilation provided by the typical AGP/PCI card slot design.

    Nvidia is part way there with the NForce already, building the graphics subsystem as a central part of the motherboard chipset and PC bus, but the flaw here remains (as in most integrated motherboard systems) that you are stuck with the technology. Of course, you can upgrade an NForce system with a full GeForce4 FX or Radeon if that is your choosing, but that just brings back the card problem. What needs to be done is to create a NForce type chipset with an FCPGA type socket for the GPU as well as the CPU, that way both systems are imminently upgradable (not to mention the potential benefits in creating a more efficient in-line cooling solution for the interior of the system) and thus our size problems begin to be alleviated.

    --

    -Julius X
    remove "-whatkindofspamdoyoutakemefor-" from email to send
    1. Re:THe premise of video card is obsolete.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just means that watercooling will become the standard. And your idea about using ram on the mainboard to increase efficiency is basically stupid. That would bring down the speed of a gfFX to level of voodoo1.

    2. Re:THe premise of video card is obsolete.... by realmolo · · Score: 1

      Uh...

      What happens when you want to increase the speed of the bus between your "GPU socket" and the memory for it? You'd have to replace the motherboard.

      The fact is, increasing performance of a processor often requires increasing the performance of the memory bus, too.

      Which is why we aren't running Pentium IVs on our 486 motherboards.

      Besides, at some point, I imagine we'll see the disappearance of 3D accelerators in anything but super-high-end workstations. As the main CPU gets faster and faster, it becomes more and more feasible to just do all your graphics functions purely in software, and forego hardware-acceleration entirely. Which honestly is a better way to do it. Ultimate flexibility, no driver conflicts, no "hardware limitations". If you can figure out a way to create an effect in software, you can use it and display it, given enough processor juice.

      We won't see that for at least a decade, though.

    3. Re:THe premise of video card is obsolete.... by qa'lth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, with this idea, you start running into other problems, namely reworking the bus to accomadate high speed tranfers from memory to the graphics processor. Current AGP spec is woefully underpowered, compared to the throughput the cards themselves manage. Actual numbers are in the range of 1GB/sec or so on AGP4x, and ~8.2GB/sec off local ram on the Radeon 8500LE card, ~19.2GB/sec on the Radeon 9700 Pro. Slightly less on the new GeForce FX card - Clearly not in the same ballpark. Conventional DDR memory cannot compete with the timings that video card DDR pushes - Buying ram sticks for the video subsystem will be rather expensive, unless you're willing to settle for vastly decreased performance. Consider - The average PC2100 DDR stick runs at 133MHz, doubled to 266. A PC2700 stick, so far as I know, runs at 166MHz. PC3200 is just beginning to flirt with graphics card speeds, at 200MHz, or 400MHz DDR. nVIDIA is mounting 500MHz chips on their GeForce FX card, and ATI packs ~350MHz chips on their 9700 part
      (Actual clock speeds, not doubled DDR speeds). A drastic reworking of the motherboard layout, and a considerable increase in complexity, would be required to properly support this.

      Then you get issues with the socketing standard - how long with ATI, nVIDIA, and everyone keep playing ball with each other? How long before nVIDIA leans on a motherboard manufacturer, using their nForce chipset, and creates a non-standard socket? Power requirements, as well - Will the motherboard be able to power the chip, or will we have to plug in a lead from the powersupply akin to these new powerhouse cards?

      Interesting upsides to the situation would include the potential to use a G4 Mac style dual-, or perhaps quad-processor modules, for increased processing power - but that has the potential to easily saturate the bus, also bringing us back to the original concept of having everything mounted on an independent board module.

    4. Re:THe premise of video card is obsolete.... by Junta · · Score: 1

      Whether it is slot or socket is just a matter of how the pins are arranged and designed. It doesn't mean anything fundamental. The PII/III design proves this. It included no more functionality than modern socket processors (some extra wafer, but nothing fundamental). It just gave more room to put the L2 cache in and provided more area for heat dissipation. The way it is packaged means nothing.

      In this case, a socket format would only make matters worse. One advantage to being on a card is that both sides of the card have airflow, dissipating heat. For the most part, a video card is a GPU and memory. Other stuff figures in, but the problematic part with the FX is the GPU cooling requirements. The presence of extra memory isn't the problem. The best solution would be a spec that *requires* more space between the AGP slot and nearest PCI slot. The rule of thumb for a long time has been that a PCI card next to the AGP slot is bad, this design simply changes that rule of thumb into a hard requirement. It seems sloppy for external power and a waste of PCI expansion, but a socket format won't fix anything.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    5. Re:THe premise of video card is obsolete.... by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      I don't think you'll see that (no hardware accel) for 50 years.

      Rendering realistic looking graphics fast is an extremly specialized domian. You basicly need to do the same equation, using highly accurate floating point math, millions of times a second.

      Dedicated hardware will continue to do this better for a long time. Just look at the Nvidia demos they gave rendering scenes from Final Fantasy and Toy Story. Not realtime, of course, but it took Pixars renderfarm far longer.

      I think you're right in predicting it will happen, though. I just don't see general purpose CPUs catching up to highly specialized GPU's anytime soon.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    6. Re:THe premise of video card is obsolete.... by Malc · · Score: 1

      Whilst we're at it, we should switch floating point units out of CPUs and in to their own replaceable chip. I like the sound of the name Weitek, so perhaps that could be brought in to it somehow.

    7. Re:THe premise of video card is obsolete.... by DeathPenguin · · Score: 1

      >>We've seen these problems previously in the designs for the GeForce3,4, made much fun of them in the case of the 3dfx Voodoo5 6000 cards, and even the latest ATI cards are requiring more power than the AGP bus can provide.

      We made fun of the Voodoo 5 6000 mostly because it used four chips and was to retail at $600 when nVidia and ATi had single chip solutions at less than $250 that thoroughly beat 3dfx's dual chip Voodoo 5 5500. The power concern was a whole other matter. It didn't just use a molex connector like a harddrive, it was to use a totally seperate external (As in one that plugged into a wall outlet) power source, ahahahaha!

      The problem with your idea of having a graphics processor socket is that graphics chipsets require the fastest technology available. The memory, for example, is much faster than system memory. You'd need extra memory banks on the motherboard. If you were to have the video processing resources shared with the rest of the system resources, then you'd need to spend a fortune on RAM alone. 128MB and 256MB for video processing is expensive enough, it would be awfully wasteful to use that sort of memory on OS overhead. Then you need a bus capable of handling that sort of memory bandwidth. That's what, around 20GB/sec for the GeForce FX and Radeon 9700? Something really high, whereas current motherboard busses like Hypertransport go at something like 1.6GB/sec. Then your next graphics processor would choke on bandwidth sooo badly...

      So basically you'd have a console video gaming system.

    8. Re:THe premise of video card is obsolete.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The PII/III design proves this. It included no more functionality than modern socket processors (some extra wafer, but nothing fundamental). It just gave more room to put the L2 cache in and provided more area for heat dissipation. The way it is packaged means nothing."

      You're completely missing the point of Intel's early PII lineup. The entire reason that Intel packaged the PII as a slot-1 solution was that they lacked the technology to incorporate the cache on the die of the CPU. The extra wafer *was* fundamental in the ability to ship PII chips with a cache. Why else would Intel switch to a slot design and then back to a socket design?

  48. Uh, hello? Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    News for Nerds? New here?

  49. for those who dont want to take up a slot by deft · · Score: 1

    perhaps its time for a case/tower that has openings in the back ala the normal ones that we are used to... but the top 2 slots are meant to be used with a card like this.

    anticipating rear exhaust/cooling, the 2nd to top lines up with a slot, and the top one just has the cut in the back, in case you have a card that needs it.

    chances are youll only have one card that uses a dual slot, and that leaves the rest to be used normally.

    the people who always put the big ass power supply at the very end of the strip so the rest of the plugs can be used will understand what im talking about :)

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    1. Re:for those who dont want to take up a slot by Junta · · Score: 1

      Problem is that the orientation of the design forces it to be towards PCI slots on every motherboard out there. It's more like having a thick power brick with an orientation requirement that defies the design of the power strip (which I have seen a few times).

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  50. Who needs those new cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is at least one game that needs all the video card speed it can get: Everquest. And there are like 400 000 Everquest players in the world.

  51. Old news on ./ by mAriuZ · · Score: 1

    Always you read the the last on ./
    And by the way that is not a full interview
    Here http://www.nordichardware.se/artiklar/Intervjuer/E nglish/nVidia/index.php

    --
    developer http://flamerobin.org
    1. Re:Old news on ./ by mAriuZ · · Score: 1

      sorry bad link
      http://www.nordichardware.se/artiklar/Interv juer/E nglish/nVidia/index.php
      It could be cool to edit your own posts here on ./

      --
      developer http://flamerobin.org
    2. Re:Old news on ./ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In reply to that this post has been stolen from NordicHardware; that is not the case.

      We at Techspot where there at the same time as NordicHardware when they interviewed Nvidia, and we had pretty much the same questions as they had (bar one or two)

      Sincerely - Per Hansson, editor @ Techspot.com

    3. Re:Old news on ./ by mAriuZ · · Score: 1

      Pretty strange but is ok if you did as you said .

      --
      developer http://flamerobin.org
  52. FX Video demos by jaysones · · Score: 1

    You can see 2 videos of outpout of the FX card here:The Dawn Fairy demo and the Toys demo. Click the Video links on the left side of each page. Real and WMP. Looks darn cool.

  53. Re:WHY WHY WHY WHY??Pic included by t0qer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I thought I'd take a
    picture and make a rebuttal to your statement. Gotta love digital.


    In this pic there are 5 mobo's.


    Intel 850GB

    Some asus socket370 thing

    Some soyo socket370 thing

    Iwill BD100 slot1

    Some intel socket370 thing


    You will notice on the asus board I put a tape measure across as a reference.
    Now out of the 5 boards sampled, only 1 has no space for heatsinks on the right
    side. Also to note this board is a slot1, which is no longer in production.


    On the other hand, every single semi modern board in this picture has more
    than adequate room for heatsinks on the right side.


    So unless these newer cards are going into an outdated system, putting the
    fans/heatsinks on the right side shouldn't be a problem right? Simple enough
    solution without having to resort to heat pipes/water cooling or peizo electric
    cooling.



  54. I love the comment under the images. . . by stevarooski · · Score: 2, Funny

    "How cool, a video card with what looks like a trojan stretched over it for safe gaming."

    How apt!

    --

    - - - - - - - -
    Don't worry, being eaten by a crocodile is just like going to sleep in a giant blender.
  55. Re:WHY WHY WHY WHY??Pic included by amokk · · Score: 1

    Left Column - Top Motherboard: Has a small heatsink which could get in the way. Capacitors close to the AGP slot could get in the way.

    Left Column - Middle Motherboard: RAM Banks will get in the way of the cooling solution.

    Left Column - Bottom Motherboard: Card would not fit. The AGP slot is up too high on the motherboard and there would be no way of actually attaching the video card. The reason is that the game-port is too close to the AGP slot and thus, the cooler would not get a slot on the back of the case - which means the card wouldn't fit.

    Right Column - Top Motherboard: Card wouldn't fit at all - processor is in the way.

    Right Column - Bottom Motherboard: Again, same problem as before. RAM Banks and serial/game-port connectors are too close to the AGP slot.

    In short, none of the motherboards that you pictured look adequate to hold such a massive cooler. You'll notice that there is absolutely no standard clearance between all three of them.

    --
    I think, therefore I am an Atheist.
  56. not just FPS anymore by Twillerror · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I remember reading that John C is going to cap the FPS on Doom3 to like 30 or 40 FPS per seconds. I'm hoping so, I bet he is tired of people grading video cards by how many FPS they can get Quake 3 running.

    The best thing about the FX isn't the overall FPS per second. It is the pixel shaders and such. The number of instructions it can excute per shader, and the rate at which it processes these is the real evolution of this card. The more complex the shader and the faster they run the more life like graphics will look.

    We have been stuck in the same basic quake engine for a while now. Unreal II and Doom 3 ( doom3 more ) will be the first real change in graphics we've had. Now the GPU's can handle movie style rendering, without a ton of little tricks.

    We really do need the horse power. The FX could probably render toy story in real time, that is pretty amazing. I can't wait till I can watch a movie and pause it and change the angle. The ability to have true 3-d movie projection is becoming more realistic with this type of hardware ( of course we need the 3d projector )

    $400 dollars for this is nothing. You don't seem to realize that just 10 years ago a 486 DX system could cost over $4000 grand. With 16 megs of ram and 1/2 gig of harddrive. The price is rather low considering what it takes to create such wonders, stop bitchin.

    Open source will help out in this arena as well. You got to think that the pros that did the work on Golem for LOTR are fans of open source, it won't be long until those kinds of shaders and techniques will be available for game programmers.

    To me saying "why do we need all this power" is kind of sacreligous. Remember that increasing speed and creating a market for new hardware is what keeps most of us employeed. Never say more speed is a bad thing. And don't blame sluggish performance on the developers, as software becomes more complex you have to give up some performance for stability and expandability.

    1. Re:not just FPS anymore by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      I remember reading that John C is going to cap the FPS on Doom3 to like 30 or 40 FPS per seconds.

      That seems unlikely, since first person shooters like Doom III are exactly where humans do often perceive a difference between 30+ and 50+ or 70+ average FPS. Granted if he's capping the actual FPS figure and not the average that's not entirely the same thing, but nonetheless, it seems a very odd thing to do. Do you have any source to support this?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:not just FPS anymore by RabidOverYou · · Score: 2, Funny

      > 486 DX system ... and 1/2 gig

      Half a gig? Shit, what bank did you rob? We had 120MB, and strutted like horny alley cats.

    3. Re:not just FPS anymore by AaronBaker2000 · · Score: 1
      I remember reading that John C is going to cap the FPS on Doom3 to like 30 or 40 FPS per seconds. I'm hoping so, I bet he is tired of people grading video cards by how many FPS they can get Quake 3 running.

      Imagine the effect that this would have on the hardware industry. I can almost see Carmack saying "Moore's law ends...NOW!" as he releases the new Doom to the public.

    4. Re:not just FPS anymore by paulerdos · · Score: 1

      "The FX could probably render toy story in real time, that is pretty amazing."

      um, you're joking, right?

    5. Re:not just FPS anymore by ChrisDolan · · Score: 4, Funny

      just 10 years ago a 486 DX system could cost over $4000 grand

      4000 grand??? I think you paid too much. :-)

    6. Re:not just FPS anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theose millon dollar SGI machines can't even do that yet. Thier render farm for pixar is like 6 of them together.

    7. Re:not just FPS anymore by MrBId · · Score: 0

      I believe that quake2 was capped at 100 fps...

      or maybe that was another game that used to be popular with the benchmarkers, my memory is failing me.

      But a cap at about 60-70 fps max would allow for
      good average frame rates without limiting the
      visual perception of smoothness.

    8. Re:not just FPS anymore by donscarletti · · Score: 1
      10 years ago a 486 DX system could cost over $4000 grand

      1 grand = $1,000 $4,000 grand = $4,000 * 1,000 = 4,000,000. Man, I hope you didn't buy a 486 in 1993 or you would have been ripped off big time, four million dollars for a pc? I could have got you 1,000 computers for that much!

      The FX could probably render toy story in real time

      Yes it could, hell, my 1997 vintage voodoo graphics could do that! (well close enough) But it would look crap because like all realtime game renderers (both hardwear and softwear) they both rely on timesaving approximations, simplifications etc. rather than real world effects. Toy story was done using a pain staking scanline rendering technique on 117 sun sparkstations with an average of three cpus in each over many months. That is why it is nice, warm and happy and not just the cold ugly crap you see pumped out of your video card. Because your video card uses hacks it is not as good.

      You got to think that the pros that did the work on Golem for LOTR are fans of open source, it won't be long until those kinds of shaders and techniques will be available for game programmers.

      Pixel shaders and techniques? You mean ray tracing, radiosity, scanline, etc! Not only have they got nothing to do with hardwear rendering tools (like the G-force FX) but they take minutes to do each frame even on the huge rendering clusters used to make movies. This makes these techniques totaly worthless for game playing. This is done wholy through softwear, it needs no linux driver and no two slot filling behemoths of cards. Also the tools used to render these sorts of things are almost exclusivly proprietry (except for a few like povray) and would not be able to be releaced even if the programmers were as open source mad as RMS simply because the studio would not let them.

      I am sorry to get into semantics but really! It's not as bad as whining about spelling I guess.. talk to some mafia contacts and mod me down if you want but come on! movie rendering techniques on a gforce FX on your 4 million dollar 486?

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    9. Re:not just FPS anymore by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      the physics start to get Weird if you go over 100...same w/ quake 3

    10. Re:not just FPS anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Softwear and hardwear? That's a pretty good one.

    11. Re:not just FPS anymore by James+Lewis · · Score: 1

      OK a few things. First of all, someone said "higher fps screw up the physics in Quake 3". That is incorrect. People simply gained a slight advantage in how high they could jump with higher FPS, because their trajectory curve was smoother (I assume id was checking every X number of frames, and so this is why it happened). The second thing I'd like to debunk is the notion that John C would ever cap a game at 30 FPS. It makes just about as much sense as it sounds. Also I am sure the John C enjoys having the influential position he has concerning how video card technology develops. If John C didn't care about FPS, why did he give the world its first glimpse of Doom 3 at a press conference designed to show off the Geforce 3? Thirdly, I would caution people against labeling any new engine revolutionary. Processing power simply doesn't proceed at a pace to allow "revolutionary" changes in engines. Stencil shadows have been around for a long time(idea first appeared in 1977), it is just that John C is using them to replace lightmaps. Bumpmapping was used because the stencil shadows increased the geometry of the scene and the polygon count needed to be kept down. Bumpmaps help make this less evident. I agree that it's a lot more of a change than between Q1, Q2, and Q3, but it isn't anything like movie style rendering. Other than that, I agree that you can never have enough speed :) On the other hand, I might not mind Moore's law ending 10 years from now. As a programmer I'd like to see more thought put into using what we have more efficiently. Considering the relative immaturity of computers, I am sure there are a lot of great ideas that we simply haven't had the need to discover yet.

    12. Re:not just FPS anymore by Vegan+Pagan · · Score: 1

      To me saying "why do we need all this power" is kind of sacreligous.

      To me saying "why do we need more than 40 FPS" is kind of sacreligious. If you're wondering why, it's because we'd need motion blur instead, which takes even more processing power. When the frame rate is 60, motion blur usually isn't needed to make motion seem smooth.

  57. Re:WHY WHY WHY WHY??Pic included by t0qer · · Score: 1

    I thought I would point one more
    thing out


    There is an extra slot to the right of the AGP slot, I have the area circled
    in white. Quick question for the /. crowd, how many other people out there
    have a case with an unusable slot on the right like me?? Seems to make
    perfect sense to put the fan there doesn't it?


  58. Nice sized card. by Una · · Score: 1

    Whoo!
    It looks like we're on our way to having full length video cards again.

    Now when we have 5-1/4" full height hard drives as standard again, we'll have come full circle.

    I wonder when they'll come out with the 13" CGA LCDs to match?

  59. That's Quake IV or DOOM III by idontneedanickname · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's Quake IV or DOOM III.

    Personally, the day Quake III comes out is the day I upgrade my video card. :)

    Well, you're a couple years late, better hurry!

  60. Re:WHY WHY WHY WHY??Pic included by t0qer · · Score: 1

    Top left is the same mobo i'm currently using. Plenty of room on it, remember we're only taking up the same amount of space as any add on card.

    Mid left, so you have to leave about an inch open on the bottom of the cooler, again not a problem.

    Bottom left, you would have to channel the exhaust back into the case, if you have adequate air flow, not a problem.

    Top right, We agree here, but I did say that slot 1's were no longer manufactured so that was a moot point.

    Bottom right, come to think of it, a internally exhausting fan wouldn't present a problem here either as long as the cooler had adequate clearance over the ram.

    I could also link to every mobo manufacturer where the installation instructions say "Install your CPU and RaM first" but i'm too lazy and I think you get the picture. If the cooler is properly designed it could accomidate %90 of all socket370 boards (sorry I don't do AMD so I can't speak for them there)

  61. It's $399....It's $399......It's $399...It's $399 by charnov · · Score: 2, Informative

    Oh for christs sake, the damn thing is priced at ATI 9700 Pro prices. I have no idea why the prices are so high for Europe (sorry), maybe the original post is way out of date.

    Best Buy preorder

    --
    [RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
  62. i... by m1chael · · Score: 0

    hope it does better than the benchmarks at maximum pc if its going to take up 2 slots (even though i dont use them all) or has a loud cooling system. im sure nvidia will release detinator 5's a month after its release that improve performance 25.67%!

    --
    I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
  63. Good cards don't have to cost a bomb by Hairy+Dude · · Score: 1

    Hehe... I bought this card. What a cheapskate I am.

  64. Re:WHY WHY WHY WHY??Pic included by amokk · · Score: 1

    Hmm, when I was doing my comparisons of motherboards, I neglected to mention that I was using the GeForceFX as a reference. The cooler on that card is massive and doesn't look like it would fit on any of the motherboards that you listed for the reasons that I mentioned before.

    There is one problem. Who gets to stamp out the "proper design" of the cooler. As the picture that you posted proves - there is no real standard on how much room should be above the AGP slot. Of course, this would also represent a problem for the manufacturers of micro-atx boards because the'll have to leave more room above and below the AGP slot to accomodate different kinds of video cards.

    One of the reasons I want a top mounted cooler is so that my video card isn't blowing hot air down onto my other components.

    --
    I think, therefore I am an Atheist.
  65. Re:WHY WHY WHY WHY??Pic included by Ashran · · Score: 1

    That slot is for motherboard expansion (if theres not enough space on the other MB output area (like extra usb ports etc).

    > Why hasn't anyone put the GPU on the OPPOSITE side of the card yet?
    Very easy - heat flows upwards - the card itself would block the heat stream.
    And of course the electrons would fall off ;)

    --

    Before you email me, remember: "There is no god!"
  66. Re:WHY WHY WHY WHY??Pic included by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1

    Well, on my old MSI-6330 mobo, my top slot was my GF4 Ti4600.
    On my Gigabyte GA-7VAX, I now have the free top slot like that picture.

    --
    "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
  67. AI Hardware by smokin_juan · · Score: 1

    Hardware - graphics

    Hardware - sound

    Processor - physics

    When will we see AI hardware? Anyone hear of any standards? If you're just thinking of gaming AI hardware seems a little over the top, but when you think of the direction that computers are supposed to go, AI hardware should be next on the list... HAL?

    1. Re:AI Hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, working 2 jobs now so this is going to be a quick post (excuse the spelling errors :)).

      You will not see "AI hardware" anytime soon if at all. You may see "dual-proc" machines which will allow us (AI programmers) more processor time to solve problems.

      We are working on standards. Can't say much now, not because I can't (it is going to be an open standard) but because I have no time to get into details. We will have a full report at the GDC in March.

      You will be far more likely to see Physics Hardware then AI hardware. Physics problems are complex and easy standardize (solve for X). AI is...mmmm, weird. There are a couple of problems you could write hardware to solve (A-star pathfinding) but most of the time the problems are either trivial (travel the graph) or very specific to the application.

  68. Price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's more expensive to put components on both sides. Some companies put half the memory chips on the back of the PCB, but it's usually only if they run out of space on the front.

  69. Re:Faster is slower-8086/80286 transition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Early in the history of accelerated video cards it was pointed out that the faster they got for graphics - the slower they were in text mode. The very fast processors we have today mask that particular problem. "

    Sounds all the more reason for Windowing systems to start using some of those "features" The less switching involved, and looks better, as well as faster.

  70. Geforce4 has Dual DVI by aliens · · Score: 1

    But very few makers ever put this into production. IIRC Gainward had the only board retailing. Guess there aren't too many people out there with two LCD's.

    --
    -- taking over the world, we are.
  71. Help please: which would you buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GeForce3 Ti-200 for $89 or GeForce4 Ti-4200 for $159?

    Tx, d00dz :)

  72. nvidia lost this one by Dunkalis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    nvidia has lost this and probably the next generation of 3D to ATI. ATI's Radeon 9{5|7}00 is a very good card. Superior to the GeForce4. By the time the GeForceFX is released, ATI will have their next-generation chipset prepared. nvidia will be a generation behind. ATI cards are already close in price to their nvidia bretheren. nvidia needs a new product to get the performance crown back, or ATI will dominate.

    --
    Slashdot is a waste of time. I enjoy wasting time.
    1. Re:nvidia lost this one by Namarrgon · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ATI's "next-generation" chip is still built on the previous-generation process - 0.15 micron.

      It was nVidia's move to 0.13 micron that delayed the GeForceFX, and allowed ATI their moment in the sun. ATI have yet to climb that particular hill, and nVidia are already rolling down the far side.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    2. Re:nvidia lost this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that matter though? It'll take a few cards before that's of any real importence, while it's marginaly better then a radeon 9700. By the time that makes any differnce, ati will already have mpved to that, and made a far better graphics card

  73. you shouldnt have anything next to the vid card by AngelofDeath-02 · · Score: 1

    why? irq conflicts. Sure, some stuff works. but it's generally a good rule not to have a card in the top pci slot next to the agp slot, as they share irq's. I've seen computers not work for months until i tell someone 'take that card, and move it'

    --
    No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
  74. Re:That's the new "PerForce" card by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

    Uncomprehensible-post-of-the-week award nominee.

    --
    Jeremy
  75. yadda fan big yadda... facts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Athlon XP
    0.13mu process, 37.2 million transistors, 1.67GHz
    GeForceFX
    0.13mu process, 125 million transistors, ~500 MHz

    You might notice that there is a rather large fan/heatsink on the Athlon...

    And you also might notice that rendering games at 1600x1400 with just your CPU isn't very fast.

  76. ATI has lost more than one. by RabidOverYou · · Score: 0

    ATI is like Detroit cars in the early 90s: they may be okay, finally. But so many people were burned by the crappy drivers, they'll buy Nvidia. Chrysler owners became Honda owners, and they ain't coming back.

  77. Re:WHY WHY WHY WHY??Pic included by RollingThunder · · Score: 1

    Theres a difference between common practice, and what the standard allows, though. I don't know for sure, but it's a possibility.

  78. Termal Madness by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Holy shit that heat-sink is insane. The size of heat-sinks on chips and graphics cards has been ridiculous lately. I remember the first time I got a video card with a tiny heat sink hastily glued on.

    I guess if people are willing to buy it, more power to 'em, but that thing is just wrong :P

    Maybe in a few years PCs will have standard coolent connectors the way they have standard power connectors today...

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  79. In five years, 35Ghz by xintegerx · · Score: 1

    A year ago or two ago, Intel said they were expecting 35 Ghz machines five years later (using chips burned on glass or microtechnology, I don't remember which.) That's a bit more optimistic than Moore's Law, but it's not a real law.

    1. Re:In five years, 35Ghz by thesadmac · · Score: 1

      Moore's law has nothing to do with the speed of processors (directly). It's about the number of transistors in chips.

  80. We're getting pretty close by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Interesting
    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:We're getting pretty close by jacoplane · · Score: 1

      There are also some videos of the demos online.

  81. Re:Only about as worried as if Intel reported prob by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

    The TNT generation was their real first success, the aim of graphics cards companies is to produce cards that are eventually incorporated into average or budget systems. TNT and TNT2 (more so) became a kind of standard video card and was a precursor to the nvidia on mother-board video card (the nforce chipset).

  82. Motion blur by yerricde · · Score: 1

    because if it's still 60hz

    Without flicker.

    (how often do you see guys running geforce cards with 300fps potential...running a monitor at 60hz)

    Motion blur accumulated across five frames makes good use of excess video card power, and it looks just the same to the eye as actually drawing all five frames separately, especially on a flicker-free display such as an LCD panel.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Motion blur by Puu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Speaking of motion blur brings to mind other practical uses for an accumulation buffer...

      I wonder why today's uber-fast video cards don't offer temporal anti-aliasing to use with older, slower flat panels (that are in the 20 to 30 Hz max refresh region). Three to five consecutive frames blended together, then the result output at the slow refresh, and it wouldn't feel so slow at all. No jerkiness, no tails on screen, just steady going, smooth looking display.

      I'd like to be offered that option. And plenty of those kind of panels around! (As to video cards, AFAIK, accumulation buffer has been part of the DX spec for some time. In OGL a very long time.)

    2. Re:Motion blur by yerricde · · Score: 1

      I wonder why today's uber-fast video cards don't offer temporal anti-aliasing to use with older, slower flat panels

      Because it's a specific game engine's choice to implement or not implement motion blur.

      I'd like to be offered that option.

      Then find a free OpenGL game engine that doesn't already use the accumulation buffer and submit a patch. Or if you yourself can't code, pay somebody to add it.

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    3. Re:Motion blur by Puu · · Score: 1

      But I wasn't talking about motion blur. I'm talking about TAA: just a method for improving image quality. (With dog-slow LCDs.)

      I meant that it should be offered as a choice in the video card drivers. Much like Nvidia etc. offer enforced spatial anti-aliasing (FSAA) -- completely regardless of the game engine or game settings.

      Capiche? :-)

  83. nForce2 vs. Audigy 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a review/comparison of the two. In summary, they've got different strengths and weaknesses, but offer very similar (good) performance.

  84. Re:Help please: which would you buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I would buy the Ti-4200, but I have $160 to blow. Do you?

  85. Re:WHY WHY WHY WHY??Pic included by sl3xd · · Score: 1

    I wish I had a digital camera, so I could include a pic for you.

    I have an ASUS A7M266 mobo. Right above the AGP slot, there are the following, which would make it impossible to have a top-mounted chip/fan:

    1.) Integrated sound card: While the external speaker out, line in, etc are in the standard ATX positions, the internal cables (such as CD-ROM drive (audio)->sound card, aux_input (from DVD/TV decoder), TAD input, etc.) is exactly in the path such a fan would take.
    2.) Chipset (and fan): Within 1/2" of the top of the AGP slot.

    And, of course,let's not forget the real reason:
    3.) Standardization. There is a standard distance 'above' the AGP slot, which card makers must conform to. If the card is too big 'above' the AGP slot (and above any other slots), it is breaking the spec. However, 'below' the slot, doesn't break the spec, because the space is reserved for a PCI card anyway. The motherboard manufacturer knows that if they put a chipset fan or CPU there, it's asking for trouble. Same goes for cards: If they break the spec, they know there's gonna be trouble.

    --
    -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  86. Re:WHY WHY WHY WHY??Pic included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't work here which is likely the case for many dual processor systems.

  87. Re:2 slots IS a bit deal by Drakino · · Score: 1

    2 slots NOT a bit deal

    No, really, it is for the modern LAN gamer. Many are realising their huge ass 10 bay tower cases are a pain to haul around. So people are looking at cases like the Shuttle XPC series to cure this issue. And a GeForce FX high end card will not fit in one, due to the AGP slot being the second slot in the system.

    Of course the FX dosen't really impress me all that much. Nothing solid has been released in the way of benchmarks, so I'll continue to enjoy my Radeon 9700 for now. I'll skip whatever replaces the 9700 and the FX, and upgrade with the next gen card. By then, I figure some games might need the power again to run at 1280x960 with all the settings to high.

  88. Re:Help please: which would you buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, just curious if the 4200 is worth the extra $70...

  89. Programmable pixel shaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a bunch of freakin' nerds. I mean, that's the name of the site and all, but you guys couldn't see a technological trend if Jesus brought it to you in a time machine. All you people talk about is anachronistic hardware.

    Why is everyone buzzing over a stupid heatsink when the real revolution here is programmable pixel shaders? The Geforce FX allows you to do an INSANE number of custom programmed operations on each pixel in hardware. The Radeon isn't designed to do that at all! Do you even know what that means?

    http://www.nvidia.com/docs/lo/2413/SUPP/TB-00626 -0 01_v01_Shaders_110402.pdf

  90. You can stick -1 troll up your ass too pussy by angelkey · · Score: 0

    Eat my fuckin butt you poop munching, zit-faced fuck.

    --
    "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell, 1984
  91. Re:WHY WHY WHY WHY??Pic included by shepd · · Score: 1

    >Quick question for the /. crowd, how many other people out there
    have a case with an unusable slot on the right like me??

    Everyone with a "normal" full ATX case. Although, for some, it is usable. It's just that your mobo doesn't feature any ISA slots, so you'd have to have 6 PCI slots instead.

    Sometimes an AMR expansion slot is above the AGP slot on el-cheapo motherboards. That's where this would go. In your case you have the non-cheapo CNR solution, at the bottom. It's like AMR, but reversed, so it's good instead of cheap. ;)

    Anyways, ATX spec says you need 7 0.8" expansion slots. :-)

    >Seems to make perfect sense to put the fan there doesn't it?

    Yes, but only for motherboards where the manufacturer skimps on ISA slots.

    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  92. Techspot reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In reply to that this post has been stolen from NordicHardware; that is not the case.

    We at Techspot where there at the same time as NordicHardware when they interviewed Nvidia, and we had pretty much the same questions as they had (bar one or two)

    Sincerely - Per Hansson, editor @ www.Techspot.com

  93. you're both right by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    True, ATI is the king of OEM's, but the majoraty of that is for integrated motherboards and cheap Rage POS cards for Dell. I believe that Nvidia currently makes more mid range cards for the oem market than ATI.

  94. And Rumor Has It... by Puu · · Score: 1


    [rumor]

    This problem originates at TSMC (the fab), not Nvidia. TSMC couldn't get the NV30/GFFX chip working on their flagship low-K di-electric 0.13 micron process, and after a few time & money consuming spins, they had to change it to their "normal" 0.13 micron process. Hence the delay.

    Applying the di-electric materials dampens signal noise in the chip's wiring. Without it, Nvidia had to increase core voltage to ensure stability at 500 MHz, hence more heat and the leaf blower.

    [/rumor]

    In contrast, 3dfx's fatal delays were due to featuritis with the next gen (for the original Voodoo!) Rampage, bad management (diverting to losing products like Rush, Banshee, Blackbelt), PCB production problems (the aged ex-STB plant in Juarez), and then normal chip engineering problems...

  95. squeeze is the name of the game by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    There are modular systems such as you describe but games programming *IS TIED* to the system capabilities.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  96. Doh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Warning: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (2) in /var/www/html/vb/admin/db_mysql.php on line 40

    Warning: MySQL Connection Failed: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (2) in /var/www/html/vb/admin/db_mysql.php on line 40

    There seems to have been a slight problem with the database.
    Please try again by pressing the refresh button in your browser.

    An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff, who you can also contact if the problem persists.

    We apologise for any inconvenience.

  97. The original Doom/Doom2 engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... was capped at 35 fps. Both games used the same engine (the same executable ever since doom(2) version 1.666, to be more precise)

  98. Say it with me... by Levine · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

    Just because your five boards have ample space does not mean that the ATX spec mandates that space to be there.

    levine

  99. Battle of Helm's Deep by glenrm · · Score: 1

    I would like to be able to play the Battle of Helm's Deep in Real Time with about 16 other people, in some sort of multi-monitor immersive environment (think CAVE) or VR setup. All the orc AI should be maxed as well as having a complete army on each side. Then maybe we can slow down a bit...

  100. How not to deal with the /. effect.. by sjwt · · Score: 1

    http://www.techspot.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threa did=3978

    "There seems to have been a slight problem with the database.
    Please try again by pressing the refresh button in your browser."

    not the brightest hint there :)

    --
    You have 5 Moderator Points!
    Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
  101. Three vs. four dimensions by yerricde · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But I wasn't talking about motion blur. I'm talking about TAA

    I thought TAA and motion blur were the same thing, as this page seems to imply. Is there a difference?

    I meant that it should be offered as a choice in the video card drivers. Much like Nvidia etc. offer enforced spatial anti-aliasing (FSAA)

    The OpenGL rendering model introduces a big difference between spatial effects and temporal effects. The coordinates passed to OpenGL are three-dimensional (x, y, z), not four-dimensional (x, y, z, t)[1]. In OpenGL's coordinate space, coordinates of individual polygons within a rendered scene can be considered continuous. Only the rasterizer breaks this continuity, and a video card can choose traditional rasterization or FSAA rasterization because it has access to the (x, y) coordinates for interpolation within a pixel. On the other hand, OpenGL time is discrete, and each frame is considered a separate scene. There's no way to automatically map which polygons in one scene correspond to which polygons in another scene, so there's no way to interpolate an edge's coordinates along the fourth dimension.

    [1] 't' (the time dimension) has nothing to do with 'w' (the homogenizing factor in homogeneous coordinates).

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  102. Re:$600 vid card & a $20 modem ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Did it strike anyone else as weird that they would have a 600 dollar vid card and a lousy $20 modem in the same box... I would at least expect a Gigabit nic or something... Geez... some people.
    It's kind of like how quad-Xeon motherboards come with 1997-era on-board video (4MB video RAM, etc.)
  103. Re:Three + three + three... ;-) by Puu · · Score: 1

    First off, I'm late here, but thanks for replying! Hope you come across this sometime browsing your posts list...

    There is a difference. As I understand it, TAA is anti-aliasing (increasing the sample count / sampling frequency) in the temporal domain as opposed to spatial AA. An accumulation buffer is the technical method to implement the consept of TAA. An accumulation buffer can be used for more specific things also, such as the motion blur effect, depth of field effect, soft shadows, etc... (The stuff 3dfx evangelised for Voodoo5. Their "Tarolli buffer" was a proprietary implementation of a generic accumulation buffer.) You spot the slight difference in the hierarchy of things :-)

    You're right, in OGL you can't do TAA within a single frame, for the reasons you described. But you can use the accumulation buffer to combine consequent finally-rendered frames to do TAA. There, you're just blending whole bufferfuls of pixel color data. -- Although with those specific "3dfx effects" such as motion blur you'd indeed need to remember poly info from scene to scene; I don't know how they did it internally (a multi-scene vertex buffer?), nor whether it worked in OGL at all. I know they performed their FSAA grid rotation by jittering the geometry slightly from frame to frame (scene to scene), so some inter-scene magic was done.

    There's good articles on it at Beyond3D.com -> Articles -> T-buffer Investigated, if you're interested in gamming tech.

    And all AFAIU, I'm no pro here, just a 3D aficionado :-)

  104. Re:Three + three + three... ;-) by yerricde · · Score: 1

    TAA is anti-aliasing (increasing the sample count / sampling frequency) in the temporal domain as opposed to spatial AA.

    And then low-pass filtering in the temporal domain and downsampling to 70 Hz produces a blur effect, right?

    But you can use the accumulation buffer to combine consequent finally-rendered frames to do TAA.

    Which is exactly what I said in the first place: render five frames, accumulate them (rectangular FIR low-pass filter), and you get TAA, which is the "motion blur" that makes movies look good even though they're 24 fps.

    so some inter-scene magic was done

    But no correlation of geometry from scene to scene, right? That would produce really bad artifacts when panning over a fine triangle mesh.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  105. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 0

    FORTUNE'S GUIDE TO DEALING WITH REAL-LIFE SCIENCE FICTION: #6
    What to do...
    if a starship, equipped with an FTL hyperdrive lands in your backyard?
    First of all, do not run after your camera. You will not have any
    film, and, given the state of computer animation, noone will believe
    you anyway. Be polite. Remember, if they have an FTL hyperdrive,
    they can probably vaporize you, should they find you to be rude.
    Direct them to the White House lawn, which is where they probably
    wanted to land, anyway. A good road map should help.

    if you wake up in the middle of the night, and discover that your
    closet contains an alternate dimension?
    Don't walk in. You almost certainly will not be able to get back,
    and alternate dimensions are almost never any fun. Remain calm
    and go back to bed. Close the door first, so that the cat does not
    wander off. Check your closet in the morning. If it still contains
    an alternate dimension, nail it shut.

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...