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.
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!"
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021118/gefo rcefx-03.html
Gainward makes a dual-DVI card
Mod me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
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"
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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."
.13 micron process will improve and NVidia will be able to scale it up."
.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).
.13u with the R350, they will with the R400 because they are a product-cycle ahead of nVidia.
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
You assume too much about nVidia's/TSMC's
"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
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.