Slashdot Mirror


NVIDIA Gives Details On New GeForce 6

An anonymous reader writes "According to Firingsquad, NVIDIA will be announcing a new GeForce 6 card for the mainstream market at Quakecon this week. Like GeForce 6800, this new card will support shader model 3.0 and SLI (on PCI Express cards), so you can connect two $199 cards together for double the performance. NVIDIA will also be producing AGP versions of this card as well."

327 comments

  1. Imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    A beowolf cluster of video cards...??? Oh wait...

    *Ducks.

    1. Re:Imagine by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, some 3DLabs workstation cards let you do this. They have an external connector so that you can join a load of them (in different machines) together to make a rendering cluster. Of course, if you want to use commodity hardware (and don't mind a 2 frame latency) you could always use Chromium.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  2. Contents in case of /. by buro9 · · Score: 5, Informative

    If there are as many people out there with fresh copies of Doom 3 in their hands or winging their way to them as I suspect, then this will be slashdotted veerrryy soon.

    So here's the content:

    In last week's conference call ( http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ti cker=NVDA&script=2100 ), NVIDIA CEO Jen Hsun Huang confirmed reports that NVIDIA would be launching a new shader model 3.0 mainstream card shortly: "In a few days we're going to turn up the heat another notch. At Quakecon in Texas, a mecca for gamers and truly a phenomenon to witness, we will officially unveil our newest mainstream member of the GeForce 6 family".

    Jen Hsun went on to say:

    This mainstream GeForce 6 will be the only shader model 3.0 GPU in its class and deliver performance well beyond that of the competition. PCI Express support is native and AGP support will be provided through HSI, once again showing the versatility of the HSI strategy...sampling started in June, production is in full steam on TSMC's 110 nanometer process, with shipments to OEMs soon.

    Price points and product names weren't discussed, but Jen Hsun also confirmed SLI support for this upcoming card, and also mentioned by the end of the year NVIDIA will have a top-to-bottom family of shader model 3.0 cards. In fact, he mentions "we're ramping 110 on two GeForce 6 families right now at TSMC, and very shortly we'll start a third...and this quarter we'll have five GeForce 6 GPUs in production, and that ought to cover us from top to bottom."

    1. Re:Contents in case of /. by Yodzilla · · Score: 0

      I'm not exactly sure what this means for the current crop of GeForce 6800s. Is nVidia writing them off and soon coming out with their better, or is this just adding to the 6800 line-up. I'm seriously hoping for the latter (as I want a BFG 6800GT badly...)

    2. Re:Contents in case of /. by mikael · · Score: 1

      Looks like anyone who pre-ordered a GeForce 6800 and hadn't received one is going to cancel the order, and wait for the new board. Reminds me of the days of the "Osborne luggable computer".

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    3. Re:Contents in case of /. by yellena · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From the article I took that nVidia will be filling out the rest of the 6xxx line (6500, 6200, etc). Your 6800 will still be the cream of the crop for the next 180 days or so.

    4. Re:Contents in case of /. by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      It almost sounds like a 6600 or something. Keep those GT preorders on.

    5. Re:Contents in case of /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right now the cheapest 6800 based card you can buy is about $275. They're making sub $200 cards now to fill out the bottom end of their line.

  3. I can't wait for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can't wait for the GeForce 27, it's going to be sooo much better. :-)

    Seriously, can't they figure out a new name already?

    1. Re:I can't wait for... by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1, Funny

      Obviously, NVidia is naming their best cards in multiples of 3.

      So yeah, the GeForce 27 will be kickass.

    2. Re:I can't wait for... by gnuman99 · · Score: 1, Funny
      I can't wait for the GeForce 27, it's going to be sooo much better. :-) Seriously, can't they figure out a new name already?

      In other news, "I can't wait for the Radeon 35750, it;s going to be sooo much better. :-)

      Seriously, can't they figure out a new name already?"

    3. Re:I can't wait for... by interiot · · Score: 1

      You're encouraging the marketing department to spin new names? It's not like they don't do this enough already. What was wrong with the old name "Acura Integra" that it had to be replaced with "RSX"? Moreover, why is the "Acura RSX" distributed here by a company named "American Honda Motor Co"?

    4. Re:I can't wait for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      27!?! I don't want a measly 27 I want a 6800, which is obviously better by 6773 units of measurement!

    5. Re:I can't wait for... by solive1 · · Score: 1

      Wait... I've got it... GeForce FX 2!

    6. Re:I can't wait for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever notice that the symbol on the Acura cars looks suspically like the Honda "H" except the tops are pointed in? It's because Honda owns Acura and Acuras are just "spruced up" Hondas.

    7. Re:I can't wait for... by PierceLabs · · Score: 4, Funny

      Its got nothing on that BitBoys card which is rumored to ship in the box with Duke Nukem Forever. :)

    8. Re:I can't wait for... by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 3, Funny

      Im sorry....I just couldn't resist.

      But this one goes to 11

    9. Re:I can't wait for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that in Japan, you'll see not only Honda Integras, but Honda Legends, Honda RSXs, and Honda Vigors as well.

    10. Re:I can't wait for... by rnelsonee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not only that, but there's no such thing as Acura outside the U.S. - they just call them all Hondas, because that's what they really are.

    11. Re:I can't wait for... by zx75 · · Score: 2, Funny

      They did : GeForce FX ##00/##50

      Seriously though, why should they? GeForce is an established brand name for NVidia, its recognized world-wide, why would they want to throw that away?

      Its like saying: Coca-cola, has been original, 'new', classic, etc, but couldn't they call it something else? They've been making the same line of product for over 100 years now!

      --
      This is not a sig.
    12. Re:I can't wait for... by MBraynard · · Score: 1
      Yes. Actually, all the major JApanese makes have 'luxury' lines in the US.

      Toyota -> Lexus
      Nissan -> Infiniti

      Honda -> Acura
      Volkeswagon -> Audi

      The new 'Scion' line is a brand of Toyota's targeted at the 'younger demo,' although I've only seen really old ladies driving them and find them hideous (except the coup looks pretty cool but has a puny engine).

      All of those companies started the luxury lines about the same time in the early 90s.

    13. Re:I can't wait for... by interiot · · Score: 1

      Not only are Scions hideous, but they're killing the better Toyota MR2 to do that. :'(

    14. Re:I can't wait for... by the+chao+goes+mu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since when is VW Japanese?

      --
      Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
    15. Re:I can't wait for... by jbltk · · Score: 1

      Not only is your post redundant, it's wrong.

      RSX=American Acura name for Honda Integra in Japan.

      It's still called an Integra there.

    16. Re:I can't wait for... by CriX · · Score: 1

      My tC oWnz j00!!11!

      --
      Moderation: +1 pwnage
    17. Re:I can't wait for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously though, why should they? GeForce is an established brand name for NVidia, its recognized world-wide, why would they want to throw that away?

      For the same reason they threw away their established Riva brand name that, attached to the Riva TNT and Riva TNT 2, accompanied their defeat of 3DFX and their entry into gamers' hearts, and was recognised world-wide?

    18. Re:I can't wait for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Volkeswagon -> Audi
      ...

      All of those companies started the luxury lines about the same time in the early 90s.


      Um... (a) Volkswagen (not Volkeswagon) is German, not Japanese, and (b) Audi existed as a separate brand long before Volkswagen bought them up in the early 90s.

      Please at least check your facts before posting nonsense.

    19. Re:I can't wait for... by GregChant · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe the official reason was that Integras were immediately associated, in the US, with "most stolen car". It was a marketing move: Joe Consumer thinks they phased out the Integra and came out with a new model, when in actuality, all they did was re-brand it.

    20. Re:I can't wait for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close. It is all about "branding." The Integra was renamed because the Integra name was more recognized then the Acura name. Honda America believed that this was hurting the sales of the higher end Acuras. Basically people were walking into a dealership and asking to buy an "Integra." This makes it harder for the dealer to convince the buyer to buy the higher end Acuras.

    21. Re:I can't wait for... by thrash242 · · Score: 1

      It'll be awesome for Quake 43 when it comes out. :)

      If that went over your head, it's an inside joke for those who've gotten that far in Doom 3.

    22. Re:I can't wait for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moron, I think he meant to say that pretty much all auto manufactuers have their luxurly line, and their standard line(s). It applies to pretty much every company, save for perhaps KIA (do they realize what that acronym means in English?)

      Ford->Lincoln (Mazda)
      Chevy(GM)->Pontiac->Buick->Cadilac (Saab, blah blah blah) (GM **OWNS** Toyota now, if you hadn't realized)

      VW Bought AUDI in the early 80's. Not early 90's. Since then, they've consolidated most of their stuff, and some parts are interchangable (the 1.8L VW engine, for instance is the same at the 1.8 in Audi 4 series, and Audi TT, The VR6 is the same thing in a whole host of Audi machines, including the TT, but it's merely called a 3.2 in the Audi world. It's sort'a sad, because Audis used to be at least somewhat more innovative over the rest of the card world. Now VW has the R32 Golf, which is basically the whole powertrain (minus the DSG gearbox) of a TT under a Golf body, for 20k less.

      VW in all actuality owns a shitload of brands, from AUDI to Bentley, Lamborghini to Bugatti, and probably a few more I forget about ATM.

    23. Re:I can't wait for... by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 1

      I don't need no convincing for a NSX!

    24. Re:I can't wait for... by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Its like saying: Coca-cola, has been original, 'new', classic, etc, but couldn't they call it something else?

      Coca-cola is the name of the company. They have hundreds of brand names

      NVidia has 2 brand names. GeForce and Quaddro.

    25. Re:I can't wait for... by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      Super Turbo Turkey Puncher is way better.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    26. Re:I can't wait for... by thrash242 · · Score: 1

      That guy's nephew in his email clearly says that Quake 43 is a lot better than Super Turbo Turkey Puncher. :) Not having played Quake 43, I'll take his word for it.

      Did you know you can actually play STTP in the kitchen before The Shit Hits The Fan(TM)?

      I'm glad someone paid enough attention to get what I'm talking about, though.

    27. Re:I can't wait for... by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      > KIA (do they realize what that acronym means in English?)

      well, seing as even English speaking people don't, I guess not.

      Care to enlighten us?

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    28. Re:I can't wait for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Killed In Action

    29. Re:I can't wait for... by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      To the same people that think Nokia is a japanese product?

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    30. Re:I can't wait for... by Corngood · · Score: 1

      Audi doesn't count, it most definitely exists worldwide, and wasn't created by VW in the early 90's. It's just another VW family member (like skoda, seat, etc.), not just a luxury brand.

    31. Re:I can't wait for... by rnelsonee · · Score: 1
      Yeah, car companies are funny like that. But you can still find Audis outside the US (as well as Lexus right?) The whole Acura thing is particularly funny because outside the US, they have cars identical to Acuras, but with a different badge. I made a nice chart once a few years ago showing who owned what, and what percentage. Wish I still had it...

      The new Scion coupe has 160hp, as well as a good stereo and 17" rims and all that. And for what, $16K? I'd like it if I were 17 again.

    32. Re:I can't wait for... by MBraynard · · Score: 1
      Just going to say this once cause you guys got all redundant with the question.

      I meant generally the luxury line. I presume pretty much everyone knows volks is German (the original Bug/Nazimobile designed by der-fuhrer himself). And while Audi may have existed, IN THE US, the Audi line is the Volks equivilant of the Japanese lux lines.

  4. Thank you! by merlin_jim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    SLI was such an obvious way to make graphics rendering parallelized! I'm glad they're bringing it back... I've been missing it.

    Does anyone have any idea how many PCI Express ports this uses? It's my understanding that you have a total of 20 and most motherboards are allocating 16x to the video... will this card require 8x? Or do you need a special motherboard for this?

    Anyone know?

    --
    I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    1. Re:Thank you! by dj42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ignorance warning: I don't know much about the technology, but scanline interweaving seems like it's difficult to pull off with present day technology because of anti-aliasing algorithms, temporal AA, etc. These things have to be calculated, and available on both cards if they are generating the image line by line (alternating turns). It's "obvious" in that it makes sense intuitively, but technologically, it seems like a more impressive feat.

      --
      We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
    2. Re:Thank you! by Short+Circuit · · Score: 5, Informative

      PCIe is a switched network on your motherboard. If you're technically inclined, read this article for further details.

    3. Re:Thank you! by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I think AA is doable over PCIe.

      Both cards render, share the output with each other, then both cards apply antialiasing based on the result, then output their respective lines. Maybe only one card need to output rather than having goofy cables.

    4. Re:Thank you! by hattig · · Score: 4, Informative

      This new SLI is not the same as old skool SLI.

      The new one divides the screen up into two sections, I assume that if both cards are equally powerful then it will be 50:50 or thereabouts. I assume a little bit of overlap so that anti-aliasing and whatnot works correctly on the seam.

      Then one card sends its generated half of the scene to the other, and they are merged and output to the display.

    5. Re:Thank you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't the videocards do like audio, i.e. double-buffering? (each card in a SLI setup displays every 2 frame, i.e. A/B/A/B/A/etc)

      Seems less complicated than doing shared/interlaced output to me.

      Heck, with this setup you could SLI to 8 cards

    6. Re:Thank you! by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Funny
      If you're technically inclined
      Unlikely, this is /. you know.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:Thank you! by dossen · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't care to google for the reference (I actually think I read it on dead tree), but I believe that what Nvidia is doing is to divide the screen in an upper and a lower part, with a boundry that is moved according to load. Then the two cards each render one part, communicating over the SLI link (and possibly the PCIe bus), and one of the cards output the finished frame (so one card would have nothing connected to its outputs).

    8. Re:Thank you! by ameoba · · Score: 1

      Umm...

      Considering that the PCIe spec allows for ports at 32x, I don't think you've got a limitation of 20 channels on it. From what I've seen, the only reason you've have any sort of limit is going to be chipset dependant.

      As for needing a special mobo for it, you're going to end up with a high-end workstation board if you want a pair of 16x ports unless SLI sparks enough consumer demand to bring the feature down to consumer boards. Even then, it's probably only going to be found on relatively high-end kit.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    9. Re:Thank you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while you might render as many frames as with sli, doubles buffering introduces a slight and by gamers not loves delay

    10. Re:Thank you! by So_Belecta · · Score: 4, Informative

      From what I read a while back, the screen isnt divided up into two equal sections, but rather in a proportion that would allow each card to do the same amount of work approximately, i.e. if they were working on a scene where the sky took up the top 2/3ds of the screen, while the bottom 1/3 was complex geometry, then 1 card would work on say the top 80% or so, while the second card would work on the bottom 20%, in such a way that neither card is ever doing significantly less work than the other.

    11. Re:Thank you! by the+unbeliever · · Score: 1

      What you're talking about is Alienware's proprietary "SLI" technology, that works even if you're using two different brands of video cards.

      What nVidia is talking about is SLI in the Voodoo2 sense.

    12. Re:Thank you! by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As I understand it, you're real close here.

      From what I understood (when I read an article about it around what, a month back?) is that yes, each card renders a seperate portion of the screen, but the spiffy thing about this new implimentation is that the ratio is dynamic; if there's a lot going on in one half of the screen, and not much in the other portion, the under-utilized card starts rendering more of the screen to allow more focus on the "action-intensive" area by the other card.

      Then again, I could just be talking out of my ass here - like I said, its been a while since I read the article, and I may have gotten some of the details mixed up with some other dual-card rendering schemes I've read about.

      --
      There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
    13. Re:Thank you! by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "SLI was such an obvious way to make graphics rendering parallelized! I'm glad they're bringing it back... I've been missing it."

      From an economics point of view, it sounds pretty cool. Spend a few extra $$$ to get a top of the line card. Then, in a year or two, pick up a second card when the prices are considerably lower, then you get 2x the performance without tossing hardware. Bitchin.

      Unfortunately, I wonder if that puts NVidia in an ugly place. It does set the bar for what the Geforce 7's have a minimum to do. But... that aint bad for us, now is it? :)

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    14. Re:Thank you! by Webmonger · · Score: 1

      It's not actually scan-line-interleave.

      To most people, SLI means "more than one graphics card, working together to produce a single image".

    15. Re:Thank you! by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I wonder if that puts NVidia in an ugly place. It does set the bar for what the Geforce 7's have a minimum to do. But... that aint bad for us, now is it? :)

      A properly run free market company should be able to implement any innovation they want, and as long as they charge a fair market price for it, stay in business no matter what.

      If Singer was charging what their sewing machines were really worth back in the day when they lasted for centuries, they would still be making them like that and you wouldn't have a world of disposable sewing machines, disposable cameras, disposable cars...

      In this case when I say disposable I am of course referring to planned obselesence. Which is good when you alert the consumer to your intentions, bad when you don't.

      hahaha maybe that's what nVidia should do... make the NV core start to lose stability about 3 years after manufacture...

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    16. Re:Thank you! by Karzz1 · · Score: 1

      Someone MOD parent up! That is extremely intuitive.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    17. Re:Thank you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're wrong. SLI in the Voodoo 2 sense died with the Voodoo 2.

      Please read up about the current nVidia solution before commenting again. Kthx.

    18. Re:Thank you! by tehcyder · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      I know you're not supposed to reply to yourself, but, honestly, being modded as flamebait? Do you have to put LOL or :-) at the end of every attempt at humour now?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    19. Re:Thank you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you're not supposed to reply to yourself, but, honestly, being modded as flamebait? Do you have to put LOL or :-) at the end of every attempt at humour now?

      Yes. As you so aptly pointed out, this is Slashdot.

      Oh wait, almost forgot the finishing touch: ;-)

    20. Re:Thank you! by x0n · · Score: 1

      But if you can connect two together, doesn't that mean you'll need two PCIe x16 slots? Any motherboard I've seen only has one x16 with the rest being x1.

      - Oisin

      --

      PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
    21. Re:Thank you! by nmk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think this is the reason that SLI is only available on the PCIe cards. PCIe provides an independent bus for each component. This means that, not only can components communicate with the processor very quickly, but also each other. My understanding is that the processor is also connected to the rest of the components in your system using a PCIe bus. So, due to PCIe, both the cards can communicate with each other as quickly as they are communicating with the processor. This should make it possible to have the data requisite for AA present on both cards.

    22. Re:Thank you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you will need a motherboard that has 2 pci x slots. as of now the cards only use 8x. this is why the latest round of cards are being released on both agp and pci x, however cards released after this (eg geforce 7) will be available only on pci x.

    23. Re:Thank you! by R4quez · · Score: 1

      I am technically inclined. I read the article weeks ago, and I found it quite disappointing. Not up to the usual Ars' standards...

    24. Re:Thank you! by johnnliu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Off the top of my head, I remember reading that NVIDIA's SLI uses one card to draw the top half and the other card to draw the bottom half (provided if you have identical cards, but I remember also that they will automatically do load balance).

      Thus, the anti-aliasing issue would only occur in the middle where they intersect.
      This can be solved easily by having the two cards both draw a few more lines of the overlapping areas.

  5. Does it ever stop? by xIcemanx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is there a point where graphics cards get so advanced that humans can't even tell the difference anymore? Or is that virtual reality?

    1. Re:Does it ever stop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is there a point where graphics cards get so advanced that humans can't even tell the difference anymore?
      No. :-)
    2. Re:Does it ever stop? by RealityMogul · · Score: 0

      Ask Sony, they ran commercials previewing the PS9 a couple years ago. =)

    3. Re:Does it ever stop? by DaHat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would it?

      So long as game companies turn out new games that make existing systems cry for mercy, (and we choose to buy them) we will always need to buy newer video cards in order to stave off choppy video for another generation of games.

      Same goes for CPU... although much of the difference is that most of those people buying a Geforce 6 are gamers and will use most/all of the power at their disposal... I'd wager only a fraction of those using the latest and most powerful CPU's from AMD or Intel use them to their full potential.

    4. Re:Does it ever stop? by Creepy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There still are a number of things that are way out in the future for graphics processors, especially polygon based - for instance, ray tracing has the ability to reflect off multiple surfaces (you could create a house of mirrors, for instance, with true curvature reflections), while polygon models have just started to make decent reflections on a single flat(ish) surface. Radiosity and similar effects are usually mapped beforehand because they are so processor intensive to calculate in real time, but could be used to cast "foggy" shadows and create other creepy effects. Another possibility is to offload the entire graphics model to hardware and do everything (e.g. frustum polygon culling and quadtree/oct-tree culling) inside the hardware instead of in software.

      It seems to me graphics hardware has a long ways to go still. There are also probably newer, more photorealistic models that have appeared since I studied computer graphics, as well. Virtual reality in a sense depends on audio and AI in a true form, but a virtual visual (and perhaps audio) reality is probably on the horizon. AI is probably 15-20 years down the line (at least for something that stands a chance at passing a Turing test, IMO).

    5. Re:Does it ever stop? by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Why not? The moment we can get graphics to the point where it looks like the real thing - then we will consistantly go for increased performance until we can have some crazy fast rendering that is so intense the human mind cannot experience it on a conscious level (A.D.D. anyone?)
      It won't stop until we get to "holo-deck" technology - and while we may not have the force field effect at the very least we could have a cool visual. So when you play Doom 50 you will be in a special suit that simulates blows, while having cool images run into you- all while you are standing in a special shower-sized box. Now that will be cool.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    6. Re:Does it ever stop? by smallguy78 · · Score: 1

      great idea for a movie oh, wait a second...

      --
      Nothing costs nothing
    7. Re:Does it ever stop? by mikael · · Score: 3, Informative

      Reality was predicted to be 80 million triangles/second (with 25 pixel per triangle?). Just about every console system and graphics card now exceeds this.

      The human retina consists of 120 million rods (wavelength insensitive) for peripheral vision and 6 million cones (wavelength sensitive for red,green and blue) for central vision. To match the full capability of human vision, you'd need a 12000x12000 monochrome framebuffer covering a field of view 170+ degrees, with a central region 2000x2000 with floating-point RGB colour, and it would have to update around 70 times/second.

      Graphics cards and virtual reality headsets are slowly edging up to the resolution for central vision, since there isn't much demand to support peripheral vision resolutions.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    8. Re:Does it ever stop? by noodler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      to add to his, an eye can move so that the placement of the cones and rods is different than a moment ago.,
      your brain can interpolate this difference information and thus enhances resolution even further.,

    9. Re:Does it ever stop? by f97tosc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is there a point where graphics cards get so advanced that humans can't even tell the difference anymore? Or is that virtual reality?

      As someone else pointed out, the monitors may very well reach the limit that the human eye can resolve.

      However, the computational problem of generating those pixels can at least in theory be arbitrarily difficult. If the problem of calculating certain pixels in certain situations is NP-complete then we may never be able to calculate them all in time. It remains to be seen whether this theoretical limitation will apply or if in fact some day all problems encountered in practice will be solved as well as a human eye can appreciate.

      Tor

    10. Re:Does it ever stop? by theslashdude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What part of virtual reality requires AI and what does it have to do with the Turing test?

    11. Re:Does it ever stop? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      at some point of course, but we're not going to hit that point in a long long time.

      but currently there's lots of techniques already invented that come possible to actually use now that the cards are fast enough(like lots of things in doom 3).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    12. Re:Does it ever stop? by the+chao+goes+mu · · Score: 1

      You dare to question a triple-buzz-word post????

      --
      Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
    13. Re:Does it ever stop? by johannesg · · Score: 1

      AI has been 15-20 years away for as long as we have computers (about 50 years). I fully expect it to stay 15-20 years away for the foreseeable future, i.e. at least the next 15-20 years ;-)

    14. Re:Does it ever stop? by |/|/||| · · Score: 1
      I think the poster was assuming that an interesting virtual reality environment would include other (virtual) entities to interact with. A strict definition of virtual reality in no way requires this, though.

      The poster is also assuming that the simulated entities would have to have true intelligence (and thus pass the turing test). This isn't really a requirement, either. Virtual reality doesn't have to be indistinguishable from ordinary reality. A simulated environment full of polygonal simpletons could be considered virtual reality - it just wouldn't be a very good approximation of "real" reality.

      Back on topic, we're a very very very long way from virtual environments that are indistinguishable from reality. Graphics keep leaping ahead, and in the next decade or two video games will look "real" - on a screen. To be immersed in that environment and to interact with it in a way that seems real - that's not happening for a while. For one thing, it's going to require some sort of crazy brain tap interface.

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    15. Re:Does it ever stop? by ShieldWolf · · Score: 1

      Who modded this up?

      The correct answer was already given: NO.

      Once video cards get as good as reality then you are done, end of story. Then it only becomes a matter of who can make them the cheapest/smallest/most efficient.

      It's like an argument I had when I was younger: can you be colder than absolute zero? NO.

      --
      just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
    16. Re:Does it ever stop? by |/|/||| · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but once we figure it out, you'll be shelling out big bucks every couple of years for a new AI card for your PC. ;)

      Seriously, though, AI got off to kind of a false start - everyone thought it was going to be easy for some reason. With what we know now, true AI is theoretically possible, but would require an insane amount of processing power to simulate human intelligence.

      Why start at that level, though? One of the things that we seem to be figuring out is that human intelligence is not the right starting point. Why not start with insect "intelligence"? Then you move on to birds, etc. In fact, you could do some pretty cool stuff with a simple level of intelligence - I'll bet FPS enemies would be more interesting to fight against if they had simulated cockroaches brains, rather than being driven by a grab bag of tricks.

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    17. Re:Does it ever stop? by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Once video cards get as good as reality then you are done, end of story. Then it only becomes a matter of who can make them the cheapest/smallest/most efficient.

      I believe that you contradicted yourself there.

      Cost, size and efficiency will play an important role in video card technology long after they get to the 'as good as reality' level. In technology, there is no such thing as 'done'.

      P.S. It's funny, you complain about my previous post getting modded up for saying similar things to others... and yet you too said things that had been previously said... although the others did not contain your contradiction.

    18. Re:Does it ever stop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AI is probably 15-20 years down the line (at least for something that stands a chance at passing a Turing test, IMO).

      Yeah, so is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (IMO).

      AI's a religion.

    19. Re:Does it ever stop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The issue is that there is no "good as reality".

      The human eye has a limited resolution, it's true. However, when the human head moves just slightly, the individual light sensors are displaced by an amount that is not necessarily a multiple of the smallest discernible element.

      The result is that one moment you're seeing, say, 100,000x100,000 pixels, the next moment you see the pixels that are half a pixel over, and your brain combines them into one image.

      There's essentially no limit to the detail the human eye can perceive as an overall qualitative difference between reality and an image. Until the graphics system measures the displacement of the head due motions as small as those causes by the human heartbeat and shifts the visual elements on screen by the thousandth of a pixel necessary to get the correct moire, shimmer, and all these other things, you will be able to tell.

      The question is, when will you not be able to tell while you're playing a game instead of staring carefully? The answer to that is, of course, now. Long time ago, really... people are willing to suspend disbelief for fairly crude representations. Hence the popularity of the cartoon. I forget where I am when I'm playing Windwaker, and it's hardly realistic.

      I think there will be a market for "I find it more difficult to notice this isn't real" for a long time, but that's a separate question for whether there is a level of absolute equality to human perception. Perception just isn't quantized in that way.

    20. Re:Does it ever stop? by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Reality was predicted to be 80 million triangles/second (with 25 pixel per triangle?). Just about every console system and graphics card now exceeds this.

      Only if all 80 million triangles/second were grey. Add texturemapping, bumpmapping and pixel shaders and you're looking at a fraction of that.

    21. Re:Does it ever stop? by mikael · · Score: 1

      Back then, the only texture mapping was single plane, if there was any. Nobody ever thought you'd want multiple cube mapped light sources generating projective textures with Gaussian smoothed shadows onto procedurally displacement-mapped surfaces with real-time generated cube-mapped reflections.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    22. Re:Does it ever stop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not start with insect "intelligence"? Then you move on to birds, etc.

      Yeah! Since it's too complex to understand, why not redefine "intelligence" to a more-easily-meetable standard with no observed empirical relation with the previous definition, and work towards that? Why not??

      I'll bet FPS enemies would be more interesting to fight against if they had simulated cockroaches brains

      Uh, have you ever pitted your "intelligence" against a cockroach's irl? They, like all other "intelligent" beings, run away from anything bigger than them and attack anything smaller. That would make for an extremely linear game.

      BTW, what makes you think FPS/etc. AI isn't already more advanced, relative to its regular operating environment, than cockroach instincts?

    23. Re:Does it ever stop? by ShieldWolf · · Score: 1

      My point was/is that as an INDIVIDUAL you no longer have to keep upgrading your card - what the hell is the point of buying a card that does the same as the one you have, yet is 1/2 the price - you ALREADY have it. MANUFACTURERS will continue to refine their processes, but you will no longer be compelled to buy them (you said you would be), so you are just wrong, and I am not in contradiction.

      --
      just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
    24. Re:Does it ever stop? by ShieldWolf · · Score: 1

      Interesting points, but the great-grandparent post was ASSUMING you could build a card X that can render to the point that you can't tell the difference between it and reality, and then it asked is there any point where you can't get any better. The answer of course is no, but this is assuming such a card could be built which is likely not possible (with today's technology) so the argument is philosophical not really technical.

      --
      just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
    25. Re:Does it ever stop? by GT_Onizuka · · Score: 1

      After purchasing one of those, I'd damn well better be able to jump through buildings like in the Matrix. That commercial was so lame. :\

      --
      If you take out Country Kitchen buffet, old people won't know what to do.
    26. Re:Does it ever stop? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      So when you play Doom 50 you will be in a special suit that simulates blows...

      What about a Leisure Suit Larry game that simulates blows? That'd sell like hotcakes!

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    27. Re:Does it ever stop? by |/|/||| · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Just for the benefit of anyone who bothered to read the AC's post...
      Yeah! Since it's too complex to understand, why not redefine "intelligence" to a more-easily-meetable standard with no observed empirical relation with the previous definition, and work towards that? Why not??
      Cockroaches gather information from their environment, process it, and produce output. You might not call that intelligence, as intelligence implies some sort of abstract reasoning, but you could also say that our "intelligence" is merely a more complex way of doing the same thing. In fact, there seems to be a gradient of information processing complexity from bugs up to humans. Many of the organisms in between are able to behave in "intelligent" ways, depending on your definition.

      So, you want to make an artificial brain that you can have a conversation with. Do you think you'll have better luck aiming for that level of complexity on the first shot, or do you think it would be smarter to make a bug-level brain, understand how it works, then build your way up from there? If you ask me, it seems like the *only* way to do it. In fact, I'm guessing that artificial brains aren't going to be designed by anyone, but developed through artificial selection. Humans didn't just evolve out of nowhere - our brains followed a long and complicated path to get to where they are today.

      Maybe a cockroach brain isn't advanced enough to make for an interesting opponent, but I don't think it would take much more. Super ant brains, maybe. The cool thing about moving from expert systems to true simulated "brains" is the emergent behavior. Characters can react to their environment in ways that today's characters can't. With a good physics engine, the character would be able to use its limbs to balance or otherwise control movement in a very believable way.

      BTW, what makes you think FPS/etc. AI isn't already more advanced, relative to its regular operating environment, than cockroach instincts?
      Now that would be a cool experiment - Quake3 bots vs giant cockroaches with rail guns on their heads! Of course I don't mean actual cockroach brains. I mean a brain with the same level of complexity as a cockroach brain, but evolved to have whatever instincts you require - like the ability to aim a rail gun.

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
  6. Only $200? by Gamefreak99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Only $200?

    This should be interesting to see and good for competition to say the least.

    1. Re:Only $200? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you'll be needing 2 of them. so there goes $400 :-(

    2. Re:Only $200? by Gamefreak99 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You need two fo them? I was under the impression that you'd be fine with one and two was just double the fun...

    3. Re:Only $200? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      You need two for SLI, but of course one will work just fine on its own.

    4. Re:Only $200? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Perhaps this will be the new GeForce 4200? You know, an afforable card that actually will give you good performance at a cheap price for years? People with the 128MB version are still able to play the latest games like Doom 3 which is pretty impressive considering how cheap they were. Anyway unfortunatly I have the 64MB version so its indeed time to upgrade, hopefully this new "low-end" card will be the ticket.

    5. Re:Only $200? by vxvxvxvx · · Score: 1

      I also use a 4200, though I got the 128mb version. At the time I purchased mine the fx line had been out for a short time, the 5200 cost about the same as the 4200, and everyone was telling me to purchase a 5200 for dx9. Hah, look at their 5200's now!

  7. Only two? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is nice and all, but it's kind of ridiculous to only be able to link two video cards together. What of one of them dies? Then you're back to single speed performance until you can get a replacement. I would much rather get a RAIVC-5 array of, say, five to ten video cards. Then if any one dies, no big deal; the others can handle the load. And does anyone know if these new NVidia cards will be hot-swappable?

    1. Re:Only two? by metalac · · Score: 0

      ummm they are not hard drives you have to think of OS Support for something like that, plus you'd need a completely new case and mobo design to make something like that hot swapable. Try pulling something that connects directly to your mobo without opening a case. Hard drives are easy to hot swap since they connect to mobo via cable not directly. Plus from what I read they really don't scale so well, so putting two cards together will give you about 10-25% more performance. So I assume that puting 5 of them together couldn't give you more than 50-100% extra performance hardly worth the $1000 you might spend on those five cards.

    2. Re:Only two? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humor is totaly lost on you

    3. Re:Only two? by ZagNuts · · Score: 1

      Plus from what I read they really don't scale so well, so putting two cards together will give you about 10-25% more performance.

      Actually they do scale well.

    4. Re:Only two? by Nitromaroder · · Score: 1

      Well, usually one is for vertical and the other for the horizontal rendering. At last it was Voodoo2, and I had 2 of them. Yes, playing at 1024x768 was great... I miss these days. ;)

    5. Re:Only two? by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This does raise an interesting point, I think. NVIDIA seems to have let the cat out of the bag. A display card that can coordinate with another display card, perhaps doubling performance. Why buy next year's card that doubles your performance when you can buy last year's card and add it to your existing duplicate card for way less than paying the premium for the bleeding edge?

      BTM

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    6. Re:Only two? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this the moment you say:

      wtf lol

    7. Re:Only two? by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Will last years card be able to work with this new found technology? Nvidia might not offer that can't of support (be it by choice or by natural design).

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    8. Re:Only two? by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's true now, but what about in 2006 when the card they're releasing right now is "last year's card"?

      The real thing you'd be giving up by doing this is features. You wouldn't get the next version shader model support, and probably not as much VRAM as you could have gotten on a high end 2006-era card.

    9. Re:Only two? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Because next year's card will support 5.0 shaders or some other feature that you want for DoomIII: The Extra levels, which SLI can't do.

    10. Re:Only two? by Spokehedz · · Score: 4, Funny

      And does anyone know if these new NVidia cards will be hot-swappable?

      I belive that PCI-Express is, in fact, hot swappable.

      *Checks google*

      Yes. It is infact hotplug/hotswap capable. I dunno how good your os (*cough*windows*cough*) will react to you unplugging the VC though... I'm sure that Linux will have wonky support for it initially, eventually getting stable and usable support about the time that PCI-Express will be obsolete... ;)

    11. Re:Only two? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, usually one is for vertical and the other for the horizontal rendering.


      Then who renders the diagonals?

    12. Re:Only two? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Touching a circuit board (with solder points all over it) while it is powered to a computer, whether the computer is supposedly "hot-swappable" or not, will indeed produce something hot: burning flesh as current runs through the shorts created by your fingers.

      Before any PCI tech could be hot-swappable, it would need to be entirely encased in plastic.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    13. Re:Only two? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That shows how much you know. PCI *IS* currently hot swappable in many server systems.

      2) We're talking about 12v max. Most of the stuff running around on a PCB is ~5V. In other words, it's not enough to conduct readily over your skin. Do you get burnt if you put a freakin 9V battery up to your skin? Does it even heat up (indicating some transference of charge)? NO.

      PCBs ARE encased in plastic, if you haven't noticed. It's a sprayed on lacquer, for fuck's sake. Go ahead, scrape some off an old motherboard.

    14. Re:Only two? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Shows waht I know? Yeah, I don't design or manufacture hardware. BUT I've been shocked pretty badly when accidentally touching a board in my PC while playing with a fan in there. So yes, it is possible.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    15. Re:Only two? by prockcore · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes. It is infact hotplug/hotswap capable. I dunno how good your os (*cough*windows*cough*) will react to you unplugging the VC though...I'm sure that Linux will have wonky support for it initially

      So that's why I couldn't see anything, I forgot to mount my videocard!

    16. Re:Only two? by netsharc · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they can mix&match, and let the old card render parts of the scene which doesn't need this special effect. But with shaders, I guess you'd have a screen which uses it 100%, if you want to make it look right.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    17. Re:Only two? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      The halfass shooter games that they make, yeh. But you'd be suprised how simple some everyday things should be to render, if anyone ever got around to doing it right.

      What about the entire sky, day or nighttime? Daytime, you might have clouds that can be pretty intensive... but they should be able to nail those cloudless days. Nighttime, I figure 150 stars in a 60 degree cone of view. Instead of using those dumb old skyboxes that smear the stars except for one straight in the middle, why not render nice anti-aliased and bright stars with polar coordinates? Constellations would be recognizable, no parallaxing... hell, the moon itself (since it always has the same face to us) could be rendered this way, looking almost photorealistic. Rendered as a flat circle with its X and Y determined the same way a star's is.

      You'd think the way they write games now, we all live in underground tunnels like morlocks or something.... an entire hemisphere of stuff to render is usually as simple as I've just mentioned. Hell, having the more primitive card just render up clouds the whole time, for when the more advanced one gets ready to render it as a single rect across the skydome.

      Lots of interesting things could be done, if they only bothered to do them.

  8. Two cards == 2x performance by hal2814 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I might need to dust off my textbook from "Parallel and Distributed Computing", but I'm pretty sure that getting double the performance from two cards is about as likely as getting double the performance from two processors. It's just not likely unless the graphics routines can split up jobs perfectly and not suffer from any overhead for communication. I imagine there will be a noticeable performance increase from 2 cards working in parallel since graphics algorithms do have a tendency to be very parallelizable, but claiming double performance in naive at best and dishonest at worst.

    1. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by rokzy · · Score: 4, Informative

      well yes it can be split e.g. odd numbered lines and even numbered lines.

      depending on the scene it won't always be a perfect split of the workload, but it should be pretty damn close.

    2. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by at_18 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Graphics is easily parallelizable, and SLI is actually almost perfect: have one card draw half of the scanlines, and the other card the rest. True, T&L and other stuff must be replicated, but that's a negligible part of the work nowadays.

    3. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by caitsith01 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't they interlace the lines, with each card doing an alternate line?

      I think that this is actually a rare case where you can actually get close to 200% performance. For one thing, the job that is being done is very well understood and the cards need zero flexibility - hence they can write very specialised software that does one thing and does it very efficiently.

      For another thing, many of the common problems of parallel computing are caused by communications, and in the case of SLI the two 'nodes' do not need to communicate - the mothership (i.e. the CPU via the PCIx bus) does all the organisation and communicating, and even that is basically one-way, so there is very little in the way of latency related issues. From a software point of view, the only real task is to shovel half the data one way, and half the other way - significantly easier than, say, a system where you have to constantly send and receive data to a range of nodes operating at different speeds.

      I seem to recall that the Voodoo II (bless its zombie bones) was able to get near 2x performance in parallel.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    4. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by Egekrusher2K · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Umm... it's been proven through benchmarks that there is a minimum 70% increase in performance, scaling all the way up to 90%... I'd say "double" is pretty accurate, wouldn't you?

      Don't speak unless you know what you're talking about. KTHXDIE.

      --
      Listen to my experimental-industrial-techno!
    5. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by hal2814 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, "double" would be 100% increase in performance. Claiming double when getting 70-90% is just as dishonest in my opinion as hard drive manufacturers that claim they have 100GB disks but claim that a GB is 1000000 bytes.

    6. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Hold the horses. SLI almost perfectly doubles the raster speed (Z-buffer checks, texture lookups, frame buffer writes), but pretty much everything else is performed at normal speed because it is executed redundantly on both cards. Especially with the ever increasing complexity of (vertex) shader programs, parallelization isn't as effective as you may think it is.

      If you're going to use highly complex vertex shaders and lots of geometry information, you're better off with one of the other ways of splitting the workload.

    7. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Because of how (like you said) graphics algorithms are good for parallel scenarios and the fact that most data is flowing in one direction, I'd have to say your getting at least 199% of the performance of one card which is close enough to 2x for me.
      Regards,
      Steve

    8. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by Karhgath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      200% increase != 2x. 200% increase == x3.
      100% increase = 2x.

    9. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 1

      This is the NEW implimentation of SLI, not the old Voodoo school of thought. In this version, each card renders a different part of the screen, not every other line.

      --
      There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
    10. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by Dekar · · Score: 1

      Not to be a smartass, but if a company sold me a 100GB HD with gigabytes of only 1000000 bytes, I'd be pretty pissed off too!

    11. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't they interlace the lines, with each card doing an alternate line?

      That's the way the old Voodoo cards did it, but that's not how it works with the new nVidia cards; they just split the screen into 2 halves (I believe the actual size of each portion is dynamic, to allow for a more even work load between the cards when one portion of the screen is recieving more action than the other) and each card renders its own half.

      --
      There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
    12. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by airjrdn · · Score: 1

      While I don't agree that 70% to 90% is double, I'd hardly call the post flamebait.

    13. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Good to see your checking posts for errors, but while your post is accurate, it in no way has anything to do with my post. I stated 199% of one card, not a 199% increase of one card. In math terms: 199% of X is represented as 1.99 * X == roughly 2X. Your thinking X + 1.99 * X == roughly 3X. So I was right and needed no correction :) Wording is everything, but thanks anyway.
      Regards,
      Steve

    14. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by moonbender · · Score: 1

      I'd agree if it weren't for: "Don't speak unless you know what you're talking about. KTHXDIE." That's totally inappropriate especially considering the original poster was both knowledgeable and polite.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    15. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by ThrasherTT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you sure you know what "T&L and other stuff" means? Transform & Lighting... nowadays, you need to think of it this way: Transform ~= Vertex Shader (vertex-level lighting is done here), Lighting ~= Pixel Shader. Given the advances in "T&L" with GPUs, do you really think that "that's a negligable part of the work nowadays"? So basically, because of the non-pixel-specific nature of Vertex Shading, each card needs to run the appropriate vertex program on each vertex that it might need to have data for in rasterization. They could do some neat stuff with sending particular fragments to another card for pixel shading, which may be what they are doing. That'd make this new SLI system likely to perform about as well as a single card with twice the memory bandwidth and twice the pixel shader pipelines. It'll certainly be faster, but IMHO, until it matures it won't get near 2x speed.

      --

      All Your Memory Are Belong To Java
    16. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 1

      hmmmmmm, I really don't know how this is supposed to work (haven't read the articles) but it shouldn't be too hard to do the following:

      - both cards to the 'flat surface' pass on the full scene (aka, vertex transform, visibility testing etc. etc., the 'T' part of T&L), this means a (supposedly) negligible slowdown (as you're doing only very basic transforms to get to a flat shaded view of the world)

      - based on this result (and maybe some other 'hints' like number of shaders associated to things) the drivers decide on a scene split (say, top 60% of the screen to card #1 and bottom 40% to card #2): I'd assume you'd always want the 'bigger' portion to go to the screen-connected card to minimize the amount of data to be copied later on.

      - each card now 'throws away' the scene data it's not interested in.

      - card #1 (connected to the screen) starts rendering normally to a back buffer

      - card #2 (not connected) starts rendering to a back buffer.

      - once card #2 is finished its back buffer is copied to card #1 and probably there is a very small anti-aliasing pass applied to the 4-5 pixel-wide 'seam' to make it invisible. After this card #1 flips the back buffer to front and everything starts again.

      - this could obviously be generalized to 3+ cards if there were more available PCIe slots.

      - Note that all of this would not require a physical connection between the two cards per-se, I'm assuming that since this connection exists at least the buffer copying will be done over it rather than on the PCIe bus (which would make a lot of sense).

      In the end, the more shader stuff you have going on, the closer to a 100% speedup you'll likely get. Again, this is all off the top of my head, I haven't been following how NVIDIA said their 'SLI' solution is going to work.

      --
      -- the cake is a lie
    17. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't lnow about video card, but, in some situation, you can have more than a 2x performance with two CPU. If you think it's absurd, then it's because you don't understand how computers work.

    18. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by solive1 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Voodoo II... how I miss that card. Those were the days... back before you had to upgrade your graphics card every 4 months. Sometimes I wish 3dfx was still around. But, alas, nVidia killed them off. Back in the day, most games were coded to take advantage of 3dfx hardware, and you didn't have to worry about whether the design group was an nVidia or ATI fan. Things were simpler then, and I enjoyed it.

    19. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by ThrasherTT · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is (I think) you've automatically made every frame at least two passes, one to figure out which card should render which portion of the screen, and one to actually do it. I need to read more about how they are getting the two cards to work together as well, though. It's most certainly not as simple as the Voodoo2 SLI systems :)

      --

      All Your Memory Are Belong To Java
    20. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seem to recall that the Voodoo II (bless its zombie bones) was able to get near 2x performance in parallel.

      That's because 3D games of that era were fill-rate bound.

      Modern 3D games are not fill-rate bound; programmable rendering pipelines are what use the horsepower in newer cards. And it's not so simple to have two cards doing half the calculations each.

    21. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 1

      yeah, but the first pass (the one to decide who renders what) takes only a fraction of the time of the second as it's only basic vertex transforms: NO shaders, AA, AF, etc. etc. which in the latest generation of games are really what causes slowdowns.

      I mean, a 6800 ultra does something like 400+fps in quake3 right? now, imagine how even faster it could be if you removed all the dynamic lights, textures and so on (since this is coarse grained you could even have the first pass at 640x480 or less regardless of the screen resolution): in the grand scheme of things this 'redundant' first pass would cost maybe a 1-2fps hit in a game like Doom3, which is dwarfed by the speedup achieved by having a 2nd card to split the work with.

      --
      -- the cake is a lie
    22. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by ThrasherTT · · Score: 1

      It still seems to me like that'd be a bad idea. The applications that use such a system would have to be written specifically to take advantage of it. If not, the driver/card would have to cache the entire frame's operations before being able to begin the real rendering pass.

      Maybe it'd be better to just start at a 50/50 split, then based on which card finishes first, adjust the split per-frame to match the actual load of the scene? Or even use last frame's vertex-only results to compute the split factor for the next frame...

      --

      All Your Memory Are Belong To Java
    23. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1

      That would make it something other than Scan Line Interleave would it not?

      this sounds more like Asymmetric Split Screen Rendering - look i just made a new acrinum to go with the new technology! ASSR!

      (but since it has ASS... we'll call it... Nonsymmetric Split Screen Rendering - NSSR :D)

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    24. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 1

      That's because this isn't Scan Line Interleave. Its Scalable Link Interface.

      http://www.nvidia.com/page/sli.html

      --
      There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
    25. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by airjrdn · · Score: 1

      Understood. I thought that was part of his signature and didn't even pay attention to it.

    26. Re:Two cards == 2x performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they get +1 Insightful, while you get no mods at all. Seems the mods are just as careless as the rest.

  9. Confused with naming scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    My first NVidia card was a GeForce 256, but then I upgraded to a GeForce 2. Later I bought a GeForce 4MX card which was actually slower than the GeForce 2 in my older system. Lately I've upgraded to a GeForce FX 5600... now a GeForce 6800 is the best, but they want me to buy a GeForce 6? I can't keep up with this shit. So my $250 GeForce FX 5600 card that I bought last year is no longer any good? It runs Battlefield 1942 alright, but now they're saying it's not good enough for Doom 3 which I just bought but haven't installed yet. Ugh. I suppose my Athlon XP 2400+ I built last year is now too slow as well?

    1. Re:Confused with naming scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helping you out, here are the answers to your questions:

      Yes.
      No, it isn't any good any more.
      Yes, it is way too slow.

    2. Re:Confused with naming scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wahhhhh Wahhhhh Wahhhhhhhhhhhhh!

      if baby want's to play with the latest games, baby has to upgrade his toys.

      you have known for OVER a year that Doom3 will require more than the best hardware can provide at it's release. Yes it has been said over and over, that on the release day of doom3 if you buy the ABSOLUTE best everything it will not run doom3 as good as the game want's it.

      you bitching now only shows us that you are a insanely stupid nimrod that really should not be allowed near computers due to your incredible stupidity.

      Shouldn't you be out on a ledge somewhere?

    3. Re:Confused with naming scheme by iswm · · Score: 0

      Correct!

      --
      Buckethead
    4. Re:Confused with naming scheme by caitsith01 · · Score: 2

      Unless you're a total performance nutter your CPU and graphics card will do just fine for the next 12 or so months. You should be ok with Doom III at medium detail and 1024x768 resolution.

      They are talking about a mid-range GeForce 6-series, most likely a '6600', i.e. the next generation version of your current card. I would relax and let the prices drop.

      Also, your CPU is more than adequate for the time being. Don't listen to these idiots - they probably have aerodynamic fins and flourescent light tubes on their PCs.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    5. Re:Confused with naming scheme by Egekrusher2K · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's why it's called the "enthusiast market". It's for people who only care about top notch performance, not price. Your Geforce FX 5600 is fine for Doom 3, I'm running it on a Geforce 4 Ti-4200. You will NOT, however, be able to turn it all the way up. If you paid any attention at all 4 years ago when they first announced Doom 3, you would've known that you would need a top notch card at the time to play the game turned all the way up. Quit complaining.

      --
      Listen to my experimental-industrial-techno!
    6. Re:Confused with naming scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I have a 2.1ghz AMD with 1gb DDR and a 256mb GeForce FX 5900 Ultra that I bought a year ago for about $500 and I play Doom III just perfectly on my 23" widescreen LCD in 1024x768 resolution in ULTRA mode and it's as smooth as could be.

      I'd crank the resolution up even higher if it weren't for the problem Doom III seems to have in displaying itself properly in some dimensions on this monitor. For some reason, unlike every other game, Doom III will do 1024x768, but 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 cause it to only take up a portion of the full screen (useless).

    7. Re:Confused with naming scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm using a GeForce FX 5600 in Doom 3, and it runs fine at 800x600 in High Quality which is good enough for me.

    8. Re:Confused with naming scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you paid any attention at all 4 years ago when they first announced Doom 3, you would've known that you would need a top notch card at the time to play the game turned all the way up.

      Jesus Christ, I just want to play the game, not let it rule my life. The box says a 1.5GHz machine is the requirement with a GeForce 3 so I'm sure I'm fine, but why make a game that you need a top of the line machine to play at high settings? That's stupid and alienates 90% of your fan base for years until they upgrade to machines eventually that will run it. At which time I'm sure Doom 4 will be out and need a quad processor system and 4 video cards.

    9. Re:Confused with naming scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have the same problem with my projector, its would only display parts of the picture in 1600x1200
      only with the projector tho

    10. Re:Confused with naming scheme by scoser · · Score: 1

      Don't listen to these idiots - they probably have aerodynamic fins and flourescent light tubes on their PCs But I get a .1 FPS boost in Doom 3 with each new light I install!

    11. Re:Confused with naming scheme by airjrdn · · Score: 1

      My wife's machine (used for surfing, word processing, bill paying, etc.) is an AMD 1.4Ghz with 1G of RAM and a GF3. That's about the minimum specs you stated in your post. There's absolutely no way I'd consider it playable. I put it on there just to see how it would run and even at 640x480 @ Low Detail it was extremely jerky.

      It does however play pretty well on my machine; a P4-2.8Ghz, w/1G of RAM, and a Radeon 9700 Pro.

    12. Re:Confused with naming scheme by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Jesus Christ, I just want to play the game, not let it rule my life.

      Then you'll be fine. The game runs great on my P4-2.0 GHz w/ 512MB RAM and a similar video card to what you have (I've long since forgotten the exact number, I bought it to replace a GF4Ti that stopped working). I can't crank the graphics and resolution, but it still looks better than most other games out there.

      The box says a 1.5GHz machine is the requirement with a GeForce 3 so I'm sure I'm fine, but why make a game that you need a top of the line machine to play at high settings? That's stupid and alienates 90% of your fan base for years until they upgrade to machines eventually that will run it.

      Though I doubt it will run well on a 1.5GHz machine with a GF3 card, you have to realize that new machines sell with significantly better specs than that. My machine is over 2 years old (except for the graphics card, which still isn't top of the line) and runs the game fine.

      The game is clearly targeted at the same audience any previous id game was released to, meaning that the requirements are not going to work for the person that doesn't really play many games, but the game will work fine for almost anyone that plays any 3D games at all. For those that must have the absolute top performance, there is a significant benefit for owners of top-of-the-line machines, which is clearly a selling point to some individuals.

      The opposing view-point is to make a game that runs at its best on a mid-range machine. This satisfies many gamers that can't justify the purchase of expensive PC hardware just for gaming, but irritates many gamers that want to see what their hardware can really do before its out-dated by new cards and CPUs. It also leads to some level of decline when 2-5 year old consoles can compete graphically with up-to-date computers, as technology tuned for TV resolutions doesn't need to push as many polygons to look good (comparatively).

      At which time I'm sure Doom 4 will be out and need a quad processor system and 4 video cards.

      Probably. The one thing I've always liked about id's games is that they tend to push for the game to run on whatever top-of-the-line system is available at the time they start development, rather than developing for the most common system specs available at the start. The most obvious reason for this is that, by the time the game is released, those systems will be much closer to the most common system. Add in the significant work done in optimizations for the newest GPUs and processors as they were released (during the game's development), and there're benefits to be had for those that bought the newest stuff, while the people that aren't buying new hardware at release can still play. Considering this game's had one of id's longest development cycles, at about 4 years, most of the people that were aware of the game before its release have done some upgrading in the development period.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    13. Re:Confused with naming scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting... would it perhaps be the case that the video drivers are using the 3D hardware to scale the resolution? I have a hard time imagining what else could prevent scaling in a 3D-intensive game. The question is: does the scaling work in other games?

    14. Re:Confused with naming scheme by Equinox · · Score: 1

      ummm...yeah...pretty much

    15. Re:Confused with naming scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a GeForce FX 5600 (non-Ultra) and Doom3, Also P4 @ 2.4Ghz rev C w/ 800Mhz FSB and 1GB Dual Channel DDR 3200 RAM FYI.

      My results on timedemo1 were aweful. 13.7fps on the second run at 640x480 medium quality, with .x improvement in 640 low quality.

      I installed directx 9.0c and got the latest nvidia drivers and my fps jumped by approx 20fps, making the game playable. I'm running in 800x600 medium quality and timedemo1 reports approx 27fps.

      So I have a decent Doom3 experience, but I think if you want it to be the best you need to spend $400+ on a 6800GT. However, since Doom3 is playable, you might want to hold off on a new video card, considering Half Life 2 is coming and by then prices will probably have dropped some on the current top end. If you find your Doom3 experience acceptable, then you should probably wait a couple months to buy a new card.

    16. Re:Confused with naming scheme by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      It will run OK on your system. Just "OK", not really amazingly good.
      My new box was being shipped over when Doom 3 came out so I tested it on my old system. I was able to do 1024x768 at medium level detail on a P 2.4GHz (533 FSB), 1 gig DDR 333 and GeForce FX 5600 ultra. Framerates were a bit choppy - in the 20-30 range.
      New box with the 6800 GT, 3.2GHz, 1 gig DDR 400 - runs 1600x1200 high detail with 4X antialiasing at about 50-60 FPS.
      Does this matter? Well, I'd say that visually its a whole different ball game. It went from being a good looking game to being the best looking game I've ever seen. Also, I have a 19 inch monitor so lower res looks kind of jaggedy.
      For the record, I didn't upgrade just for Doom 3 - I've been saving since Far Cry showed me that my system was not gonna handle newest releases all that great. Call me stupid but I really prefer buying the higher end cards (usually the step below from the top). Next to this 6800 GT, the best time I had with a card was getting a GeForce 4400 when it first came out.
      Its a lot of money and if you are a casual gamer its probably not worth it. But just like people who spend WAY more on high end stereo or home theater equipment - if you are an enthusiast its worth the cost.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
  10. You know you're a hardware junkie... by bigmouth_strikes · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...when you see the phrase "connect two $199 cards together" and say to yourself "Hey, that's a good value!".

    --
    Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
    1. Re:You know you're a hardware junkie... by Warpedcow · · Score: 1
      ...when you see the phrase "connect two $199 cards together" and say to yourself "Hey, that's a good value!".

      Connecting two $199 cards together will probably give you 40% more performance than a $398 card, assuming that this new SLI will only have about 10-20% overhead, so yes it is a good value!
      --
      moo
    2. Re:You know you're a hardware junkie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's his point. It's a good value -- if you think you need 40% more power than a $398 card!

    3. Re:You know you're a hardware junkie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How depressing. I just droped $500 on my 256mb Geforce FX 5900 Ultra back in September and, less than a year later, it's going to be two or three revisions behind? Usually a top model card takes a year to be replaced, let alone be replaced twice or thrice over.

      On the other hand, the only reason I spent so much on a card was I wanted to build a new power house machine in preperation for Half Life 2 which at the time was slated with a SPECIFIC DAY of September 29th for release (I had already bought my copy in preperation on Amazon).

      Of course, a year later and we have no idea when/if HL2 is still going to come out and by this time, the card doesn't even quite match what would be needed for the highest rung of Doom 3's expderience (though it comes very very close).

      I doubt I'm going to buy another card when HL2 does come out. This card will probably last me another year or so right now.

      I don't really care to connect two cards together anyway. Just build me a single super kick ass card.

    4. Re:You know you're a hardware junkie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Been 2 years on my ATI 9700, and I'm playing Doom3 at 1024x768, 2X AA and still getting 40-50fps. Not bad for a non ps3 gfx card...

    5. Re:You know you're a hardware junkie... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How depressing. I just droped $500 on my 256mb Geforce FX 5900 Ultra back in September and, less than a year later, it's going to be two or three revisions behind? Usually a top model card takes a year to be replaced, let alone be replaced twice or thrice over.

      Graphics cards have been on a 6-month cycle since nVidia took over the market from 3dfx, with only occasional (maybe 2 or 3 in the last 6 years) breaks in that cycle. Therefore, a top-model card is about $100 cheaper 6 months after its release, because there's a newer top-model card.

      Of course, in many cases there isn't a new generation of cards on a 6-month period (usually every 12 months), but there are faster versions of the same generation of cards.

      On the other hand, the only reason I spent so much on a card was I wanted to build a new power house machine in preperation for Half Life 2 which at the time was slated with a SPECIFIC DAY of September 29th for release (I had already bought my copy in preperation on Amazon).

      Well, in the future, make sure you set aside that money to buy a new video card on the day that copy of HL23 or Doom51 comes out, instead of buying a new card in anticipation of a (even an announced, verified by the developer) release date. New video cards come out all the time, and each release tends to drive down the prices on perfectly good cards. Whether the delay is on the scale of Doom 3 (what was it, 6-9 months?) or HL2 (who knows any longer), you will either be able to buy the same card for less money, or a better card for the same money. Then again, you could have been enjoying your card on other games that actually shipped in the interim.

      I don't really care to connect two cards together anyway. Just build me a single super kick ass card.

      On the other hand, what if you could buy 1 really super kick ass card, and then buy another 1 in 6 months when HL2 is supposed to come out (no, not really, I have no idea when it's coming out) to get better performance without having to spend nearly twice as much on the latest, greatest card? I know it helped me out significantly when I bought my first computer that I could buy 1 Voodoo 2 card for $300 and then buy another one a few months down the line (still at $300) to get better performance than anything available at the time (for consumer-level graphics anyway), rather than wait another year for the $300 cards to match the performance of the SLI setup. It matches quite well with the reason I build my computers myself anyway: distribution of cost. Anyone can afford to buy a better computer if they can distribute the cost over time (one reason credit is so popular) than if they have to cough up all of the money at once (of course, when you're buying $300-800 parts, even the distributed costs can be a significant hit to the wallet).

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    6. Re:You know you're a hardware junkie... by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1
      One 15 letter word that can be spelled without repeating a letter is uncopyrightable. It may soon be, however.
      I can't take it, what is the word?!
      --
      [o]_O
    7. Re:You know you're a hardware junkie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "uncopyrightable". :)

    8. Re:You know you're a hardware junkie... by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

      owned, lol!

      --
      [o]_O
    9. Re:You know you're a hardware junkie... by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      How depressing. I just droped $500 on my 256mb Geforce FX 5900 Ultra back in September and, less than a year later, it's going to be two or three revisions behind? Usually a top model card takes a year to be replaced, let alone be replaced twice or thrice over.

      Your cash to blow and you're the one that made the choice.

      Personally, my limit is $150-$200 for a video card. Sure, the 6800UltraExtremeSuperDooper gets 3x the scores of my aging but trust GeForce4 Ti4600, but no way am I paying $500 for one.

      Instead, I'll upgrade to the GeForce FX 5900 XT, which seems to be a good tradeoff between cost/performance. From the benchmarks that I've seen, it's about 1.5-2.0x faster then my Ti4600, and the cost is easily under $200. Heck, I got a 10% boost in performance by switching back to older NVIDIA drivers, rather then using the latest and greatest for this 2-year old card.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  11. I'm out of it by danamania · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Since I don't keep up with things.. Is PCI Express way better than AGP, for bandwidth on graphics cards? If so - is there anything new from the AGP camp planned?

    I fear something like AGP EXTREME .

    1. Re:I'm out of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice troll.

    2. Re:I'm out of it by cjpez · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I believe it's about twice as fast as AGP 8x. Not sure if there's anything planned to expand AGP at all, but the PCI Express stuff is pretty impressive.

    3. Re:I'm out of it by Mornelithe · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't think there is an "AGP camp."

      PCI Express is a replacement for PCI and AGP on desktop class motherboards (I guess PCI-X might be better for servers, but I don't know).

      Its advantages are that it has switched uplinks, so, if I understand correctly, each device can have its maximum bandwidth between any other component. PCI shares its bandwidth between all devices.

      PCI Express 16x replaces AGP, and roughly doubles the bandwidth, I think. Then there's 8x, 4x, 2x and 1x for devices with lower bandwidth requirements. And you could probably expand to 32x if you really need more bandwidth than 16x. It's all about the number of "lanes" you devote to a card.

      Someone here has a link to an article on this stuff, in case you want a description from someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

      --

      I've come for the woman, and your head.

    4. Re:I'm out of it by the+unbeliever · · Score: 1

      AGP was a stop-gap solution when computer makers realized that the PCI 2.0 bus didn't have the bandwidth required for graphics heavy applications.

      AGP has always had a limited shelf life, and now it's finally coming to pass. AGP will still be the primary stepping stone for a lot of people though, and will eventually be "budget class" only.

    5. Re:I'm out of it by toolshed7 · · Score: 0

      AGP is basically a direct line to cpu, just like memory, that is why it is faster than PCI. PCIx just doubles the lanes, instead of single lane road, you got two lanes, I think that is basicly it. I think it went from 16 bits to 32 bits or it might be 32 bits to 64 bits, the later seems more logical.

      --


      Deserving got nothing to do with it.....shuffle
    6. Re:I'm out of it by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 1

      You're correct. Most reviews I saw around the 4X->8X transition would benchmark the Radeon 9700 Pro (then top of the line) and see about a 2% performance difference. The only major difference in AGP 8X was the fact that the 3.0 (8X) spec actually supported two AGP slots on a board. Although I have seen old Compaq deskpro boards that used a hardcore proprietary method of making this work (you WILL buy ONLY THESE PARTICULAR CARDS, which are pinned out unlike any other AGP card), I never saw any mobo take advantage of that X feature, although Alienware's SLI system was originally slated to use it.

    7. Re:I'm out of it by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      The atricle in the link mentioned above gives 2.5 Gbps per lane in each PCIe link. So a 16x PCIe card could use 40Gbps... No wonder SLI is back on the table with that kind of bandwidth between two cards. Apparently an 8X AGP slot can run at about 16Gbps.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    8. Re:I'm out of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      insightfull?!? NO...This parent post is exactly the opposite!!

  12. What bothers me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm all for advancing technology, but when it comes to video cards, it's all a matter of who can keep up with Microsoft's DirectX demands the best.

    Meanwhile, OpenGL, the industry standard graphics library, is getting left behind because every video chip maker wants to show off how well it supports GlibFlobber() DirectX 27 API.

    Won't someone please think of the industry standard instead of the proprietary (and very small market) "standards" of Windows?

    1. Re:What bothers me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The engines of Doom 3 and UT2004 are both based on OpenGL. Doom 3 convinced even ATi to reconsider their OpenGL support.

    2. Re:What bothers me by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      the proprietary (and very small market) "standards" of Windows?
      As a genuine point of information, do you have figures to back this up?

      It seems strange to me to talk of Windows being a small market, and why would graphic cards manufacturers bother about if it it was?

      I appreciate you are talking about non-games usage as well, BTW.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:What bothers me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      > Won't someone please think of the industry standard instead of the proprietary (and very small market) "standards" of Windows?

      In what illusion are you living?
      DirectX has long surpassed OpenGL in usability and usage.
      Its just easier to code for, it just works.

      Microsofts trick is not to provide the best OS (XP is pretty damn good thought), its providing the best coding enviorent.

      I just love coding for windows, its nice documented (b4 you scream, go see how many pages msdn.microsoft.com google has indexed) and WORKS.

      Unlike on Linux where I have to fight with tree hugging barefeet READTHEFUCKINGMANPAGE dopesmoking hippies who havent tried windows since Win95 and use this knowledge as a basis for real discussions.

      Arcane makefiles my ass, I love Visual Studio, I dig C#.

      I had to write a C++ device driver over the weekend, and string operations are just so tedious compared to C# - not even talking about memory managment etc.
      I pray for the day where devices drivers are all user mode & .NET

      Why are most Linux users smoking dope? Judging by their ego and state of mind one has to think they are constantly high on cokain.

    4. Re:What bothers me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh..if it's a 'very small' market, those companies wouldn't even bother trying to support directx, would they ?
      I guess we really need more good opengl games, like doom..which already made ATI scrambling trying to improve opengl support in their radeon drivers.

    5. Re:What bothers me by LordKaT · · Score: 1
      I'd hate to burst your bubble, but your "very small market" is called the "Gaming Industry." Minus Sony and Nintendo, Microsoft is pretty much the only release platform for many mainstream (read: revenue-generating) games.

      There's a reason nVidia and ATI show off GlibFlobber27() at high FPS: it makes them money - lots of it. And, the money isn't just from their latest and craziest graphics card (That only the hardcore gamer would buy) - that money will also pour in from mobile devices, on-board graphics, and the like. Dell, Compaq, eMachines, etc ... will readily buy up cheap on-board graphics as long as they can honestly tell the consumer that their computers will run Doom 3, or Half-Life 2 (they just won't tell them of the horrible framerate).

      The "very small market" you speak about is not as small as you would think.

    6. Re:What bothers me by NMerriam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfortunately, this is actually something GOOD for the video card companies (from a sales standpoint). Because the consumers need blazing DX speed, but the workstation market needs OGL, they can still charge a hefty premium for the better OGL support in a workstation version of the card, even though the hardware is 99% the same.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    7. Re:What bothers me by molarmass192 · · Score: 1

      With their new XBox deal, ATI are destined to become even bigger MS shills so I don't expect anything positive from them anytime soon. I support nVIDIA and their fantastic hardware/drives with both my money and words.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    8. Re:What bothers me by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      DirectX has long surpassed OpenGL in usability and usage. Its just easier to code for, it just works.

      This is like the Betamax / VHS argument all over again. Betamax was the better technology but because of clever marketing only, VHS succeeded.

      If Microsoft are one thing, they are a very good marketing company.

      I just love coding for windows, its nice documented (b4 you scream, go see how many pages msdn.microsoft.com google has indexed) and WORKS.

      Try typing "Linux" into Google one day and see how many pages of documentation there are for that also. Even better, go have a look at the O'Reilly web site and see the amount of excellent books there are for programming in UNIX (and Windows) there are.

      nlike on Linux where I have to fight with tree hugging barefeet READTHEFUCKINGMANPAGE dopesmoking hippies who havent tried windows since Win95 and use this knowledge as a basis for real discussions

      By the sound of it, you're hardly a Linux expert yourself. Stay off topics you quite clearly do not understand. Arcane makefiles my ass, I love Visual Studio, I dig C#.

      Your choice, your opinion - just stop dissing Linux purely because you cannot be bothered to take the time to learn to program in it's environments.

      Anyone who can load up a Visual Studio environment can write a program - but that does not make it a good program.

      I'd argue that taking the time to learn makefiles etc. makes you a much better programmer because you have a better core understanding of how the bits of the source code all fits together.

      I had to write a C++ device driver over the weekend, and string operations are just so tedious compared to C# - not even talking about memory managment etc. I pray for the day where devices drivers are all user mode & .NET

      Buddy, when everything is .NET you will not be able to program device drivers apart from your own - that's because every piece of hardware and software will be so wrapped up in patents and closed source, you'll have no idea how to program it unless you pay your monthly fees to Microsoft.

      Why are most Linux users smoking dope? Judging by their ego and state of mind one has to think they are constantly high on cokain.

      But it's our dope grown by our fair hands rather than the factory manufactured ecstasy pills you Windows zealots are on.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    9. Re:What bothers me by slashjames · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, >90% of the market share is not "a very small market". The duty of the company is to make money, standards or not. Right now, DirectX is the de facto standard for graphics, OpenGL or not.

    10. Re:What bothers me by be-fan · · Score: 4, Informative

      OpenGL is doing just fine. I had lot's of worries about it, back in the DirectX 7 era, when Microsoft was rushing ahead, and the ARB was dragging it's ass with the standard, but those fears have since faded. OpenGL 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 came out in quick succession, with each release maintaining feature-parity with DirectX. Vendor support, from NVIDIA anyway, has been excellent, with new driver releases supporting new features being released within months of each updated standard.

      OpenGL is about to get a big overhaul for 2.0 (due out this year at SIGGRAPH, I think), and should compete well with the DirectX updates in Longhorn.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    11. Re:What bothers me by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Correction: Direct3D is the de facto standard for *video game* graphics. DirectX has the sheer numbers, but OpenGL competes very nicely in the "$'s being made" category. $18,000 (the price-tag of the OpenGL-based Houdini 3D suite), buys you a whole lot of copies of Quake! When XSI or Maya replace OpenGL with D3D as their primary API, then it can be called the de facto standard for graphics.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    12. Re:What bothers me by EnglishTim · · Score: 1

      This is like the Betamax / VHS argument all over again. Betamax was the better technology but because of clever marketing only, VHS succeeded.

      I thought the general consensus was that Betamax had very little over VHS, whereas a VHS tape could hold two hours of video as compared to Betamax's one.

      Therefore, you wre much more likely to be able to fit a movie on a single tape with VHS, which was much more important to people than minor differences in image quality.

    13. Re:What bothers me by be-fan · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Correction: D3D is the de facto standard for "video game" graphics. Sheer volume isn't evrything --- $17,000 buys you a whole lot of copies of Quake! When Maya and XSI choose D3D as their primary API, then we can declare it the de facto standard.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    14. Re:What bothers me by be-fan · · Score: 1

      In what illusion are you living?
      DirectX has long surpassed OpenGL in usability and usage. Its just easier to code for, it just works.

      Are you high? I've coded for both, and OpenGL is by *far* superior. DirectX forces you to deal with this pseudo object-oriented interfaces crap,a nd has the classic Windows API flaws: giant structures with lot's of deprecated fields passed as parameters, terrible naming conventions, and API calls that don't carry their weight. In contrast, OpenGL is a fairly elegant API, with nice minimal interfaces, a higher level of abstraction, and API calls that do one thing and do it well.

      I just love coding for windows,
      You're definitely high. Tell me: have you ever used MFC? How can anybody still conscience coding for Windows after dealing with that steaming pile of shit?

      Arcane makefiles my ass
      Yes, "arcane makefiles" are so much worse than project files that are totally opaque, easy to break, and only work in one fricking IDE!

      I had to write a C++ device driver over the weekend, and string operations are just so tedious compared to C# - not even talking about memory managment etc.
      Did you use std::string and friends?

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    15. Re:What bothers me by Zwets · · Score: 1
      I had lot's of worries about it,
      Nonono. It's:
      • The parking lot's awfully empty today.
      • Yesterday there were lots of cars!
      --
      One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing to do and always a clever thing to say. - Will Duran
    16. Re:What bothers me by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is like the Betamax / VHS argument all over again. Betamax was the better technology but because of clever marketing only, VHS succeeded.

      Not really. PC game developers want new features supported by the API they use and the graphics cards said API will run on. OpenGL has extensions, which make it easy to add features, but not all cards will support the same extensions. Therefore, support for any given feature is quite varied for a range of cards that support a particular OpenGL spec. Beyond that, how long did it take OpenGL to go from 1.0 to 1.2?

      On the flip side, Microsoft adds features to Direct3D based on requests from video card manufacturers and game developers, usually releasing a new version (with backwards compatability intact in most cases) every year. This has allowed Direct3D to go from nearly 0 acceptance from developers to almost total domination of the games market in a relatively short time.

      The quality of the APIs is somewhat relative (in this case), as many developers will simply stick with what they're used to. The features supported from any card supporting DirectX 7,8, or 9, on the other hand, are quite uniform where the API is specified by Microsoft. This makes the API more attractive to developers. The quality of a given implementation of either API is often left to the hardware manufacturers (and their driver developers), and over time the game developers have managed to push those manufacturers that wish to stay in the business to improve their implementations (in the case of both DirectX and OpenGL).

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    17. Re:What bothers me by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      I'm very interested in good OpenGL performance, since my Linux workstation is used for scientific graphics.

      So are there any comparisons of rough benchmarks of such performance for recently-released videocards, along the lines of SPECviewperf?

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    18. Re:What bothers me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a lot of people out there who genuinely love using Microsoft products, and Microsoft APIs.
      They will always tell you how easy and elegant Microsoft's solutions are, and how much better than anything else they are.

      They will also always have one thing in common with each other.

      They will never have actually used anything but Microsoft products.

  13. Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    so you can connect two $199 cards together for double the performance.

    Much like you can duct-tape two cars together for double the performance (but certainly not double the speed).

    1. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Oh, but it is good value.

      You spend $200 now, so you can play the latest games, and then a year and half down the road, you spend $50 more for the second card, and still play the latest games.

      Sign me up!

    2. Re:Maybe by RPI+Geek · · Score: 1

      You've been watching old episodes of the Red Green show, haven't you?

      --

      - "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
  14. $199 by Distinguished+Hero · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the article:
    Price points and product names weren't discussed

    So where did $199 come from?

    --
    Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
    1. Re:$199 by Quickfry · · Score: 1

      The nearest figure given is $180 predicted in a comment on the article.

      But you know what happens when run through the slashdot filter...

  15. parallelizable by wiredog · · Score: 0

    Say that 5 times fast.

    1. Re:parallelizable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      parallelizable parallelizable parallelizable parallelizable parallelizable

      That wasn't hard, now was it? It's easy to say IRL as well. Did you even try saying it 5 times fast before posting?

  16. Doesn't work that way by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    Each card draws a scan-line each, all the way down.

  17. Real DirectX 9 by fostware · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All I want is DirectX 9 support in hardware, not the kludges which the current NV's have. The GPU makers churn these things out so quickly, yet they can't keep up with an industry standard a year old...

    --
    "We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
    1. Re:Real DirectX 9 by molarmass192 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Then go petition MS to create and distribute cards that supports their gd standard in hardware. I don't use Windows and have no interest in paying a fee to MS for having DX9 embedded into a card when I'll never be able to use it. If MS wants to pay for it and it's a zero cost addition for nVIDIA and it doesn't adversely affect OpenGL performance, then it would be inconsequential to me if it were included or not. Btw, what companies are in the consortium that controls the DirectX industry standard?

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    2. Re:Real DirectX 9 by canb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since when is directx the industry standard? I had the belief that openGL is, whereas directx is the microsoft standart.

    3. Re:Real DirectX 9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When making games nearly everyone uses D3D because OGL is old, antiquated and in need of a serious overhaul.

      So DX has been industry standard ever since everyone in the industry has been using it.

      Just like .doc is the industry standard for word processed documents. It doesn't mean we have to like it though.

    4. Re:Real DirectX 9 by maskedbishounen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wish DX would die. Quickly. Then maybe I could get some games native to linux...

      I know, I know. There are a few, but if everyone used OpenGL, it would be so much easier for them to port.. right? That "Sorry, we used DirectX" excuse most game makers throw about drives me crazy.

      Why, yes, I *am* waiting for the release of the Linux Doom 3 binaries. :)

      --
      "An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."
    5. Re:Real DirectX 9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, us games developers in general use D3D rather than OpenGL because it's a far better _gaming_ platform.

      The only reason anyone uses GL for games is John Carmack who decided upon it for whatever reasons he may have had (like it was the only hardware accelerated 3D standard at the time). You'll note however he only originally supported a non-standard Glide implementation that isn't actually OpenGL at all.

      You might also remember this pretty much destroyed the PowerVR and other tile based renderers - still IMHO a better solution to what we have now, just think, order independant transparancy...

      This is offtopic, however whilst not making a personal attack on Carmack it's plain to see he's done a deal of damage to the games industry as well as good. That's just one example, more recently the shocking behaviour to collude with Creative on patents he knows they can't uphold makes him much less of a character to be respected. Also the games brought out by Id epitomise the downward trend in games quality that's been going on pretty much since DOOM. Games are no longer rated by how well they play, but how well they look - technically (lets face it Quake looked beige and nothing special, but technically it was a great render engine).

      That's it, no desire to dump on Linux users, no conspiracy with Microsoft, it's very simple. D3D in general works, OpenGL is a pain in the ass. If OpenGL improves to the point where it offers some kind of advantage over D3D then developers may start choosing it, until then it's unlikley.

    6. Re:Real DirectX 9 by maskedbishounen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You bring up a very good point, and it was quite an ingenious move on Microsoft's part. DirectX, for various reasons, has become the standard. This is, pretty much in and of itself, the problem.

      Remember FrontPage extentions? And those silly non-standard tags IE can use, but nothing else can? We have good, decent (although not perfect) web standards (CSS, XML, etc.) and many web developers strive to comply with them. There's a big push from the W3 to advertise and get the word out.

      We need the same type of thing with game development, IMO. Be it with OpenGL, or perhaps something else. When companies set standards, they do so with their own self-interests in mind. Those interests may be harmful for us users! I'm not saying that any organization should dictate what developers choose to use, but an organization that would push for the advancement and perhaps standardization between/among of different ways of doing things would be idea.

      Ohh well. Just a passing thought. Off to lunch.

      --
      "An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."
  18. Let me be the first one to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whoosh...

  19. Oblig. Simpsons quote by caitsith01 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Moe: "And that's how, with a few minor adjustments, you can turn a regular gun into five guns." [applause]

    --
    Read Pynchon.
  20. Correct me if I'm wrong... by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...But does this mean you have to load the same texture data into both cards in order to obtain this parallel processing? Isn't that rather inefficient?

    1. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      the SLI implementation allows sharing of texture memory. thats why there is a bridge chip connecting the two cards. it effectively makes 2 cards 1 super card.

    2. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Rethcir · · Score: 1

      Either that or both memory banks would be used as one and the SLI bridge (probably) or the PCIe bus (probably not) would allow either GPU to access memory on its own or the other physical video card. Either way this will give budget-minded users more options in a few years when these cards are $199 each and the GeForce OMFG9000 is out for $500.

    3. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by xRelisH · · Score: 1

      My understanding was that the SLI interface allowed both cards to "share" the memory with low latency.

      Maybe Ars might help?

    4. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Pete+The+Hat · · Score: 1

      While shared memory would save a few cents its not such a big issue if each card is restricted to its own, you only load a texture once and not every frame.

      --
      Should virtual dogs poo?
  21. No by caitsith01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Based on recent cinema experiences, you would have to say were still a hell of a long way from this. I just saw Spiderman 2, and a lot of the CG work still looks totally artificial. Likewise, the trailer for I, Robot made me cringe with its computer-generated aura. Even LOTR looked fake in places.

    Considering these movies are using the absolute cutting edge of pre-rendered graphics technology, I would suggest we're still a decade or so from anything like 'real' looking PC graphics.

    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello blue Monday, huh?

    2. Re:No by noodler · · Score: 1

      the problem is not in the technology,'

      it's in the time you're willing to spent to make it look real.,

      and this directly translates to how much money you want to spend on the project.,

      just my 2 cents.,

      aka.,

    3. Re:No by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Which is exactly why it's going to take a while for video game graphics to look like current movie technology. You have 1/60th of a second to render a frame for a PC or console game, but a given frame in a movie like LoTR or Spider-Man may have taken hours or days to render, often using more powerful computers (and/or clusters).

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    4. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck? How is it that the parent post gets a +3 INSIGHTFUL and this reply is a -1 Offtopic? It is in direct response to the "insightful" parent's subject - which was CG and spiderman.

      God slashdot is ghey.

    5. Re:No by jcenters · · Score: 1

      I agree. Jurassic Park used CGI flawlessly more than a decade ago, but later efforts (Including its two sequels) just didn't look as good.

      What really makes special effects "special" isn't the "wow" factor, as much as the work put in. For example, I'm still amazed at the special effects and elaborate sets in the original Star Wars trilogy. They took hard work, creativity, and ingenuity, and created something really convincing.

      Then I watch the new trilogy and see nothing but CGI junk that some goobers created on a monitor. They're not nearly as impressive, or as convincing.

      --

      vi ~/.emacs

    6. Re:No by orasio · · Score: 1

      Your conclusion might be accurate, but your reasoning is quite flawed.
      Computer generated images need to come a long way in order to get as real as filmed stuff, but the fact that you can see fake stuff in Spiderman is just their CG artists fault. Cinema has developed many techniques to hide the tricks, so there might be a possibility to produce "perfect" movies right now, provided that they put enough creativity and work at it.
      The opposite is true, you can look fake even in real life (e.g. I like lara croft's CG-tits from Tomb Raider, the movie, much better than the one Pamela Anderson carries) .

    7. Re:No by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

      I would suggest we're still a decade or so from anything like 'real' looking PC graphics.

      Sheesh ... real, like the crap in my pants from playing D3? IMNSHO, It's real enough already. It can only get "realer".

      Thanks Carmack, sweet engine. You are da shit dood!

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
  22. Real world preformance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just wish they would give some real, across the board benchmarks. I want to know if it is going to give me enough additional FPS for nethack to make it worth the purchase? Would I have to get some exotic motherboard combo to make that happen?

    1. Re:Real world preformance by mcnut · · Score: 1

      it seems humor doesn't travel well across the internet: parent is trying (I thought sucessfully) to be funny. additional FPS for nethack? nethack.. you know.. the game that you could play on a 386 without complications? thats like me saying: I wonder if geforce 6 will give me enough extra FPS to use emacs, Vim, and mozilla firefox all at the same time?!

      --
      ok.. so heads you lose tails I win. right?
  23. How does it compare by AviLazar · · Score: 1

    How does this card compare to the 6800? I mean at 200 bucks, that sounds awefully cheap compared to the 6800 which is $500? If this card is better, I will shell out to buy two of them and a new motherboard - and my friend who just got his 6800 this past week will be bitter (he paid 400 for his one card) :)
    -A

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    1. Re:How does it compare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely this is some sort of crippled 6800. If they can provide near 6800 performance at this price level they are going to have a hot seller on their hands.

      If it is a crippled card, how long till some hardware junkie figures out how to re-enabled the disabled pipelines using scotch-tape and a paperclip?

    2. Re:How does it compare by Wofser · · Score: 2, Informative

      Probably half the speed as a 6800 Ultra. Its called Geforce 6600 and only have 8 pipelines (16 pipelines on 6800) http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17706

  24. AGP 8x by caitsith01 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Am I right in thinking that most of the current crop of video cards don't really push AGP 8x at this stage? I seem to remember seeing some benchmarks where high end Radeons were not really that much faster on 8x vs 4x.

    At least it will give 'gamers' a chance to brag about how fat their bandwidth is, I suppose.

    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:AGP 8x by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

      I have an AGP8x Radeon9600 Pro.

      My last motherboard was AGP4x (ECS K7S5A), and the card performed very poorly at high resolutions (1024x768 and above. 1280x1024 was unthinkable, it ran at 5fps)

      Upgrading to an AGP8x system (ASUS A7N8X-E) has made a world of difference.. UT2k4 looks awesome in 1280x1024.

      In short.. yes, current video cards have no trouble using the extra bandwidth, but it only makes a difference if you like to crank the resolution.

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    2. Re:AGP 8x by ThrasherTT · · Score: 1

      When you upgraded your mobo, did you upgrade your processor as well? IIRC, the A7N8X-E also supports dual channel memory access if you populate the appropriate DIMM slots. This could explain a large portion of your AGP 4x -> 8x upgrade.

      For example, I have an Athlon 2000+ (1.67GHz, 266FSB). I have a 9800 Pro 128MB. Doom 3's timedemo performance was around 32fps, up to and including 1024x768. My friend with a slower card (9800 128MB non-Pro), but a faster CPU/mobo (nForce2-based with Athlon clocked at 333FSB and 13x multiplier, using the dual channel ram feature) gets timedemo performance around 45fps. I upgraded to a 6800 GT 256MB, and my performance went up to ~37fps (again, timedemo). I can get this performance all the way up to 1280x1024 4xAA, but it never goes higher.

      The morale of this story is: there's more to modern games than GPU performance.

      --

      All Your Memory Are Belong To Java
    3. Re:AGP 8x by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PCIx also increases the bandwidth for reading data from the card, which can actually be a big win for certain effects.

  25. Two cards == 2x performance - maybe! by Zab+UvWxy · · Score: 1

    SLI, as 3dfx implemented it, had one of the paired cards render one scan line, then the other card render the next scan line while the first read in data in order to be ready to render the third scan line, and so on (this the term, Scan Line Interleave). I may be wrong, and mea culpa if I am reading your comment wrong, but you are thinking about the two cards sharing the workload in order to render the entire screen at once. This was not the case with SLI.

    I haven't had time (or inclination - I'm happy for now with my AGP Radeon) to read up too much on the new method of combining video cards to render, but I seem to recall hearing that Alienware was working on a way to use two cards to render a frame, but instead of the scan-line interleave of the Voodoo2 method, each of the paired cards would render half of the screen (e.g. card 1 would render from line 1 to the middle of the frame, and card 2 would render from the following line to the very bottom of the frame). This makes sense to me: you bypass synchronization issues that Voodoo2s were prone to at the end of the useful life of the product line (once the software far exceeded what the hardware could do), and you can theoretically double the performance, since each card only has to do half the work it would have to do on its' own.

    The downside would be that if one card is slightly out of spec, overheating or generally misbehaving, then you could have frames that look *really* bad, or you'd have to have some sync method in place, which would cut down on the benefit gained from separating the processing/rendering (but still better than just one card alone).

    Anyone have any details? Is this going to be a generic PCI-X thing, or is it specific to nVIDIA?

    --
    "I don't get it." -- ObviousGuy
    1. Re:Two cards == 2x performance - maybe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back when 3D cards where glorified rasterizers, the performance of the graphics subsystem almost doubled, but that was because the parts of the rendering pipeline which are harder to parallelize were executed by the host CPU instead of the graphics subsystem. Nowadays the graphics cards implement a much bigger part of the rendering pipeline, so simple SLI (Scan Line Interleaving) doesn't double the performance (of the graphics subsystem) anymore. They now use other ways of splitting the workload between separate graphics processors (tiles instead of scanlines).

    2. Re:Two cards == 2x performance - maybe! by default+luser · · Score: 4, Informative

      Okay, here's a guide for all you folks who are getting so unbelievably excited over something as mundane as pairing two video cards together.

      FIRST OF ALL: THIS IS NOT "SLI".
      Nvidia is simply leveraging the term to sell their version of the concept.

      SECOND OF ALL: THIS IS NOT NEW.
      In fact, every single consumer card that has attempted this in the past has been a failure.

      ** 3DFX Voodoo 2
      The performance of a single Voodoo 2 was so good that people waited for prices to fall before buying a second Voodoo 2. Sales of the Voodoo3 also suffered heavily because, under many conditions, the Voodoo 2 SLI performed similarly. Thus, the long-term failure.

      ** Metabyte "SLI"
      Shortly after 3DFX made "SLI" a household name, Metabyte developed a PCI-bridge technology that would split the framebuffer between ANY two cards and have them render in parallel.

      Sound familiar? It should. There was one major drawback: both cards would have to operate in PCI mode, negating some of the advantages the newer AGP cards enjoyed. Metabyte tried to license the technology to TNT2 manufacturers, but none were interested...mainly because the upcoming GeForce 256 would make ir obsolete overnight.

      ** ATI Rage MAXX
      This card featured two chips rendering a piece of the framebuffer, much like MEtabyte's technology. This was simply an attempt by ATI to get some experience designing a parallel-processor architecture, and to take some wind out of Nvidia's GeForce 256 sails. Because the parallelization was on-card, it could function as a normal AGP card. Bad drivers and lack of Win2k / XP support killed this card.

      ** 3dfx VSA 100 (Voodoo 5 5500)
      The VSA 100 was designed to be used in parallel in a fashion similar to the Rage MAXX. Although this card boasted many fancy features, it could not keep up in the performance race. 3dfx also found out how hard it is to make money when the chipsets on your cards cost roughly twice that of your competitors.

      ** Alienware "SLI"
      Yes, this is basically Metabyte's concept, but the appearance of PCIe has made it a reality for high-performance cards. PCIe also makes it possible for this to be developed entirely in software (Metabyte's vision required an on-card bridge), so why the hell wouldn't they market it?

      ** Nvidia Geforce 6 with SLI
      Two things are readily apparent about this latest attempt:

      1. The card is not a flagship, high-margin card. It is simply designed to lock-in users to a cheap Nvidia card now, and an upgrade in the future.

      2. Even in SLI mode, this combo won't exceed the performance of their top-end card, meaning Nvidia won't cannibalize upgrades for their next card like the Voodoo 2 SLI did.

      So sure, Alienware and Nvidia look like they've got a winner on their hands...except that there aren't many PCIe motherboards with dual 16x slots. Oh well, yet another niche-market-product-turned-failure waiting to happen.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    3. Re:Two cards == 2x performance - maybe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind a couple of things:

      1) The Voodoo 2 was a massive success, by anyone's standards

      2) Shortly after the Voodoo2 generation of cards, AGP came out, making SLI difficult or impossible, unless you put all the chips on card (Rage Maxx, Voodoo 5/6) which loses some of the value of SLI (buying a second card after prices go down)

      3) Only now has a multi-slot high-performance bus become available (albeit somewhat hard to find mobo support right now)

      Personally, I think it will do pretty well, and due to the performance crown type of numerical lead this will give nVidia, I would think ATI will have something like this in the works for the next major core revisions.

    4. Re:Two cards == 2x performance - maybe! by default+luser · · Score: 1

      The Voodoo 2 was a massive success, but it's success fed on itself.

      3DFX wowed the market so completely with the Voodoo 2 that the following events happened:

      * Their value segments (Voodoo Graphics, Rush) were instantly devalued. 3dfx couldn't bring down the price of these to compete with $100 entry-level cards, so sales slowed.

      * Everyone and their dog wanted a Voodoo 2, however, most people could not justify the purchase of a second card at $250-300 a pop. Thus, there were very strong initial sales, and most people did not purchase an SLI setup initially.

      In response, card production went through the roof during the second half of the year, and *poof*, there was suddenly no one there to buy the Voodoo 2. Heavy competition from Nvidia with the TNT meant less new buyers of the Voodoo 2. All those folks looking for an SLI upgrade to go with their existing Voodoo 2 were holding off for a good price, PLUS they were waiting for a game that could actually stress a single Voodoo 2 (can you say Half-Life?). Build-up of inventory meant the prices came crashing down.

      Then, once prices came down and current Voodoo 2 owners could justify the upgrade, 3DFX (now "3dfx") released the Voodoo 3, and expected perople to be "wowed" once again. They were not impressed, and bought cheap Voodoo 2s.

      How could 3DFX have avoided such a foolish blunder? Perhaps they could have released multiple speed grades of the Voodoo 2, much like Nvidia and ATI like to release "XT" or "PE" updates of their cards. Perhaps if they had released a lower-performing Voodoo 2, then the Banshee, then the full-speed Voodoo 2, they would have avoided flooding the market and overestimating demand for a $300 video card. Perhaps also they could have made SLI available only through special limited-production "upgrade" cards, instead of flooding the market with potential cheap upgrades.

      One thing is for certain: the Voodoo 2 as-released was a long-term failure for 3DFX, and when you combine it's purchase of STB, the downfall is rooted firmly in 1998.

      As for your comment about a multi-slot high-speed bus being available...well, sure it is... ...except that I can count the dual PCIe 16x motherboards on this planet with one finger. You'll probably be waiting for Nforce4 to make dual PCIe 16x slots mainstream, and that's a long wait. PCIe SLI won't have a chance until then.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

  26. Help by Hassman · · Score: 1

    This is a bit off topic, but I'm going to ask anyway.

    I've never fully understood the difference between OpenGL, Direct3D and DirectX...

    If Open GL is the industry standard then what is Direct3D? Is DirectX just the way Windows handles graphics? If so, it works in conjunction with OpenGL and Direct3D?

    Can anyone with some knowledge here bring me up to speed?

    Thanks!

    --
    -Mark
    Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
    1. Re:Help by MonTemplar · · Score: 1

      Direct3D is a subset of DirectX.

      DirectX is the industry standard, where industry = everything within Microsoft's control. :)

      --
      -MT.
    2. Re:Help by agentforsythe · · Score: 1

      DirectX: a suite of APIs developed by Microsoft, including Direct3D (3D rendering), DirectDraw (2D) and others dealing with sound and network communications.

      OpenGL: An open-source, standards-based API which acomplishes much of the same. OpenGL works on Windows, Linux and (I presume) OSX. DirectX is Windows-centric (ignoring the fine work being done by the winex guys)

    3. Re:Help by Lisandro · · Score: 5, Informative

      DirectX is Microsofts' standart to abstract software from the hardware (not only graphics, it also covers audio, controllers, networking, and so) as much as possible. Direct3D is DirectXs` 3D rendering part.

      The thing with DX is that it's aimed mostly to games, and, while full-featured, it's incompatible with everything else. OpenGL, much like D3D, is dedicated exclusively to graphics but can be ported much more easily, and it's (IMHO) overall a cleaner implementation. Both can coexist in a single machine (if you have a modern videocard, that's most likely the case), but are independent, requiering separate drivers and so.

    4. Re:Help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Direct X is the whole API that includes Direct3D, Direct Input, Direct Music or whatever they are in the current release. Basically it covers more than just 3D. However the component of DirectX that deals with 3D is Direct3D.

      OpenGL is a different API that allows you to do a similar set of things to Direct3D. However many people on Slashdot seem to think that OpenGL is the standard 3D API. This is (unfortunatley) not the case in practice, where the 3D API used for games is almost always D3D. There are a number of reasons for this but to sum them up from the top of my head:
      *) Open GL is extended by IHV extensions - so that NVidia and ATI for example have different extensions that do the same thing but need exposing and programming differently for the different hardware.

      *) Open GL doesn't support many of the newer features of GPU's. By newer I mean anything in pretty much the past 2-3 years isn't really supported by OpenGL. As an example there isn't yet a HLSL or even a platform independant shader language at all.

      This is unfortunaltey a huge problem (IMHO) for OpenGL and as such for an open 3D standard for gaming - the only up to date hardware independant layer that we have is D3D. This is one of the main barriers for producing native Linux games too.

    5. Re:Help by rnilz · · Score: 0

      OpenGL works on Windows, Linux and (I presume) OSX

      You presume correctly... it is part of it. Apple controls, updates and releases the os x implementation of OpenGL. Means its shit fast. Same goes for Java BTW.

    6. Re:Help by Bohemoth2 · · Score: 1

      Yep, that about sums it up. But sony will soon be our savior

    7. Re:Help by be-fan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Open GL doesn't support many of the newer features of GPU's. By newer I mean anything in pretty much the past 2-3 years isn't really supported by OpenGL. As an example there isn't yet a HLSL or even a platform independant shader language at all.

      That's not true. This *was* true 2-3 years ago, but in that space, the OpenGL ARB has been very quick to keep OpenGL competitive with D3D. 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 all came out about a year apart, and 2.0 should be coming wout this year. 1.5, which came out last year, supports pretty much everything out right now, including a full high-level shading language (GLSL).

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    8. Re:Help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And with this explanation, let me be the first to welcome Hassman to planet Earth, and to ask him where the hell he's been the last 10 years.

      Seriously, you are a Slashdot reader and you don't know the difference between Open GL, Direct X and Direct 3D? I demand you remit your geek id and beanie immediately!

    9. Re:Help by Hassman · · Score: 1

      As I stated, I never fully understood the whole thing. I've never done any graphics programming, and have always heard the three terms used interchangable, eventhough I knew on some level that they weren't.

      Call me a non-geek (my gf would laugh at you) if you must, but there you have it. :)

      --
      -Mark
      Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
  27. Nor that way by hattig · · Score: 1

    Each card in new nVidia SLI (doesn't stand for Scan Line Interleave anymore, it is something else poncey using the same acronym) allocates a portion of the screen to render. E.g., top half and bottom half. There was an article a few weeks back which was featured on Slashdot that explained this.

  28. Wow... by DesertJester · · Score: 1

    I've seen some insulting posts b4, but this one has to take the cake. first of all, the world dosen't revolve around video games and hardwarde to run them. second, my AMD 2800+, 1gig DDR, GeForce5900 128mb, runs this game just fine at 1280x1024 med. detail. third, i ALWAYS post with my handle

    --
    Everyone has a photographic memory, some just don't have film.
  29. 6600 or 6800LE? by Erwos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What's weird is that nVidia already _does_ have a $200 variant of Geforce6 - the Geforce 6800LE. It's essentially a lower-clocked (GPU and RAM) 6800 with only 8 pipes (so, half of what the 6800GT/U has). One of the hardware sites did a review of it (t-break?), and it performed pretty nicely - almost always beat the 5950. It's supposedly only for OEMs, but that's never stopped the online vendors from selling a card.

    If they are indeed talking about a 6600, it's going to need to go under $170 to have any sales value whatsoever. SLI is nice and everything, but most people simply don't have PCIe mobos to take advantage of it, so it's going to be a non-issue for the next year and a half.

    Still, it'll be nice to see nVidia actually try to deliver a better price/performance ratio than ATI for once.

    -Erwos

    --
    Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    1. Re:6600 or 6800LE? by MojoStan · · Score: 1
      What's weird is that nVidia already _does_ have a $200 variant of Geforce6 - the Geforce 6800LE. It's essentially a lower-clocked (GPU and RAM) 6800 with only 8 pipes (so, half of what the 6800GT/U has).
      Still, it'll be nice to see nVidia actually try to deliver a better price/performance ratio than ATI for once.
      I hope this forces ATI to respond with a "mainstream" retail GPU (~$200) based on some form of the Radeon X800 core. Currently, the cheapest retail GPU based on the X800 core (X800 Pro) is around $400. The cheapest OEM GPU is the X800 SE (~$300), which OEM-only.

      ATI's current mainstream GPU, the Radeon X600, is based on the old Radeon 9600 core. ATI's only announced update for mainstream GPUs is RV410, which is just a 110nm version of X600. This will not do. ATI needs a slightly lower-clocked version of the X800 SE to compete with NVIDIA's $200 GeForce 6 offerings.

      Compared to ATI's previous "SE" GPU's, the X800 SE seems pretty nice on paper. Unlike previous SE's, the memory bus isn't chopped in half. For those that haven't read about it:

      • X800 SE: 8 pixel pipelines, 256-bit memory bus
      • X800 Pro: 12 pixel pipelines, 256-bit memory bus
      • X800 XT: 16 pixel pipelines, 256-bit memory bus
      --
      TO START
      PRESS ANY KEY

      Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

  30. Same question for monitors by wikdwarlock · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In my Phys III class ages ago, we did the calculation for the resolvable limit for the human eye given a certain distance from 2 points. I can't recall the formula, but it seems that at some point in the near future a 8000 x 6000 screen will look exactly like a 80,000 x 60,000 screen unless your 2 cm away from it.

    --

    "I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
    1. Re:Same question for monitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't recall the formula, but it seems that at some point in the near future a 8000 x 6000 screen will look exactly like a 80,000 x 60,000 screen unless your 2 cm away from it.

      For a desktop monitor, I'll be happy with a 26" widescreen with 200dpi. A tablet PC would need 300dpi, but a bigscreen TV could probably get away with 100dpi.

    2. Re:Same question for monitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your 2 cm away from it

      "you're".

  31. the magic price generator by zanderredux · · Score: 1
    cat /dev/random > price.txt

    heh.

  32. Production by Led+FLoyd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They might concentrate on getting their CURRENT high end card (6800 Ultra) on the retail shelves instead of "pre-announcing" crap in the pipeline.

    1. Re:Production by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ATI 800XT's are on the shelves already...

  33. I'm waiting for the sub-$100 range one... by Lisandro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... you know, the cheap card, that has a simple cooling solution, doesn't need a molex connector for aditional power and plays current generation games more than acceptably. I like gaming a lot, but i can't afford $200-300 for each new gfx hardware generation. Say what you want about the FX5200, but for it's price it can't be beaten.

    1. Re:I'm waiting for the sub-$100 range one... by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1

      I see your point. I just upgraded to a Geforce FX5600XP 128MB ($100). It plays all games I throw at it acceptably (Doom 3 is smooth at 1024x768, all graphics on High quality) on an Athlon 2600+ with 1 gig ram. However, your SOL if you're set on getting an AGP card from Nvidia that doesn't require a molex connector - at least if you want decent performance. All FX cards & later require extra power (AGP versions - dunno about the PCI Express versions).

    2. Re:I'm waiting for the sub-$100 range one... by pumpumpum · · Score: 2, Informative

      5200 FX doesn't require extra power connector and it has passive cooling. It costs about sixty euros and all the newish games run just fine with it. So that's very cheap, has all the features (TV-out, dvi&crt(dual monitor) output) and every feature is well supported on linux.

    3. Re:I'm waiting for the sub-$100 range one... by radish · · Score: 1

      I too have a 5200 - primarily because I don't game much and passive cooling (== quiet) is very important to me. Has anyone tried Doom 3 on a 5200? The benchmark sites I have seen don't seem to go below a 5600. I'd like to give D3 a go but I don't want to waste $50 if it's too slow.

      TIA :)

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    4. Re:I'm waiting for the sub-$100 range one... by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      HardOCP had a couple of benchmarks with the 5200 (http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQ0). Basically, it's playable at 640x480 medium quality, and with DX9/OGL2 (???) pixel shader support. 38 FPS average.

      I was reluctant to beleive this myself (and i always have a lot of faith in iDs' engines), but it was confirmed by a couple of friends of mine. Doom 3 is playable in a 5200.

    5. Re:I'm waiting for the sub-$100 range one... by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Say what you want about the FX5200, but for it's price it can't be beaten.

      Except that it's beaten by the Radeon 9600. Just $99

    6. Re:I'm waiting for the sub-$100 range one... by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      Unless he's using Linux, *BSD or anything else apart from Win/MacOS, in which case ATI cards would start to look pretty crappy. They may make nice hardware, but they couldn't write decent drivers if their lives depended on it.

  34. I'll only buy by phuturephunk · · Score: 1

    If I can get a 10 year, blanket coverage warranty on the Trane HVAC system I'm going to have to install in order to keep it cool, not to mention the active damper system to keep the noise level bearable. Oh, and It'd be pretty cool to have some kind of rebate in place so I can recoup the cost of upgrading the outlets and the breaker box in the house to 100 Amp's a piece.

  35. Unified ELTA by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was hosting a LAN party at my place about a year or so ago. One of my coworkers showed up with his computer and another 512MB DIMM that he planned on installing before we got started.

    We balked. There's an unspoken rule that no hardware changes during the LAN unless necessary. Murphy's law simply looms too large. He ignored it.

    The case was a smaller mid-tower that he uses for LANs, and with a couple of hard drives and the associated cabling it gets pretty tight. As he's sliding the RAM into place, we hear a "plink." Shit. The RAM's in place, so he steps back to survey the situation. There's a capacitor sitting on the floor of the case. "Um, maybe it's one of those capacitors that's, you know, for show..." The computer throws a video error at post.

    We pull the card. Murphy's law has struck; it's a GeForce 5800 Ultra (the old dustbuster model), and a cap has sheared right off the card. I don't have a soldering iron in my apartment, so the coworker is prepaing for an evening of staring over shoulders. That's when we break out the electrical tape. We give the card a good hard wrap with the tape to hold the cap in place, and...

    It works spedtacularly. No crashs, no video glitches, no problem. In fact, it works for another month while he waits for the 5900 Ultra to release before exchanging the card. It led us to praise NVidia for the Unified ELectrical TApe architecture (ELTA), which we theorized could provided bootleg performance maintenance across the entire NVidia line, from the TNT2 up.

    1. Re:Unified ELTA by Bombjack-Landy · · Score: 1

      He exchanged it? I having trouble picturing the scene... tech - So, what's wrong with it? coworker - It just stopped working you know? I think there was a hardware failure; I tried updating the drivers... tech (opening box) - Okay, let's take a look at it... (bundle of electrical tape the size of a football is revealed. Only the exposed AGP plug hints at its identity.) tech - ...okay.

    2. Re:Unified ELTA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh, of course you remove the tape before exchanging it. Hell, I would do that and hope the tech guy doesn't go find another card to compare. It's a physical damage and no warranty covers that.

    3. Re:Unified ELTA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think CompUsa might. Dunno about video cards but I got a 1 year no matter what on my motherboard and processor they told me its even cool if I try to overclock it.

    4. Re:Unified ELTA by danila · · Score: 1

      I would rather spend 5-10 bucks to fix it in a computer store. If it was just a capacitor, that's a 10 minute job for a computer technician.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  36. Two cards != 2x performance by Laebshade · · Score: 1

    Or so I've read. with SLI I believe you can only get about 70% better performance versus 1 card. Can't remember where I read this. Try googling it!

  37. I'll believe it when I see it by scotay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    NVDA has just reported a HORRIBLE quarter. Many are wonder what the F is going on with that company. This is a PR release. They need to say these things. They need to say they have native PCIe despite not a SINGLE OEM design win. They need to say 6800 volume will ramp up and product will be driven down to the low end. Will this actually happen? I have no idea, but this is the least I would expect NVDA to say on this horrible week for NVDA longs. ATI has really put the hurt on. This next 12 months should be pivotal for NVDA's future.

    1. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by Nazmun · · Score: 1

      Not surprising as during the last two years since the 9700pro came out it seemed ati provided a much better graphics card for the price (9500pro's for the more budget oriented) and had the highest performing card.

      Things might be a little different this round.

      --
      Hmmm... Pie...
  38. Funny replies... by AirP · · Score: 4, Funny

    Replies from a website where people want more options in Operating Systems, but they bitch about more options from hardware, just makes me wonder if people just want to bitch.

  39. DirectX is not a standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DirectX is Microsoft's standard to abstract software from the hardware

    Just to be picky: OpenGL is a standard, DirectX is not. It's a popular API, sure, but it's not a standard.

    1. Re:DirectX is not a standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wellll, to pick your nick-picking, Direct X is a defacto standard, which is a sort of standard.

  40. Just a thought... by UncleRage · · Score: 1

    2 $200 cards plus a PCI Express mobo (say, a Gigabyte GA-8I915P) @ $130-200 plus switching CPU's (if necessary) will still wind up costing you more than his single card. Add to this, his single card may well outperform your new setup (as far as GPU benchmarks go).

    Of course, you will definately be ahead of the game in terms of mobo technology... which is quite right by me. =)

    --
    #SickNotWeak
    1. Re:Just a thought... by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Which by your methodology I like the sound of it even better. For a little bit more (100?) I would get a new mobo, new ram, new processor and two video cards.....those numbers add up wonderfully for me :)
      Import my scsi hard drive (15k RPM)/dvd player with my adaptec scsi card and my system will be smoking (about time). :)

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  41. Prices? by novakane007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does this mean we'll see a price drop for the GeForce line? I've been putting off buying a new card, I don't want to end up buying it a couple of weeks before a price drop.

    --

    WURD!!
  42. Haha! by Crizp · · Score: 1

    Mod the parent up, I snarfed on the keyboard. But seriously, Bitboys have apparently ditched the video card and are instead aiming for the mobile market. Bitboys' website has the vapor. Personally I think they'll never get something out. They had a good prototype card but suddenly ATi and nVidia came with cards that crushed them completely. And there are competitors in the mobile market too.

  43. Power consumption... by Xhargh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does it have low power consumption or does it include a nuclear powerplant?

    1. Re:Power consumption... by johnnliu · · Score: 1

      I remember in one of the reviews, the card had two plugs for power.

      I'm not a hardware guy, so I don't know what the correct technical terms are.

  44. Re:I can't wait for... no NDA specs and drivers! by fprog26 · · Score: 1

    Maybe it would be time now for them to release the specs for GeForce2 MX, GeForce 3 and similar,
    so we can finally develop drivers for more operating systems/platforms!?

  45. VHS made sense to Joe Sixpack by Ucklak · · Score: 1

    You could fit over 5 hours of programming on an L-830 tape at Beta III.

    The problem is Joe Sixpack understands a 6 hour tape alot better than the difference between L500, L750, L830.

    The other marketing Sony screwed up on were the tape speeds. Joe Sixpack won't understand Beta II or Beta III but will understand Extended Play or Slow Play

    So in review:

    Which is easier to understand if I want to record Knight Rider:

    I can fit 6 episodes on a 6 hour tape at Extended Play with VHS

    I can fit 5 episodes (6 episodes without commercials) on an L-830 running at Beta III

    Sony just didn't understand the common American man.

    --
    if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    1. Re:VHS made sense to Joe Sixpack by EnglishTim · · Score: 1

      Yes, they both have much extended playlengths now, but I belive when the VHS first hit the street, it had a longer playlength than Betamax.

  46. Literally, I bet. by Benanov · · Score: 5, Funny

    "In a few days we're going to turn up the heat another notch."

    Translation: my computer's electricity bill and my winter heating bill just became synonymous. ;)

    1. Re:Literally, I bet. by Ignignot · · Score: 1

      my computer's electricity bill and my winter heating bill just became synonymous. ;)

      Watch out for your summer A/C bill!

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    2. Re:Literally, I bet. by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      You jest, but my room with the door closed is literally 5 degrees warmer than my roommates when I have my computer on for long periods of time. He bitches and moans about how cold he gets even with the heat on and I'm laughing and start complaining about how I had to crack the window a tiny bit because of how hot it got in my room.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  47. NVIDIA Gives Details... by Dwonis · · Score: 1

    For a second there, I thought were going to see enough technical details to write drivers (heaven forbid!) for the hardware.

  48. Actual PCIE drivers for Linux? by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    flying-rhenquest died a couple weeks back (The fan base may have noticed that the web page is down,) so I upgraded to a system with a ATI X600 PCIE card. You can force the system to recognize it as a radeon for 2D, but apparently PCIE is not yet supported by the ATI proprietary driver nor the Xfree86 radeon driver. Rumor has it the Nvidia proprietary drivers have PCIE support, but I haven't had any solid confirmation of that yet. So does anyone know for sure that if you drop this card into a Linux system, you'd be able to get 3D acceleration?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Actual PCIE drivers for Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THANKYOU THANKYOU THANKYOU for the update Greyfox! You can't imagine my consternation when I discovered your little website had gone offline. Thank God for you, I was sitting here with baited breath, hoping for some sign as to what happened, so that I could move on with my life. I can now turn the page, knowing that all is right with the universe, and that my heart will go on.

    2. Re:Actual PCIE drivers for Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PS
      ^^
      The trolls are BAAAAAACK!!!11one!!11one1one

  49. Daft question but .... by paul's+ponderinngs · · Score: 1

    ... how can I tell if my newish Dell has PCI Express? Other than looking at it's spec which I nolonger have.

  50. Re:Maybe (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, that prompts an intriuging question: how much duct tape would you need to attach two cars together securely. Surely the quantity would be a function of things like engine horsepower, tire/steering/braking preformance, tape strength, how it was fastened, etc.

    This would make an interesting experiment. If someone does it, post a journal with pics somewhere! :-)

  51. Open it up and take a look ! by LordPixie · · Score: 1

    PCI Express slots look nothing like regular PCI slots. PCIE-E 1x are tiny, about a half inch or so long.

    That being said, your new Dell likely does not have PCI-E. Such motherboards only became available in the past couple months. (And then got promptly recalled. :|)


    --LordPixie

  52. Whoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoa, I didn't even know there was a GeForce 5

    Oh well, I'm happy with my 32mb TNT2 card.

  53. Long Term Performance by glassware · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    As long as we're talking about nVidia, does anyone have access to a long term performance graph of old nVidia cards? Rating them from generation to generation to how much improvement there was in each era.

    I tried googling for it, but the keywords are just too popular, and everyone is google spamming and bombing and such. Don't even bother trying to search on Yahoo.

    I used to have a good chart that showed dollars-per-FPS, but it's totally lost now.

  54. I hate this type of misinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "so you can connect two $199 cards together for double the performance."

    This stuff crops up all the time, I figured I was safe from it on a technical oriented website. A 64 bit processor is not twice as fast as a 32. Two processors are not twice as fast as one, or four twice as fast as two. Running two video cards in SLI will not "double the performance".

    There are many factors that would prevent this from happening, CPU speed, bandwidth, and communication overhead to name three. A "signifigant increase in performance" would be an accurate discription.

    This kind of broken logic may work for Apple PR firms, however it dosent play in the real world.

  55. Please mod this AC up! by catch23 · · Score: 1

    For once, someone isn't spouting FUD. SLI has only been scan-line interleave since voodoo2, but ever since those vsa100 chips, it has not been truly SLI. People just use the term SLI since everyone knows it. Just like Honda's new hybrid is under the civic brand name. Nobody would know "Honda Insight" but they'd know the Honda Civic. Same goes here... if they gave SLI a new name, it wouldn't sell as well.

    1. Re:Please mod this AC up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should at least think up a new expansion for the abbreviation. It wouldn't be the first time an abbreviation is updated, even if the new expansion was obviously contorted ("World Wide Fund for nature" is the first example that comes to mind...)

    2. Re:Please mod this AC up! by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      They _DID_ come up with a new expansion.
      Doesn't anyone read _anything_ before they just start talking these days?

      Scalable Link Interface
      Read about it Here

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
  56. Intel(tm) brand heating... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    For several years, I hosted my webserver out of my apartment. Now, in Seattle, the tempature doesn't get that low (Compared to the midwest or say, Siberia), but my dual 300mhz P2 server kept the place quite comfortable. In the three years I lived there, I only turned on the heat twice.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  57. No mention of power requirements.. Hmm.. by taosk8r · · Score: 1

    Only reason I was waiting for ATI to come out with PS 3.0 cards was the mammoth powere supply reqs for the last gen Geforces.. I wonder if these new budget cards are gonna require all that BS. I'm assuming they won't have dustbester fans like the previous gen budget cards, but I'm surprised no mention has been made of the PSU reqs here.. Hmm.. I guess I'll have to poke 'round on http://8dimensional.com and look at the more hardcore reviews.

    --
    -taosk8r
  58. should call it the GeForce666 and bundle Doom ]I[ by sco_is_for_babies · · Score: 3, Funny

    throw in a couple of 3 ft black candles. And you know, a baby goat.

  59. You know the guy in the picture isn't at work... by gardyloo · · Score: 1

    ... he's just playing, because he's looking at the data visualization window, and not reading the /. page over to the right of the display:

    http://www.llnl.gov/icc/sdd/img/images/DMX-Chromiu m-VisIt.jpg

  60. 6800 Ultra DDL for PC? by vxvxvxvx · · Score: 1

    It's great that they've got lower cards coming out, but what I really wanna know is when we can purchase a 6800 ultra DDL for the PC (yes, to run the 30" apple monitor.)

    1. Re:6800 Ultra DDL for PC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably never, and this was worked out between Apple and nVidia beforehand. The card is most likely specific to Mac.

      That's not to say there won't be a somewhat similar model for the PC eventually, however.

  61. keep a low profile by slumpy · · Score: 1

    damn, I need low-profile stuff, does anyone know if all pci is low profile...sorry, I know so little about video cards.

    --
    http://www.commaecho.com
  62. 'Sigh, yet another shader-centric advance by Pete+The+Hat · · Score: 1

    Shader this, shader that, shader the latest smells and bells. Yet another shader is like improving the aerodynamics of a race car that still uses a Model T Ford engine. Vertex manipulation has been negelcted since the dawn of time. Roll on OpenGL 2 with programmable vertex manipulation as a standard part of the render pipe.

    --
    Should virtual dogs poo?
    1. Re:'Sigh, yet another shader-centric advance by robnauta · · Score: 2, Informative
      Shader this, shader that, shader the latest smells and bells. Yet another shader is like improving the aerodynamics of a race car that still uses a Model T Ford engine. Vertex manipulation has been negelcted since the dawn of time. Roll on OpenGL 2 with programmable vertex manipulation as a standard part of the render pipe.

      DirectX 8.x and 9 offer both vertex and pixel shaders. A vertex shader takes 3D coordinates (and constants) as input and gives screen coordinates and other vars as output. Although usually it transforms 3D to 2D with the standard multiplications with the world/view/projection matrices, you can easily use some constants to do vertex manipulation.

      In fact, skeletal animation is very simple with vertex shaders. You just need one model and the vertex shader does all the animation.

      Why wait for OpenGL when DX8 gave it to you in 2001 ?

  63. Color Gamut by Detritus · · Score: 1

    I'm not a color expert, but I've been told that there are many colors that can't be displayed accurately on a CRT, and I assume LCD, due to the limitations of the device.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  64. Thats good and all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but will it run Microsoft Bob?