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."

91 of 327 comments (clear)

  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 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.

  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 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!

    2. 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. :)

    3. 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

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

  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 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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).

    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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."
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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 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.

    2. 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).

    3. 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
    4. 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.,

    5. 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

    6. 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?

    7. 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 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...

  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 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.
    2. 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... ;)

    3. 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!

  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 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.

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

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

    6. 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.
    7. 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
  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 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.
    2. 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!
    3. 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]
  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 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]
  11. 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 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.
    2. 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...
    3. 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]
  12. 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).

  13. $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.
  14. 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 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."
    4. 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."
  15. 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.

  16. 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.
  17. 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.

  18. 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 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]
  19. 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?

  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.

  23. 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
  24. 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.

  25. 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 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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!!
  30. Power consumption... by Xhargh · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  31. 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. ;)

  32. 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?

  33. 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

  34. 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...
  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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 ?