Slashdot Mirror


NVIDIA nForce 4 SLI Intel Edition Launched

Spinnerbait writes "NVIDIA took the wraps off their nForce 4 SLI chipset platform for Intel Processors today and there's a full review and showcase with benchmarks up at HotHardware. As with NVIDIA's AMD version of this chipset, motherboards based on the technology will support dual PCI Express graphics cards for load sharing in 3D Gaming applications. What's perhaps even more interesting is how the new NVIDIA memory controller actually allows the platform to out-pace Intel's own i925XE in virtually all of the benchmarks."

133 comments

  1. Full article mirrored by winkydink · · Score: 3, Informative
    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  2. Humans in my game by Virtual+Karma · · Score: 1

    At this rate soon we will have processors that are capable of rendering real video instead of animation. Or say animation as real as videio footage. Imagine you can select characters like Brad Pit or Tom Cruse for the game. Way to go...

    1. Re:Humans in my game by BigWhiteGuy_27 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Imagine you can select characters like Brad Pit or Tom Cruse for the game

      Or CowboyNeal...

    2. Re:Humans in my game by nkh · · Score: 1

      What a scam. I could already select Tom Cruise twenty years ago...

    3. Re:Humans in my game by ceeam · · Score: 1

      But not real "real video" is much-much worse than not real animation, isn't it?

    4. Re:Humans in my game by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At this rate soon we will have processors that are capable of rendering real video instead of animation. Or say animation as real as videio footage.

      Hardly. Most game-style rendering today is mostly smoke and mirrors; while 3D graphics hardware has improved at a ridiculous rate over the last couple of years, there's still a long way to go before certain, everyday scenes can be rendered.

      Something I'd like would be a 'city-renderer', capable of rendering a decent-sized European city (i.e. not a grid) from aerial views down to individual rooms. While a clever level-of-detail system could go a long way towards this, there would still be an utterly horrendous amount of geometry for a typical skyline shot.

      Now add traffic, crowds of humans (typical FPS-style games give up after about ten or so, strategy games use crude mannequins for more), properly reflective surfaces and whatnot, motion blur and decent HDR and your quadruple-SLI Geforce 9000-Hyper-Pro-Matic setup will still grind to a halt.

      Things are slowly getting there, but I'm still waiting - but like a gas, FPS-style generic corridors will expand in processing requirements until they saturate even the greatest hardware. Look at Doom 3, for example... ;-)

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    5. Re:Humans in my game by faqmaster · · Score: 1

      Riiiight. Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt. I choose Pamela Anderson and Natalie Portman - here's a hint: they won't be fighting...

      --
      Are you...Are you some kind of genius?
      No, ma'am, I'm just a regular Slashdot reader.
    6. Re:Humans in my game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Pamela Anderson? She's so 90's! Now, Natalie Portman and Keria Knightley....that would be almost like watching twins!

    7. Re:Humans in my game by podperson · · Score: 1

      Hardly. Most game-style rendering today is mostly smoke and mirrors

      Agreed, but...

      Most movies and videos are produced using "smoke and mirrors" too. E.g. typically the lighting is changed for every camera shot, reflectors, gels and masks are used to highlight or darken parts of shots, actors are coated with makeup to compensate for the incredibly artificial lighting, etc. etc. etc. And then everything is shot on a sound stage or in front of a facade or on a virtual set.

      If you point a video camera at a city skyline, most of the detail is lost. Even film resolution is rapidly being overhauled by digital.

    8. Re:Humans in my game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not use ray-tracing? Not on cpu but on dedicated hardware. After all it's been covered before on slashdot and most games already use the needed data structures for levels.

  3. I heard that its isn't supposed to be as good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I remember reading on the Inquirer, that on a one on one comparison, the nForce Intel boards weren't able to keep up to the AMD ones, on more than just a processor basis. Was a few weeks ago though, so possible could have been fixed, i.e. driver probs

    1. Re:I heard that its isn't supposed to be as good by basics · · Score: 1

      The test is biased towards intel. They compare the top of the line extreme edition intel cpu to the athlon 64 4000+ instead of the fx55.

      That being said, the amd64 system still edges out the p4 system in gaming benchmarks although the p4 system is ahead in synthetic benchmarks.

      In other words: it looks cool but the situation is more or less the same as it has been since amd introduced cpus with onboard memory controllers.

    2. Re:I heard that its isn't supposed to be as good by mauriceh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If anything the test was "fixed" to make the Intel CPUs look better.
      For example the test systems were Intel 3.73GHz versus the AMD 4000+ at 2.4GHz.

      Considering the competitive AMD CPU is the 2.6GHz FX55 model, this is obviously a skewed result.

      They pitted an $1,100 Intel P4 against the $500 AMD Athlon64 4000.

      Even if they had compared against the much faster AMD Athlon64 FX55, the price delta is still huge. The FX55 is an $835 chip versus the $1,100 Intel!

      Even so, on most tests the AMD soundly won.
      Some of the tests would have been so embarrassing they skipped testing the AMD altogether.
      Where are the Sysoft Sandra results for the Athlon64?

      Add to that the other hidden factor: Chipset Cost!

      With the AMD64 on board memory comtroller, the Intel version of this chipset costs nearly double the AMD version.

      So, let's sum up the cost results:
      $1,100 Intel CPU, with $400 RAM on a $250 motherboard. $1,750 total.

      Versus:
      $500 AMD CPU, with $250 RAM, on a $150 motherboard. $900 total.

      The only reason anyone would buy this is if they are an Intel fanboy, or are still drinking the Intel KoolAid.

      --
      Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
  4. EM emissions by Pants75 · · Score: 5, Funny
    When are these things going to start spitting out microwaves? We're already into TV and FM Radio Band emissions at 200-400Mhz. Microwaves really aren't that far off.
    While there are some radar bands from 1,300 to 1,600 MHz, most microwave applications fall in the range 3,000 to 30,000 MHz (3-30 GHz). Current microwave ovens operate at a nominal frequency of 2450 MHz, a band assigned by the FCC.

    You'll be glad you kept your old steel PC case when we get this sort of speed out of MBs

    Pete

    1. Re:EM emissions by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2

      You do realize that MHz is a measure for any sort of frequency (ie clock cycles) and not just radio waves, right?

    2. Re:EM emissions by Pants75 · · Score: 1
      Indeed, of course.

      But when you have current switching at a given frequency, you get EM emissions at that frequency. (And others, but thats another story)

      They may not be particularly powerful, but they are there.

      Regards

      Pete

    3. Re:EM emissions by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1
      When are these things going to start spitting out microwaves?
      ...
      You'll be glad you kept your old steel PC case
      It's been my experience that microwaves and metal don't mix very well ;)
      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    4. Re:EM emissions by Pants75 · · Score: 1

      Would you rather the case to get hot or your flesh? ;-)

    5. Re:EM emissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's been my experience that microwaves and metal don't mix very well ;)

      Take a gander at what your microwave oven is made out of.

      Anyway, there's nothing magical about the frequency. Your CPU is not going to suddenly start acting like a magnetron.

    6. Re:EM emissions by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more of electrical discharges frying your computer.

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    7. Re:EM emissions by Pants75 · · Score: 1

      Everyones a critic! Besides, you'll never have to worry about it. The manufacturers will never allow the product to emit anything harmful for fear of a million half cooked geek lawsuits.

    8. Re:EM emissions by tehcrazybob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since computer components run at extremely low power, the radiation shouldn't be an issue.

      At the moment, computers do cause some harmful radio interference if you leave the side of the case off. Since this is Slashdot, I assume there are several people reading this who have theirs off. However, even acrylic cases or case windows are enough to stop that radio interference.

      Even if the frequency picks up enough that we were getting microwave radiation, an aluminum case would still be able to block it. Even with the case open, the output would be so low that the worst it could do would be to ruin your cell phone reception if you were trying to talk with your head inside the case.

      --
      Computers need to explode more often.
    9. Re:EM emissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What's the big deal with microwaves anyway? They arn't ionising. Even visible light is of a higher frequency, and I'll bet you have light bulbs in your house.

    10. Re:EM emissions by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since computer components run at extremely low power, the radiation shouldn't be an issue.

      You joke, but I gather there were minor problems at Jodrell Bank when PCs' clock frequencies (and/or harmonics) happened to coincide with important radio frequencies used for radio astronomy.

      As you say, though it's hardly dangerous - but having done an undergraduate experiment there some years ago in which an FFT of pulsar data detected nasty big peaks at 50Hz, 100Hz, 150Hz etc. (mains power...) I'm wondering if all man-made alternating currents should be banned, for aesthetic and scientific reasons... ;-)

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    11. Re:EM emissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, on the whole, they mix VERY well. Think about it.

    12. Re:EM emissions by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      actually I doubt that acrylic cases stop radio interference at all. Plastic is pretty good at letting it out. Some of the better cases might have a conductive coating that will block it.
      That being said computers do not really emit much in the GHz range at all. That clock speed tends to be limited to the cpu. The FBS is where you will get the interference. Usually around 166-200 MHz for the Amd family. Now if they ever tried to get the bus to run at 1+GHz then things would get exciting. You could have neons in your case that where not hooked up to anything :)

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    13. Re:EM emissions by mikael · · Score: 1

      A 20" multisync monitor used to be able to jam BBC Radio 4 (around 198 Kilohertz / long wave for a radius of 10 metres around the monitor.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  5. nVidia better than Intel by SoloFlyer2 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    that nVidia were able to create a memory controller which out performed Intel comes as no great surprise when you look at the history of both companies Intel of course has the inside information on their cpu's but they have always been trying for a performance reliability compromise or the other hand nVidia try for cutting edge 300 miles per hour or nothing technology and thats why we love em of course nVidia have always pulled off this speed with stability anyway so you may not see where i am coming from

    --
    "I reject your reality, and substitute my own" - Adam Savage
    1. Re:nVidia better than Intel by Skye16 · · Score: 5, Funny
    2. Re:nVidia better than Intel by scum-e-bag · · Score: 2, Funny

      With very little punctuation in your post I can definately see that from your definitions you are an nVidia fan!

      --
      Does it go on forever?
    3. Re:nVidia better than Intel by scum-e-bag · · Score: 0, Redundant

      With very little punctuation in your post I can definately see that, from your definitions, analogously, you are an nVidia fan!

      bleerggg... damn my lightening submit button finger...

      --
      Does it go on forever?
    4. Re:nVidia better than Intel by SoloFlyer2 · · Score: 1

      nVidia: who cares about punctuation and grammar... you can type faster without it :P

      --
      "I reject your reality, and substitute my own" - Adam Savage
    5. Re:nVidia better than Intel by Wizy · · Score: 1

      By far the best use of a penny arcade link on slashdot.

    6. Re:nVidia better than Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "definitely".

    7. Re:nVidia better than Intel by flynns · · Score: 1

      So're you, apparently =)

      --
      'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
    8. Re:nVidia better than Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nVidia: who cares about punctuation and grammar... you can type faster without it :P

      But it's harder to read, and it makes us think you're a retard.

    9. Re:nVidia better than Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but this is not conclusive to me which memory controller out performs the other in _most_ cases. If you look at the memory timings for the system configuration, you will see that they are using CL 3-2-2-7 memory which is next to impossible to get and very expensive. Most DDR2-533 that OEMs use is still rated at 4-4-4-10.

      The Intel 925XE supports only down to 3-3-3 timings... if they are comparing anything lower, it will not be useful for 99.9% of the population, and is not an accurate representation of how the memory controllers will perform in the real world.

    10. Re:nVidia better than Intel by werewolf1031 · · Score: 1

      40% Doesn't Understand Punctuation
      60% Overcaffienated

    11. Re:nVidia better than Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. No breathe. There's no period at all in that one sentence. So. Nope. No. Breathe. This is just here so you don't faint from the lack of oxygen.

  6. What is AMD thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Doesn't this move undercut AMD processor sales? Do they get a better margin on motherboards? I don't see the logic to this move.

    1. Re:What is AMD thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you terarded?

      nVidia makes the nForce chipset. AMD does not. Neither does Intel.

  7. And what of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All the motherboard manufacturers who dumped R&D into having to build alternative SLI solutions? One example being the Tyan S2895 which uses dual nForce4 chipsets to achieve true 16x pci-e in SLI mode. I'm hoping that nVidia didn't try to hold this information back from motherboard manufacturers otherwise we may see a lashback against nVidia. And considering I spent months hunting and waiting for a true 16x pci-e SLI solution I am a little disappointed in nVidia for waiting so long.

    1. Re:And what of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and what evidence do you have for your allegation?
      Did you just pick this out of your butt, or are you always this paranoid?

    2. Re:And what of... by pantherace · · Score: 4, Informative
      The Opteron/Nforce4 boards are still the only 16x/16x sli solutions available.

      I just double checked on Intel's website, and the best I could find was 8x/8x (3 x8 and 1 x4 PCI express slots (28 lanes total)) And with that it is not possible to have multiple x16 slots (Heck, it's impossible to have 1) (It's possible I missed a better one. I was looking in the server section.)

      The main reason that Tyan can do that is because of AMD's superior Hypertransport-based bus design in Opterons, over the shared bus favored by Intel. It's also the reason why Opteron scales a lot better than Xeon.

      The other reason Tyan can do that is that Nvidia realized how easy it would be to make very slightly different chipsets that facilitated that. Basically they are just Nforce 4 chipsets, that can operate in parallel, giving 40 Pci express lanes (2-way) or 80 PCI express lanes for a 4-way Opteron. (Note a maximum of 4 x16s, as the other 16 can only be a max of x4, due to the 20 lanes per nforce4)

      You can't do x16/x16 with any Intel Processor, as of now. (Though having seen how little x16/x4 or x16/x2 hurts benchmarks (vs standard x8/x8) I'm not convinced it's a big deal at all.)

    3. Re:And what of... by Slashcrap · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One example being the Tyan S2895 which uses dual nForce4 chipsets to achieve true 16x pci-e in SLI mode.

      The Tyan is an insanely specified server board with something like 40 PCI-E lanes is it's basic config. It's not like that because Nvidia wouldn't release specs. It's like that so you can run several high performance workstation level video cards. I don't even think it uses two NForce 4 chipsets, I think you've just misunderstood the specs. Do you have evidence to the contrary Mr Coward?

      And considering I spent months hunting and waiting for a true 16x pci-e SLI solution I am a little disappointed in nVidia for waiting so long.

      Now this is just funny.

      Are there any cards that can fully exploit a 16 lane PCI-E slot available? No.

      Are there going to be in the near future? No.

      So why are you so desperate to get hold of a motherboard that supports it? Because you don't really know what you're talking about. You just want to be fully buzzword compliant, even if it costs you thousands.

    4. Re:And what of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was speccing a system for research use at my work. Full 16 lane pci-e slots was a requisite for the system. If I had to build something for myself, I wouldn't give a crap personally and would have just purchased a normal SLI solution. However, given that these systems are being built to push the envelope, it is perfectly logical to seek dual 16x. You should also note that there are plenty of other products which are close (8x) to the full potential, such as Infiniband.

    5. Re:And what of... by benow · · Score: 1
      I'm looking at one of these for my next board. The smp and sli give a great upgrade path. From single opteron to dual to dual core to dual dual core. From single gpu to sli to single next gen to sli next gen. That's a 4-8 year lifespan for that board.

      Also, it does use 2 nforce pro's... a 2200 and a 2050. Might want to check out the datasheet. Most definately a killer workstation board for years to come.

    6. Re:And what of... by bundaegi · · Score: 1
      If you can make your lab/company fork for it, man, don't hold back!!!

      To complement your nice Tyan motherboard, get one or two (XXX check for physical sizes) of them realizm 800 from 3dlabs. They are the only 16 lanes PCIexpress videocards I know of. Not sure about GPGPU, but at 3840 x 2400, solitaire is bound to look amazing... especially if you can get some nice 9.2Mpixel displays as well: High end videocard without a matching display, what would be the point? Check for instance the IBM T221).

      Anandtech reviewed the Realizm 800 here.

      Mhhh... If you wanted the machine to be a server of some sorts, then I just wasted 10 minutes typing all this!

      --
      bundaegi is good for you
  8. nvidia by chrisnewbie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure benchmark is good when it reflects what most gamers have at home. ---- Sure they score 20 gazillions points with 3dmark but it's almost a machine fit for nasa that would cost around 3000$ to buy. ------ why cant they use a normal machine like a pentium IV 2,4 ghz with a ultra-ata 166 and 1 gig of ddr 400.That's more common and more realistic.

    1. Re:nvidia by CDarklock · · Score: 1

      > it's almost a machine fit for nasa
      > that would cost around 3000$ to buy

      Benchmarks aren't about making you feel good about your system. They're about making you feel inadequate so you'll buy a new one. And they WANT you to spend $3000 on a machine fit for NASA.

      It's a good policy, anyway. A $1000 machine lasts about a year; a $1500 machine lasts about two years; a $3000 machine lasts about *five*. My P3-500 was about $3000, and still going strong. You pay for what you get.

      --
      Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
    2. Re:nvidia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't seen the machines that NASA uses, obviously.

    3. Re:nvidia by chrisnewbie · · Score: 1

      true!

    4. Re:nvidia by chrisnewbie · · Score: 1

      you never heard "figure of speech" or dont understand it?

    5. Re:nvidia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have. They fill an entire room and were manufactured in the 70's. They also use punch cards and run at 33 Mhz.

  9. multi-everything by Cruithne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seems like we're trending towards multiple everything recently.. multicore CPUs, SLI.. how long before this propagates to everything?

    As a sys admin, I love the prospect of redundancy, but are there any benefits to bringing this multiplicity to anything else from a consumers perspective? Or does it stop here?

    1. Re:multi-everything by elasticwings · · Score: 1

      Can't wait to have dual Soundblaster Audigys for 10.2 surround sound.

    2. Re:multi-everything by wpiman · · Score: 1

      This isn't redundancy. The GPUS are NOT performing the same task and being checked. They are performing different independant tasks to get the throughput higher. If one goes down- they both go down- (or at least performance is hampered).

    3. Re:multi-everything by Khakionion · · Score: 1

      Uhm..."propagates to everything?" Surely you don't mean everything. The benefits of multicore-whatever are obvious, but having two keyboards on your laptop solves nothing. Perhaps elucidate on what you mean by "everything?" IMO, any processing unit can benefit from distributed/multicore design.

      --
      OMG! Wau!
    4. Re:multi-everything by kannibal_klown · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Seems like we're trending towards multiple everything recently.. multicore CPUs, SLI.. how long before this propagates to everything?


      Wouldn't doubt it.

      You can only improve on things so long before you need a complete redesign. Adding more to the mix is a great stopgap that extends the usefulness of technology.

      At some point AMD and Intel are going to have to perform a MAJOR redesign (even bigger than the dual-core). Granted this might not be until we reach the 7GHz mark, but there is an invisible line somewhere.

      There is one big downside for the consumer though: increased prices. Dual-Core CPU's will be more expensive than regular ones. SLI graphics will require buying 2 cards. RAID storage requires multiple hard drives.

      Personally I think it would be cool if my next computer were dual-core with SLI video ports and a RAID setup. Whether or not I can afford it, that's another story.

      With the obvious effects of distributed and grid computing Sony's supposed cell tech might actually prove to be interesting (though I'd prefer it on a more local scale).
    5. Re:multi-everything by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      I think they're up to 7.1 now, so you should be able to rock out with 14.2 :]

    6. Re:multi-everything by SoloFlyer2 · · Score: 1

      Really, there is no redundancy to speak of in these designs, this is because they are multi purely for performance and no other reason. If say one of your memory sticks is defective, it isnt going to recover without the memory stick being replaced or removed. From that perspective its similar to Striped RAID.

      --
      "I reject your reality, and substitute my own" - Adam Savage
    7. Re:multi-everything by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "As a sys admin, I love the prospect of redundancy, but are there any benefits to bringing this multiplicity to anything else from a consumers perspective? Or does it stop here?"

      Well, the reason I find these cards interesting is I can buy one now. In a few months, when prices have dropped, I can buy the other and get ~2x performance.

      YMMV etc, but it's intriguing to me. I'm sick of throwing away hardware.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    8. Re:multi-everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had a quad core electric range for years now. I can cook four things at once!

    9. Re:multi-everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yy''kknnooww,, ddoouubbllee dduupplleexx iiss tthhee nneeww hhiipp tthhiinngg tthheessee ddaayyss......

    10. Re:multi-everything by confu2000 · · Score: 1

      Hey, it worked for the Klingons.

    11. Re:multi-everything by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      At some point AMD and Intel are going to have to perform a MAJOR redesign (even bigger than the dual-core). Granted this might not be until we reach the 7GHz mark, but there is an invisible line somewhere.
      We've already hit it. Haven't you noticed how Intel already dropped their plans for 4GHz chips, and is going dual-core instead? The shift from upping clock speeds to parallelization is happening now, and we're never going to reach that 7GHz mark (at least not in the forseeable future).
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:multi-everything by mikael · · Score: 1

      If we end up having two of everything (CPU, GPU, monitors, disk drives), wouldn't we be better off having two PC's with a high-speed network?

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  10. Humbug! by Robotron23 · · Score: 4, Funny

    3D gaming, 3D schaming.
    Back in my day we had the Voodoo 2's and the ol' 6mb of ram, 12 if you were rich! Couldn't even get two separate sprites on the screen without extreme lag... but we liked it!

    1. Re:Humbug! by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

      It was 8, not 6.

    2. Re:Humbug! by UWC · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Voodoo 2 came in 8MB and 12MB versions, the latter having an extra 4MB of texture memory. They were pass-through cards, requiring a separate, primary video card for non-3D stuff. They could be connected to do SLI (which at that time I think was Scan-Line Interleaving, the cards handling alternate lines of monitor resolution). I think with SLI, you could play your games at an astonishing 1024x768 in glorious 16-bit color. Single cards were limited to 800x600.

      I had a single 12MB one that I bought used on eBay. It wasn't much in 2000, but boy did Unreal Tournament and Counter-Strike play smooth as butter on that and a 450MHz K6-2. I didn't get back to that level of performance on a 32MB GeForce2 MX until I upgraded to a 1GHz Athlon Thunderbird. Wow. I have no idea where that K6-2 box is. I guess the Voodoo 2 is probably still in it, too.

      My best card at the moment is a 128MB GeForce 3 Ti200. I'm so behind the times.

      There was a 6MB 2D/3D combo variant of the original Voodoo called Voodoo Rush. I recall various claims that it wasn't very good. The original Voodoo cards had 4MB of memory.

    3. Re:Humbug! by Robotron23 · · Score: 1

      Apologies son, my memory ain't so good these days! :)

      On a separate note though, I recall a member of a popular Voodoo card fan site actually using two Voodoo cards to run Doom 3, it actually looked quite intriguing, the game was utterly stripped of its effects, including the darkness which pretty much defined it to most gamers.

      In the end it seemed the Voodoos had successfully displayed the barebones of Doom 3 in general. It almost seemed like the older Doom games.

      Interestingly though, one area which was somewhat untouched was the view of the Mars bases from the Alpha facility windows, it looked quite similar as a whole, though the Mars sky possessed a somewhat more washed out appearance.

    4. Re:Humbug! by UWC · · Score: 1
      I think I remember that, too! Seeing the textures and models without all the effects added was pretty interesting. The colors and textures reminded me a lot of the original Jedi Knight game.

      I'm of two minds now. On one hand (mind? crazy metaphors), I want to find that old PC and be reminded of how older accelerated games looked. On the other, I want to build a new one and revel in the progress of consumer technology.

    5. Re:Humbug! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      psch! Back when I got started in gaming we had MONOSCHROME and we liked it! We didn't have fancy 3d graphics, or more than 16 colors, but if you wanted to play a game with weird looking shades of purple and gree, there's nothing better!

    6. Re:Humbug! by Robotron23 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it is tempting either way, I don't think it'd be easy for any strategy gamers to give up modern games like Rome Total War... the sight of cavalry literally smashing apart entire files of men for example is truly amazing and a testament to what new technology can acheive.

      Yet seeing these games in a retro sense would be wondrous, after years of advanced effects its pretty hard to imagine what older games are like (I recently replayed Tomb Raider 2, and was amazed at how primitive and dissapointing the graphics were, still fun though!), Half Life 2, possibly UT 2004, and countless other games beckon :). Also theres the fun of observing peoples reactions to the screenshots!

    7. Re:Humbug! by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      Hmm, Voodoo2 is old days now? IMHO the real leap came when the original voodoo came out. They pretty much changed PC gaming forever. I remember the first time I saw glquake on my Diamond Monster Voodoo card and basically told everone I knew they had to have one.

    8. Re:Humbug! by idlake · · Score: 1

      It's funny, just in reverse. A Voodoo 2 with 6M of RAM is already hugely powerful. People used to do gaming on Apple II's and Commodore 64's, with 64K of memory and no hardware acceleration, even some simple 3D games (Wolfenstein).

  11. Nice motherboard, but... by supremebob · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Will it work with the new dual core P4 CPU's? It doesn't make much sense to buy a high-end motherboard if you can't get the high-end CPU to go with it.

    1. Re:Nice motherboard, but... by mako1138 · · Score: 1

      At the bottom of the first page:

      To test the nForce 4 SLI Intel Edition chipset, NVIDIA shipped us a reference motherboard with features that should be indicative of retail-ready products. We should note that the motherboard we tested does not support Intel's new dual-core processors, even though the nForce4 SLI Intel Edition was designed for both single and dual-core processors from the start. NVIDIA has informed us that support for dual-core processors is board dependent, and that top-tier manufacturers will have dual-core supporting nForce 4 SLI Intel Edition boards available shortly.

    2. Re:Nice motherboard, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from every article I've read, no current motherboards will support dual-core P4's...from everything I've read, you'll have to buy a new motherboard for a dual-core P4 or stick with a single core.

    3. Re:Nice motherboard, but... by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter, since Intel's dual core gaming performance will "blow dead goats". Games being mostly single-threaded and all, and Intel's dual cores running substantially slower than their single-core counterparts.

      You'd be far better off buying an Athlon 64 FX with a nForce4 SLI board today. That's still the gaming king-of-the-hill. Torch your money responsibly.

    4. Re:Nice motherboard, but... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually people who would buy such systems with dual cpu's and video cards would be video production profesionals (the parent poster), cad and 3d modelers, and engineers. Such systems are not cheap for the average user.

      At Liz Claiborne in the 90's when I worked there, the merhcandising team used dual vodoo's for studioMax when I worked there over the more pro video cards. They were very fast.

      All these apps fly on Intel cpu's if you look at any benchmark. This is because they contain hand written assembly optimized for intel chips. They are multithreaded and designed to be smp ready.

      But games it would be silly since they are not optimized for any one chip and are not smp ready.

      My guess is these units for AMD might appeal to the gamer but the Intel ones will be used by the professionals. An SMP core as well would make it a kick ass workstation.

    5. Re:Nice motherboard, but... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1
      Forgive my grammer in the previous post.

      I re-edited two sentances which is why redundancy is present.

    6. Re:Nice motherboard, but... by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 1

      Ah. Didn't know he was doing video production. In that case, I'd spend the money for a dual processor Opteron 252 system with a Tyan Thunder K8WE SLI motherboard and 8 1GB DIMMs. Two real CPUs with their own integrated memory controllers makes more sense than a dual core P4, and the power requirements are probably similar. The Opteron 252's use the new 90nm Troy core with SSE3 support, which narrows the benchmark gap with Intel on creatively Intel-optimized code (and anything not specifically Intel-optimized is probably going to run better on AMD; heck, once you get away from synthetic/rigged benchmarks, AMD tends to dominate). HP sells a nice workstation that I think is based around this board, Monarch sells them too. Plus you can swap in dual-core Opterons later if you so choose after a BIOS upgrade.

      There's a reason why SW:ROTS and Sin City were rendered on Opterons.

  12. RAID 5 by gallard · · Score: 5, Informative

    The one thing the Intel version has over the AMD version of this chipset is RAID 5 support. A RAID 5 controller card by itself is over 100 bucks. Dammit this is going to make me want to turn over to the dark side.

    1. Re:RAID 5 by Pants75 · · Score: 1

      Is it true hardware raid 5 or does it still use the CPU for xor etc? If its just a plain software implementation then those cards are pretty cheap.

    2. Re:RAID 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is "fakeRAID" so it is all done in software (however some fakeraid cards can do RAID1 in hardware) where as the 100 or so bucks one you can get normally has its own XOR processor (sometimes a few megs of ram).

    3. Re:RAID 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because using an Intel product is just like finding out your father is the worst mass murderer of all time.

    4. Re:RAID 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems not enough people appreciate a downside to using a RAID controller on the motherboard, which is that your raid is tied to that motherboard model. If the motherboard dies, you cannot hook the drives up to a different controller and expect to be able to make sense of the contents of the disk.

      If your motherboard is three years old when it fails, you either will not be able to find a replacement (the same model), meaning you lose all data on the RAID, or you will have to pay for an obsolete motherboard.

      This is fine if you only have the system disk on a SATA RAID stripe for fast program loading times, but if you are using it for data redundancy you're much better off using a software RAID under Linux, which is practically just as fast, and can be accessed with a different motherboard, disk controller, and even Linux distribution.

    5. Re:RAID 5 by fredistheking · · Score: 1


      Does it really matter? This is still using your main processor for all the XORing so what is the benefit?

    6. Re:RAID 5 by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Its been said this review is a little biased.

      AMD's top of the line FX was not included. Most FX chipsets are not only the same class as the extreme Intel boards but many come with RAID 5 as well.

    7. Re:RAID 5 by rpozz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's hooked up to the chipset, not the motherboard. That means a RAID array created on eg. a Silicon Image 3114 RAID controller can be transfered onto any motherboard with the same chipset.

      And besides, using mdadm under Linux to create a RAID array out of the same drives using exactly the same configuration will work fine. I've tried it.

    8. Re:RAID 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm behind on the fanboy gossip: which side is the dark one?

  13. This is so cool... by Kergan · · Score: 1

    Office and Zangband will now run faster on my computer. Yay!

  14. Another Intel-funded CPU comparison? by hirschma · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hmm, let's see. Let's take an Intel processor with these characteristics:

    * Fastest consumer CPU they offer,
    * Priced at about $1100, street

    And compare it to the AMD offering, with these characteristics:

    * Second fastest CPU they offer,
    * Price of about half of the Intel offering.

    Yes, that is a most fair review. It makes perfect sense to conclude that, on mostly identical chipsets, that Intel is faster.

    How much are these sites paid under the table?

    1. Re:Another Intel-funded CPU comparison? by CDarklock · · Score: 2, Informative

      How about we take an Intel CPU at 3.73 GHz and compare it to an AMD CPU advertised to perform around that same clock speed? That gives us the 3800+, the 4000+, and the FX-55. Traditionally, AMD's estimation has been 5 to 10 percent high in terms of what Intel processors they can match (across the board, as opposed to gaming where the estimates are about right), so we can assume:

      - The 3800+ performs at 3.42-3.61 GHz which is too low.

      - The 4000+ should perform at about 3.6-3.8 GHz, which is about right.

      - The FX-55 is undoubtedly faster than the 4000+, owing to its 2.6 GHz actual clock speed compared to the 4000+ at 2.4 GHz. This is a 1/12 increase, so we can expect the FX-55 to perform at 3.9-4.2 GHz... which is significantly higher than the 3.73 we're targeting.

      So the FX-55 is too fast, the 3800+ is too slow, and the 4000+ is about right. An argument might be advanced for the FX-53, but I think those have been discontinued.

      Where exactly is the problem? I mean, if you RTFA, they say outright that if all you care about is gaming the AMD outperforms the Intel by around 10%, which gives us that 4000+ they advertise... but if you need to do other things, the Intel outperforms the AMD slightly. Which is roughly what you should expect, given the Intel and AMD core competencies. If the 4000+ specs out in the dead center of the range I estimated, it should come out at 3.7 -- which is just over 99% of the Intel clock speed, and should result in less than a 1% margin of loss. This is about what we see in the results.

      In other words, nobody paid me squat, and my own experience with processor comparisons predicts pretty much the exact results we saw. So any claim of "bias" seems ill-considered.

      --
      Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
    2. Re:Another Intel-funded CPU comparison? by Luthair · · Score: 1

      The 3.73EE is an 'enthusiast' CPU, it ought to be compared to AMD's 'enthusiast' CPUs.

      We don't use Celerons to compare Intel & AMD64 and think its a useful comparison.

    3. Re:Another Intel-funded CPU comparison? by mako1138 · · Score: 1

      It's not just the processor choice, it's the overall impression the "review" gives. I wouldn't say they're Intel shills. They've just spun everything positively for the platform they reviewed. They listed off all the nForce's features without testing them. If it had been a more thorough review, we might have learned whether the performance issues with the hardware firewall acceleration had been ironed out, or how well that nTune app tunes. Or disk performance, USB/Firewire, CPU utilization, sound quality, etc.

      The next thing the jaded hardware review reader looks for is lots of synthetic benchmarks. Check.

      The other thing is benching games at a single resolution. What if there's a bottleneck, or curious behavior?

      As for the CPU choice, I have to agree with matching up the speeds in that manner. However, the reviewer should convey the relative prices of the hardware used in the comparison, and that should be a major factor in the final opinion. I would have used more pedestrian processors, in the 3.0 / 3000+ neighborhood. It would reflect the userbase more realistically, and the prices would be closer.

    4. Re:Another Intel-funded CPU comparison? by hirschma · · Score: 1

      Your reply is just silly.

      AMD's PR ratings are hardly something that should be used as the basis of comparison. Moreover, they're supposed to suggest, from my understanding, of how a particular AMD model will compare to an Intel CPU ***from the corresponding family***. If you really don't understand this, you're effectively saying that you don't know enough about the industry to be writing about it.

      The clock speed or name of the processor just shouldn't matter. Do you really think that your logic would factor into someone's buying decisions? If someone is really, really thinking about throwing down $1100 on the most expensive Intel _enthusiast_ CPU, don't you think that the obvious AMD choice would be to go with the most expensive AMD _enthusiast_ CPU?

      The fact that you didn't go with the FX processor because it was "too fast" betrays your bias. Perhaps you should have showed the results of both the FX and 4000+, and let the reader decide which was a better fit for them?

      As for being on the take, I may have given you too much credit. It seemed to me to be the most likely reason for such a boneheaded piece of work.

      jh

    5. Re:Another Intel-funded CPU comparison? by CDarklock · · Score: 1

      > The clock speed or name of the
      > processor just shouldn't matter.

      The name, no, that shouldn't matter. Neither should the price. We're talking about performance differences, plain and simple; who made the processor and how much it cost are two things that have nothing to do with that.

      > Do you really think that your logic
      > would factor into someone's buying
      > decisions?

      No, I think it would factor into the question of which processor is comparable to another processor for purposes of benchmarking. Benchmarks are supposed to compare alternatives which are fundamentally *similar*, so they're on an even playing field.

      > The fact that you didn't go with the
      > FX processor because it was "too fast"
      > betrays your bias.

      Excuse me, but you're highly mistaken if you think I wrote that benchmark. I'm simply observing that you clearly don't know how you select the alternatives used in a benchmark, and that I would have made the same decision the reviewer did.

      Bias? Irrelevant. I've explained exactly why the 4000+ was, in my opinion, the right processor to use. Do you honestly think "it's cheaper" holds any water at all as a contraindicator? Bias, schmias, the 4000+ *should* show roughly equivalent numbers to the 3.73 -- and what do you know, it did; except in the one area where AMD processors are *known* to excel. That's a valid benchmark.

      --
      Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
  15. powerful enough to cause trouble by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1
    They may not be particularly powerful, but they are there.

    For some applications they are powerful enough to be a nuisance. Forget picking up weak amateur radio stations when you are close to a PC. I guess AM broadcast (if weak enough) could even be disturbed by a nearby PC. And indeed also at other frequencies than the clock: your machine may run at 1 GHz, but probably has higher harmonics. Also subharmonics and in short ALL kinds of noise will be created.

  16. Nothing to do with clock by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1
    I was thinking more of electrical discharges frying your computer.

    Your PC would indeed 'fry' if placed in a powerful enough electromagnetic field, such as a microwave oven. This is why we usually don't put it in. However this has nothing to do with the PCs clock speed, except maybe that technologically, to increase the CPU clock you need to decrease the gate length and the oxide thickness of your digital technology, making it less robust to fields.

  17. How reliable are these benchmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could help thinking of that article in my fave online hack-mag the Inquirer.

  18. Already has by elgatozorbas · · Score: 4, Funny
    Seems like we're trending towards multiple everything recently.. multicore CPUs, SLI.. how long before this propagates to everything?

    I have even heard about a guy with TWO complete individual PCs...

  19. Another troll who didn't RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, that is a most fair review. It makes perfect sense to conclude that, on mostly identical chipsets, that Intel is faster.

    Uh, did you read the article at all? The AMD wins virtually all the benchmarking scores, especially the games ones. The conclusion says "more attractive for SLI gamers ... but AMD's processors are superior in most gaming scenarios".

    1. Re:Another troll who didn't RTFA? by hirschma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OK, I'm responding to a troll that called me a troll :)

      Normally, in a processor comparison, the processors are comparable for a reason - same positioning by the companies involved, same price point, whatever.

      In this case, it appears that the only reason why the AMD proc was chosen was to give Intel "wins" in close contests, like LAME MP3 encoding, and to not make Intel's best look too awful in the cases where AMD won.

      Point is, Intel was represented with its best game. Why should AMD be presented in a less favorable light?

      There is little journalistic integrity with these enthusiast sites.

    2. Re:Another troll who didn't RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I remember back in the day, well about 5 or 6 years ago, when AMD didn't compare their top of the line chips to intel's top of the line and all the intel fanboys complained about it. This is no different its just reversed. This argument goes in cycles every 3 or 4 years when the companies fall behind and then gain an advantage over their competitors.

      The point of these comparisons is to compare 2 products which claim to be of simular and prove which one is better. Not to have one product which is sad to be better, the FX-55, and another product which claims to be inferior, which is what Intel has clocked it as since it does not go over 4GHz nor near it. Thats pointless. I see what you are saying in price but this isn't about price, its about performance and what tasks these 2 simular products are better at.

      Just remember when intel gets ontop again AMD will pull the same stunts intel is pulling now and all the Intel fanboys will say the same thing you are saying. And by "on top" I mean technologically of course not economically. All in all it was a fair comparison between hardware its not a comparison between which company produces the better stuff its only a comparison between simular hardware. Don't get confused by that.

  20. Nvidia RAID... not so good. by hirschma · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wouldn't consider Nvida RAID a feature worth buying into at this point.

    I have one box under Windows using Nvraid, and it is just terrible. It drops drives from the RAIDs seemingly for fun, and configuring a bootable RAID is difficult under XP, and impossible under Win2k (even with an SP4 slipstream install, in case anyone was going to point that out).

    The management software is crude at best. It cannot, for example, email alerts when a drive drops off.

    My $.02.

    jh

  21. Re:multi-everything - Yowza by grendelkhan · · Score: 1

    Multi chicks? Lining up women in an SLI mode that would be willing to do so with me? THAT my friend, would be a great thing.

    Mind you, it's price range is beyond my means, but that's why you have online shopping carts you can always clear out.

    --
    Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
  22. AMD board with RAID-5 by DamienMcKenna · · Score: 2, Informative

    Check out the Gigabyte GA-K8NXP-SLI board which has SATA-150 RAID-5 via an extra chip.

    Damien

  23. Where is PC Virtual Reality? by limabone · · Score: 1

    Maybe some knowledgeable /.ers can explain why VR seems to have died/stillborn on the personal computer? If we can get 100+ fps in Doom3 at 1600x1200 and wireless networking and battery consumption have dramatically improved, what's the deal? Is it consumer apathy? Is there some other technological hurdle that needs to be overcome (LCD's seem to be getting pretty damn small and good, ie PSP)

    1. Re:Where is PC Virtual Reality? by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Wearing a headset is gay?

      That and they couldn't push the latest pixel cruncher when the display on your headset would be at most ~640x480 ... a GeForce 3 can push that just easily... there would be no demand for 1600 by a billion pixel screens with gouraud shaded phong shaded radiosity effects ... on the culled faces ... let's not get talking about the exposed faces...

      All about supply and demand.

      There is a demand for the latest pixel pusher and not for the actual innovation...

      This is why most cpu lines are redundant... a 2 and 2.2 Ghz Athlon64 are essentially the same cpu, will get roughly the same performance on >70% of all tasks a user does, etc... but you have to have the latest.

      The innovation happens a little here and a little there and inbetween they fill it up with small increments with small returns.

      To be honest my most impressive move was from a 486SLC [low power SX clone] to a MI @166. It was night and day. From that to a MII 300 [233Mhz] was another nice but smaller increment. [since then I had a K6-2 350Mhz, Athlon 1.2 - 1.8Ghz, Athlon Barton 2.2, P4 Northwood 2.8 and finally a NewCastle 3200+].

      My last "significant jump" was from the P4 to the AMD64. The raw ALU power of this thing is amazing. It beats out other computers in my house by usually a factor of 2x or more when compiling [my LibTomCrypt if you're curious...] and holds it own on the power/heat front [cooler than a 2.8Ghz Northwood which had a louder HSF].

      So the quick answer is: The market don't swing that way.

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    2. Re:Where is PC Virtual Reality? by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      Short answer: total lack of worthwhile content.

      Games are nice, and I'm somewhat surprised helmet displays aren't more popular for them, but that's not really VR and there's no content outside of that that would make VR more popular.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
  24. It can't be that great. by TimeTraveler1884 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yawn... As the edgy new-age exteme computer user that I am, I am just not that exited about electronics that do not use "Extreme" as a marketing device. Thanks a lot Intel, for desensitizing me to less than Extreme PC components.

  25. Physics >> FCC by Morgaine · · Score: 4, Funny

    Current microwave ovens operate at a nominal frequency of 2450 MHz, a band assigned by the FCC.

    I think you'll find that the physics of water molecule resonance had something to do with choice of this band.

    Funny how every other country in the world chose the same band, despite not being ruled by the FCC ... :)

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
  26. Heisenberg by cp.tar · · Score: 1
    that nVidia were able to create a memory controller which out performed Intel comes as no great surprise when you look at the history of both companies Intel of course has the inside information on their cpu's but they have always been trying for a performance reliability compromise or the other hand nVidia try for cutting edge 300 miles per hour or nothing technology and thats why we love em of course nVidia have always pulled off this speed with stability anyway so you may not see where i am coming from

    Whoa!

    This post is like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - I can see what you wrote, but it just passes before my eyes way too quickly.

    Carry on, nothing to see here...

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
  27. Soundstorm by 1am · · Score: 1

    So, is Soundstorm gone for good?

  28. The question is how well it performs in real world by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    I recall reading somewhere how the benchmark of memory interleave performance on 865/875 left most other chipsets in the dust, but in real world has only marginal gain over other chipsets.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  29. How is the nforce4 Linux support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just bought an SLI board (AMD) and was wondering how well the raid and SLI video configuration is supported under Linux.

    I've booted my machine into it and to my suprise the ethernet devices worked out of the box with Xandros (based on debian sid). I still do not know about the raid or SLI video, however. I'm using a crappy old S3 PCI video card right now, but am about to receive two GeForce 6800 GTs in the mail. Can I use these bad boys in linux? Anybody know?

    1. Re:How is the nforce4 Linux support by hag3r · · Score: 2, Informative

      There has been quite a lengthy discussion on LKML on that topic. IIRC, there are some issues with NCQ and sound support, but it's an interesting thread well worth reading, if you're into nForce4-thingies that is.

  30. Re:Physics FCC by idlake · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I think you'll find that the physics of water molecule resonance had something to do with choice of this band.

    Less than one might think. Microwaves over a fairly broad range of frequencies work--more than enough for different countries to choose different frequencies. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they have.

  31. Open Real-Time Ray-Tracing by FiiKness · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you haven't taken a gander at it yet, you may want to take a look at OpenRT and projects using OpenRT such as Quake3 Raytraced. Also take a look at the hardware architecture as well.

    Ray-tracing presents a much more detailed rendering of a scene, but was always considerably slower than rasterization. If hardware-accelerated ray-tracing architecture grows in the market, you may see your skyline beautifully rendered in real-time .. with traffic, crowds, etc.

    1. Re:Open Real-Time Ray-Tracing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even know what you are talking about or are you just fawning about things that give you a hardon??

  32. Obstacles to Mainstream VR by podperson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My wife operates a VR research lab (they still exist) and all the new hardware is just great for them. Unfortunately, it only addresses one of the concerns which must be addressed before we can all live in the world of "Snow Crash". The basic problems for mainstream VR are as follows:

    1) The headsets really haven't "tipped" price-wise. Kind of like LCD screens for a long time, they stay expensive (around $10k) while slowly improving in features (e.g. resolution, motion tracking). Until they get "good enough" the prices won't trend downwards. (There are cheap headsets, but they make you sick pretty fast. Even the pricey ones make you sick after 30 mins or so ... so you won't be playing WoW in them.)

    2) The big issues w.r.t. UI remain unsolved. E.g. a lot of VR setups involve complex motion tracking and setting aside a room for subjects to walk around in. Usually a second person watches the subject to prevent them from, say, running into a wall... There are rigs that allow you to suspend the subject to allow them to walk through theoretically infinite landscapes... we're talking six figures though.

    3) Behavior capture. The solutions to tracking movement remain pretty experimental and invasive. All the stuff we've talked about so far will, at best, get you walking around in a virtual landscape, capture your head movements (kind of), and maybe capture some of your arm and finger movements. Even assuming your $500,000 suspension rig captures all your body movements perfectly, we still to capture facial expression and lip synch. (So far, spacial 3d audio is pretty primitive too ... Teamspeak is a long way from a person's voice emanating from their position in a shared world with lots of people.)

    4) Force Feedback. All this VR is going to seem pretty lame when you can walk through solid objects or your hand passes through an item you're trying to manipulate. Arguably, this is a subset of item (3) above, but in fact just allowing people to walk around in an unlimited expanse is a big enough problem...

    There are plenty of finer grained issues to deal with, but the rendering of VR scenes (at least, so far) has turned out to be the easy part. At the moment, if you wanted to play WoW in VR you'd need to set aside a large room, buy an expensive HMD, and a really expensive suspension rig. (Luckily, WoW lets you run straight through people so the UI will match this perfectly.)

  33. Re:Physics FCC by werewolf1031 · · Score: 1
    Microwaves over a fairly broad range of frequencies work--more than enough for different countries to choose different frequencies.

    Yoda Hawking? Is that YOU??

    What did you do to your hair...

  34. What about the drivers in the first place? by matricii · · Score: 1

    My biggest concern is the fact that NVIDIA can't get drivers right it seems... Their Unified ForceWare Drivers don't ever seem to work right all around the board, no matter what card or what version you're using... Maybe I just don't get it, but I think a 1 year old mongaloid chimp that's crippled in one hand could write better video drivers... Fix what you have before you release something else is my policy... Note: I own and only have owned Nvidia graphics cards since I have been gaming... It just frustrates me that this good of a chipset can get ruined by sloppy programming...

    1. Re:What about the drivers in the first place? by lifespan · · Score: 0

      Funny how experiences can differ so much. I've been using Nvidia for many years since my first TNT and I've had very few problems that weren't caused by other software, my poorly maintained OS or my own strange desire to toy with perfectly working things until they are broken.

      --
      -- Howto: Get +5 (1) Whine about M$ (2) Namedrop Gentoo (3) Casually Abuse Mods (4) Namedrop Early Computer Model