Slashdot Mirror


Four GPU Motherboard

didde writes "The people over at Tom's Hardware are running a story on Gigabytes experiments with quadruple GPU's on one motherboard. Perhaps we'll need something cooler than liquid metal to keep this beast from running hot?" From the article: "About half a year ago, we learned that Gigabyte was working on a graphics card that integrates two GeForce 6600GT graphics chips. While we were impressed with the out-of-the-box approach from Gigabyte, there was of course the question, whether two of those cards could be combined for a total of four graphics chips."

220 comments

  1. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Other than Opteron server boards with HT slots, where is a motherboard that could hook in two grpahic cards?

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

      PCI-E

    2. Re:So... by NetNifty · · Score: 1

      My ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe has two PCI-E slots.

    3. Re:So... by matth1jd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Other than Opteron server boards with HT slots, where is a motherboard that could hook in two grpahic cards?
      Well here's the list from NewEgg.
      SLI Equipped Motherboards.

    4. Re:So... by NetNifty · · Score: 1

      I mean two PCI-E graphics (x16? x8? I forget the name) slots. It also has a smaller PCI-E slot between the two PCI-E slots.

    5. Re:So... by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1


      And let me guess, you used to bulls eye Wamp Rats with it back home and they're not much larger than two meters right?

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    6. Re:So... by zackeller · · Score: 1

      Yes, and this one has four. Are we past the point of RTFA and can't even RTFH?

    7. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but the dual GPU cards made by gigabyte won't work in your motherboard. You can only put two single gpu cards in. Those cards only work in gigabyte motherboards.

      My question is how is the driver support? Dual SLI drivers that work mostly without issues came out less than a month ago for windows, and linux support just says 'coming soon'. If you look at the history the drivers have gone through a lot of pains and frequent iterations.

      How long are these quad drivers gonna take this time?

    8. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read The Fucking Hummary?

    9. Re:So... by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      RTF-Heading

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    10. Re:So... by wed128 · · Score: 1

      hehe...Hummery...hehe

  2. Quad Cards? by OverlordQ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe if you won the lottery and/or work is (for some odd reason) paying for it. 4 GFX cards that'll run SLI, or whatever SLI for 4 gfx cards is, will probably take up 75% of the total cost of a machine.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Quad Cards? by Morticae · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not necessarily.
      It's the same concept as a Beowulf supercomputer.

      With the possiblity of parallelism, we can use cheaper cards in tandem and get the same power as a high end graphics card (or one that doesn't exist) for far less money.

      It also helps things like failure--if one node fails you can simply replace it without the entire system (your $1000 graphics card) going down.

      Redundant systems and parallel computing are the wave of the future wooooooo!

    2. Re:Quad Cards? by taskforce · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is 2 cards with 2 GPUs on them each, not 4 cards. Last year Gigabyte launched their dual GPU cards, but they couldn't run in SLi. At the time one of the main comments from reviewers and fans who were shocked by the power was "Whoa, wouldn't it be cool to run 2 of those in SLi and have 4 GPUs!"

      --
      My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
    3. Re:Quad Cards? by Thinko · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, it's both.. It discusses running in 4- 8x PCI-Express configuration for 4 Single Chip cards, and 2- 16x PCI-Express configuration for 2 Dual-Chip cards.

    4. Re:Quad Cards? by wernercd · · Score: 1

      More cards for better performance at lower price?

      I haven't rtfa yet so I dont' know, but my assumption is that a specialty motherboard like this WON'T be in the bargain bin. So you'll end up paying more for the motherboard to start with (Again: this is an assumption - as soon as I CAN read the article I will)

      Personally, I doubt that 4x$100 cards will outperform 1x$500 card, much less 2x$250 cards (for the obviously more available SLI setup). Maybe benchmarks on the article will correct me, but with lab benchmarks you can alway count on inflation so I'd have to wait before I trusted them.

      Last but not least... I love new technology... but I know the support isn't great acrost the board for SLI yet.... Is that support going to carry over for 3+ card setups? Will the same drivers work or is it going to take a massive overhaul? What worth is a 4 card setup that don't work with HL2, Halo, Unreal, etc? And support for those apps would undoubtedly come long before support for CAD and other buisness related apps. Or am I wrong?

    5. Re:Quad Cards? by wernercd · · Score: 1

      I'm a moron... got the article finally and it's dual-GPU'd card over a SLI-type thing. But I still doubt that the parents assertion that it will be cheaper.

    6. Re:Quad Cards? by gcauthon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A cluster of X components is never going to be as reliable as a single component. If you buy more of something then your odds of seeing a defect go up, not down. You are correct in that if one card fails then you only need to replace the one card. However, your odds of a card failing are now four times as likely. Supercomputers are not for the thrifty and neither are multi-gpu systems.

    7. Re:Quad Cards? by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 0

      CAD and other such high end workstation apps are far more likely to already have support or to rapidly include such support. When you're paying thousands and thousands of dollars for your CAD designer, anything that reduces the time that he has to wait on the computer for will be adopted quickly.

    8. Re:Quad Cards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bzzzt. Your odds of a node failure go up, but your odds of an overall failure drop dramatically unless all nodes need to be operational to function. RAID 1 is more reliable than a single component, and most supercomputers have several nodes failing at any given time.

    9. Re:Quad Cards? by narcolepticjim · · Score: 1

      I think you're wrong about this in one particular aspect.

      A cluster will have a higher likelihood of having a component failure, but it will have a lower likelihood of suffering a complete failure.

      IMHO that makes a cluster more reliable than a single component.

      By your reasoning, you would be better off investing in one type of stock, because with each different type of stock you invest in, you increase your likelihood of one of those stocks tumbling.

    10. Re:Quad Cards? by MrDrBob · · Score: 1

      Actually, it isn't that expensive: I've just bought a nice Gigabyte motherboard/dual-GPU graphics card bundle off eBuyer. The whole thing only cost £330 (including VAT). That's for an nForce4 SATA RAID SLI motherboard (GA-K8NXP-SLI), plus a dual-GPU SLI graphics card (GV-3D1).

      And no, I've never won the lottery. ;-)

    11. Re:Quad Cards? by modecx · · Score: 1

      That's if you wanted the latest and greatest cards. You can get some decent PCI-e cards relatively cheaply. If you need the screen space, this is the best option that's come along since quad head cards on the Mac, as far as I can see.

      A couple dual-dvi cards and some nice LCDs would be killer, and not un-affordable... Probably under 3 grand with 4 fairly priced 19" LCDs.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    12. Re:Quad Cards? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but like dual SLI Voodoo2 cards, how freakishly long could you go with such a solution before being forced to say "ok, my freakishly powerful PC is finally too out of date to play the latest games"?

      I wouldn't be suprised if a quad machine lasted a cool decade with the current rate of technological advances in PCs.

      --
      It's been a long time.
  3. Limitations by taskforce · · Score: 5, Informative
    One of the major limitations of the GB Dual GPU cards is that they only worked on their propreitary motherboards, which is useless for people who use other brands of motherboards; this was supposedly because it was using the SLi in some strange way. (2 SLi links accross the GPUs as opposed to 2 boards)

    I would hope that they would be able to get these to run on all SLi boards, I've always thought one of the main strengths of building your own PC was the compatibility between differnet brands of components.

    --
    My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
    1. Re:Limitations by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you about the fact that all hardware should be compatible, having the cards working on all SLi boards would probably be kinda pointless if you think about it. I would assume people want single card SLi rather than dual card SLi because they don't have a dual PCI-E board. A single slot board won't be an SLi board because it hasn't got enough slots to do "true" SLi, meaning the card won't work even if it was fully SLi compatible.

  4. Pwnz0r by Brando_Calrisean · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now, finally, I can have the upper hand in Counter-Strike!

    --
    Don't call me a cowboy, and don't tell me to slow down!
    1. Re:Pwnz0r by mboverload · · Score: 1

      haha!

    2. Re:Pwnz0r by t0ny747 · · Score: 1

      There is no way a gpu can make up for that. :p

      --
      Taco?
  5. My God! by JudgeFurious · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...It's full of GPU's!

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    1. Re:My God! by Daravon · · Score: 1

      ...But does it go to 5 GPUs?

      --
      I traded all my mod points for these magic beans.
    2. Re:My God! by michrech · · Score: 1

      ...But does it go to 5 GPUs?

      I'm waiting for it to go to 11!

      ---
      telnet://sinep.gotdns.com -- Play TW2002 and LORD!

      --
      bork bork bork!
    3. Re:My God! by nihilistcanada · · Score: 3, Funny

      "All these motherboards are yours except Macintosh. Attempt no modern video cards there."

    4. Re:My God! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MULTI-CORE GPUS!!!

    5. Re:My God! by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      You saw it here first:
      ATI and NVIDIA will get into a race to see how many GPUs they can fit in one computer/on one card. This will be the new benchmark - out the door pipelines, see ya memory, the new way to go is the "ATI 14 GPU XTREME LAVA HEAT CARD".

    6. Re:My God! by psetzer · · Score: 3, Informative
      In GPUs, they don't have multiple cores, per se, but they do have multiple rendering pipelines. Modern graphics cards can have anywhere from 1-16 pipelines, with each pipeline doing one pixel at a time, as long as RAM is sufficient. Each pipeline is like a core, but not exactly; a core can run its own instructions on its own data, while a pipeline runs the same instructions as all the other pipelines do. In computer architecture, a plain old CPU is single-instruction-single-data (SISD), a multicore chip is multi-instruction-multi-data (MIMD), and a GPU is single-instruction-multi-data (SIMD). Mixing things up is the fact that after the Pentium MMX, all Pentiums are capable of doing SIMD on integer arrays, but can't do it on floating point numbers. (In fact, IIRC they can't even do regular floating-point math at the same time they are using the SIMD instructions)

      Multiple pipelines at a time allows you to increase the rendering speed almost linearly, as long as you accept the trivial restriction that you must get the same image as an output no matter what order you render the pixels in. It's the opposite of the CPU business. In CPUs, they started adding multiple chips first, and in the GPU side of things, they added multiple cores (or their equivalent) first. This is partly because it's easier to only decode one instruction at a time and send the decoded signal to every pipeline than it is to decode multiple instructions and send them to the correct cores. This isn't to say that it's impossible, but a couple million more transistors are enough to make you think twice about whether you really want two cores.

      --
      "Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is living in a state of sin." -- John von Neumann
    7. Re:My God! by eofpi · · Score: 3, Informative
      Mixing things up is the fact that after the Pentium MMX, all Pentiums are capable of doing SIMD on integer arrays, but can't do it on floating point numbers.
      Everything else you said is right, but CPUs have had SIMD floating point instructions for quite a while now (in the forms of 3DNow, SSE, and SSE2). SSE (and possibly 3DNow as well; I can't find any explicit statement either way) is single-precision only though.
      --
      Y'know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water.
    8. Re:My God! by flawedgeek · · Score: 1

      At least you won't need to pay for a furnace or natural gas....

      --
      My other Sig is .40 caliber.
  6. Voodoo 5 by jeffy210 · · Score: 1

    Voodoo 5 6000 anyone? Is this thing going to require its own external power brick just to the board?

    --
    ------
    "And may your days be long upon the earth."
    1. Re:Voodoo 5 by SubTexel · · Score: 1

      It's basicly the same thing.. Remember nVidia bought out 3Dfx.. I'm just surprised they waited this long to start using the technology the bought from them..

    2. Re:Voodoo 5 by kesuki · · Score: 1

      Nah, they sell standard ATX 700 watt PSUs...
      each card uses 100 watts, the cpu uses ~ 100 watts, the board itself uses ~100 watts, the dvd+hd uses anothe ~100 watts... that comes to about 700 watts... i rounded up a bit, though... and you can always get a Server 800-1100 Watt PSU, if you're not feeling like risking a 700 watt normal ATX PSU...

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

      A decent opteron will use 150 watts or more., I recall that a dual 252 was it, well 25* something used 320 watts or so.

    4. Re:Voodoo 5 by Karzz1 · · Score: 1

      You just brought back many not so fond memories. The first really high-end card I ever bought was a Voodoo 5 5500. That damn thing never worked right and the drivers never really left beta, as 3dfx was absorbed by Nvidia about 6 months after its release, IIRC. I still have the card, the box and the manuals though, haha. It is still the biggest and heaviest card I own.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    5. Re:Voodoo 5 by masklinn · · Score: 1

      Very big difference was that Voodoo 5 and 6 were build with a chip designed to run only parallelized (which is why cheapest Voodoo 5 with only 1 chip sucked ass, and the Voodoo 4 was a complete joke with it's crappy crippled chip).
      Current GeForces are designed as parallelizable, kinda like Opterons or Xeon.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    6. Re:Voodoo 5 by mikael · · Score: 1

      Voodoo 5 6000 anyone? Is this thing going to require its own external power brick just to the board?

      And the thrust from the cooling fans will be enough to power an executive jet.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    7. Re:Voodoo 5 by Scooter's_dad · · Score: 1

      Is this thing going to require its own external power brick just to the board?

      God willing, YES!

      --
      The road to hell is paved with Cat 5 cable.
    8. Re:Voodoo 5 by KillShill · · Score: 1

      external power bricks are preferable to the innumerable cable splitters inside the machine cluttering things up.

      a wire behind your desk (which you do not see for 99.9999% of the year) is far more preferable. and it has the added benefit of working on all systems, not just high end ones with powerful Power supplies. it also can regulate power more reliably. not to mention more easily deliver the amount of power it requires without even 500 watt supplies running out when you have dual/quad video processors in the future.

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
  7. Re:4 GPU by meatbridge · · Score: 1

    would people please stop making this joke. it's getting very tired.

  8. I for one by Inigo+Soto · · Score: 1

    welcome our Longhorn-running overlords

  9. In other news... by Swamii · · Score: 5, Funny

    Gigabyte has stated they will throw in a free Nuclear Power Plant to help pay for power consumption when you buy one of their 4-card chipsets.

    --
    Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
    1. Re:In other news... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      I guess that the blood-burning fuel cell would be a really bad idea for this application? (Then again, sacrificing other people for my gaming fix has a certain chaotic-evil spice to it.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:In other news... by ashmedai · · Score: 1

      Mod parent funny all you like, the fact is that two high end PCI-E graphics cards already have monsterous power requirements, and this motherboard potentially doubles that. Also...I can't see this motherboard being very useful unless you want to run 8 motherboards off of consumer video cards.

    3. Re:In other news... by Dark_Link2135 · · Score: 1

      In reference to the blood-fuel cell...

      "The newly developed cell in the size of a tiny coin is able to generate 0,2 milliwatts of electricity"

      If they develop gpus that run off that kind of wattage, THEN we will really have something.

      --
      "Potpourii doesn't taste as good as it smells." - Dark_Link2135
    4. Re:In other news... by owlstead · · Score: 1

      I can see only one fan on the motherboard. I hope that will be enough to cool the nuclear power plant.

    5. Re:In other news... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      They did have two design constraints:
      (1) Fit inside a human body without much fuss.
      (2) Not drain the person dry within two hours.

      Without those limitations, I'm sure they could come up with something. (How does Arioch Enterprises sound?)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  10. So...how much longer until... by LegendOfLink · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Remember Carmack promising us real-time rendering for full CG movies? Can you imagine a game with the visuals of the Shrek series?

    Personally, as an old-skool gamer, I'm hoping that if it ever comes to that, gameplay won't completely be forgotten, as the ratio of gamplay to graphics seems to diminish every day.

    1. Re:So...how much longer until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can you imagine a game with the visuals of the Shrek series?

      How many graphics cards do I need not to see that though?

    2. Re:So...how much longer until... by the_raptor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As graphics get closer to "good enough" reality, games will *have* to focus on gameplay over eye candy.

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    3. Re:So...how much longer until... by DrEldarion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      as the ratio of gamplay to graphics seems to diminish every day

      Yes, because games like Knights of the Old Republic, the Zelda series, Gran Turismo 4, the upcoming Will Wright game Spore, World of Warcraft, and so on and so on and so on have absolutely horrible gameplay!

      It always makes me laugh to hear "old-school" gamers complain about companies putting graphics ahead of gameplay. Do you not remember the LEGIONS of horrible games on the NES/SMS/Genesis/SNES/etc? There were TONS of games where basically the only gameplay that was there was "dodge this stuff and shoot this stuff".

      There have ALWAYS been a huge amount of "games" with horrible gameplay. The only difference now is that the crap looks nice.

    4. Re:So...how much longer until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lolol games look good so they cant play good lolol

      shut the fuck up, moron.

    5. Re:So...how much longer until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gameplay has ALREADY been forgotten.

      Show me ONE new innovative game from any of the big game makers...

      Valve? rehash of their old glory days.... nothing new there.

      ID? rehash of their old glory Days... absolutely nothing new there...

      Epic? ok we added vehicles.. whoopidty doo...

      NOT ONE new "megahit" game is anything new. there are some new things coming out of the indy and oss people, but certianly not out of EA, sony,Epic, Valve, Id, nintendo, etc.... they all rehash the same crap over and over and over with new graphics.

    6. Re:So...how much longer until... by Prophet+of+Nixon · · Score: 1

      Dude, search about the web and find Jets n' Guns, Alien Shooter, or Star Monkey... great games come out all the time, you just gotta look around.

    7. Re:So...how much longer until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Yes, because games like Knights of the Old Republic, the Zelda series, Gran Turismo 4, the upcoming Will Wright game Spore, World of Warcraft, and so on and so on and so on have absolutely horrible gameplay!


      That's exactly what us "old schoolers" hate. Have you played the upcoming Will Wright game Spore? No. Yet somehow, you know it has great gameplay because of its graphics.

      Also, Gran Turismo 4 doesn't have great game play. The series hasn't evolved since the first.

    8. Re:So...how much longer until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think graphics vs gameplay is the wrong arguement. The unending push for prettier worlds to play in has had a detrimental effect on them though. The prettier our worlds get, the smaller and simpler they become.

      Take Deus Ex as an example. You could fit every level of the second game into a single level from the first. Combine that with how the first game offered half a dozen different ways to complete a level, while the second took a very linier approach.

      I loved the GC Zelda title, but in order to make the world seem large, they created a world that was 95% water.

      Soul Reaver to Soul Reaver 2 - much of your time in the 2nd title was spent backtracking though the same strech of land, and neither of those titles had the scope of the original Blood Omen.

      MMO's have large worlds, but they are the exception. In this case, the developers need to focus on how large the world is, rather than how pretty it is. Yes, WoW is pretty, but it pales in comparision to most of the single-player fare out now.

      It's going to get worse before it gets better. It takes time and resources to make a game pretty. Game budgets are already past motion pictures in many cases. The harder and faster we push to make these worlds prettier, the smaller they become.

    9. Re:So...how much longer until... by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Yes, because games like Knights of the Old Republic, the Zelda series, Gran Turismo 4, the upcoming Will Wright game Spore, World of Warcraft, and so on and so on and so on have absolutely horrible gameplay!

      I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought so.

      The best modern games were First Person like Doom 3, UT2K4, and Medal of Honor!

      Not this 3rd person or car racing rubbish they keep pushing on us!

      Oh wait...

      (In seriousness, which game is better is a matter opinion. He likes older games. You like games that are 3rd person like and are mostly for consoles. I like games that are FPS. A game is one of those Eye of the Beholder things. Just because you like something doesn't mean someone else will. Yes... Old schoolers bitch about how gameplay sucks more now, and I will agree that a great deal of games back then sucked, but I will say that we should bitch about future games and let it be known we would rather play good games than bad games and that gameplay should be as important as graphics and vice versa as if your graphics render at 3fps on a console then it doesnt matter if you have the best game play in the world.)

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    10. Re:So...how much longer until... by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There have ALWAYS been a huge amount of "games" with horrible gameplay. The only difference now is that the crap looks nice.
      I always thought the main gripe was that nowadays the crap looks nice and costs millions and millions of dollars to produce. What you end up with, therefore, is a gaming industry that's become a big-money factory system run by huge media conglomerates who A.) overwork their employees and B.) are highly risk averse, meaning they are far more likely to produce mediocre games based on such-and-such "proven" media franchise than they are to invest in the things that makes games fun. All the money gets poured into stinkers and boring re-hashes and the small, innovative games companies get swept under the rug, or else are acquired and subsequently dismantled by the machine.

      DISCLAIMER: I almost never play videogames, I'm just relaying the gripes as I understand them.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    11. Re:So...how much longer until... by hawk · · Score: 1


      It always makes me laugh to hear "old-school" gamers complain about companies putting graphics ahead of gameplay.


      No, those are newbies. Old timers complain about having graphics in games at all.

      hawk who understands that nethack is the only game that matters

    12. Re:So...how much longer until... by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      dodge this stuff and shoot this stuff

      So, the measure of gameplay is now a matter of how many different elements are in one game?

      Lots of old games are good. Lots of new games are good. But a game doesn't have to have 80-million different things to do in it in order to be good. Some might say that focusing on one thing and doing it well more often makes for a superior gaming experience than games that try to cram every thing the developers ever thought of into the context of the game.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    13. Re:So...how much longer until... by menkhaura · · Score: 1

      Bah, in my days we played rogue and that was it. These games are called roguelike for a reason.

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
    14. Re:So...how much longer until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point. You don't understand what gameplay is.

      Proof: World of Warcraft has bad gameplay? Have you ever played -any- other MMO?

      The older games that everyone liked weren't favorites because they had great graphics. "dodge this stuff and shoot this stuff" is what most games are about. It's 99% of every FPS, and 50% of most MMO's.

      The problem, in my opinion, lies in the "reality" bullshit. I want games to be fun, not realistic... actually, let me rephrase: no game has come anywhere close to impressing me with its realism yet, so to hell with it - make the game fun. Forget the bullshit AI's.

      etc. etc. etc.

    15. Re:So...how much longer until... by hawk · · Score: 1

      Nothing wrong with rogue, other than that it's two easy and scripts can win . . .

      besides, nethack is the natural evolution of rogue.

      (however, I'm still skeptical of the color and ascii animaition of spells . . .)

      hawk

    16. Re:So...how much longer until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a game sucks, don't buy it. When you bitch about how shitty a game is, yet you didn't contribute to its creation, you end up sounding like...well...a little bitch.

      The incentive for game companies to make good games is money, not because they're afraid you'll make fun of them.

    17. Re:So...how much longer until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In combination with a couple of Cell processor arrays to handle the physics and AI of the game-play, this could work out. Somehow, I expect that games will be distributed only on Blu-Ray DVDs in the future...

    18. Re:So...how much longer until... by Flunitrazepam · · Score: 1

      games already look better than reality to me... :(

      --
      1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
    19. Re:So...how much longer until... by bint · · Score: 1

      Don't get your hopes up too far, better/more realistic special effects in the film industry hasn't exactly produced better films.

    20. Re:So...how much longer until... by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      As graphics get closer to "good enough" reality, games will *have* to focus on gameplay over eye candy.

      Not if you have enough hyped-up (testosterone-charged) pre-teen boys wanting the latest and greatest visuals. Marketers have only three adjectives to describe their product(s):

      Latest, bestest, greatest.

      The marketers have this all sewn up, and it don't take too many brains to figure it out.

      Get 5%, make noise, look cool and the rest will follow. Do you actually think that the Beatles phenomenon was unstaged? Do you think that "cool" is spontaneous? It used to be, now it's not.

  11. One (perhaps four) Word(s) (Plus some others) by __aawfbm2023 · · Score: 1

    OMFG. I fear the day when we see the return of VooDoo 6000 (http://home.tiscali.be/silvio/voodoo/images/V5-60 00.jpeg) style graphics cards.

    1. Re:One (perhaps four) Word(s) (Plus some others) by Thinko · · Score: 1

      If you want to see more example of 3DFX insanity.. Quantum3D (made some of the larger parallelized SLI boards for commercial and defense applications) just see here:
      http://digilander.libero.it/F1Land/3dfxarchive/med ia/pictures.html

      Cards like these come to mind:
      http://digilander.libero.it/F1Land/3dfxarchive/dow nload/media/gallery/quantum3D-mercury-16x3dfxvoodo o2pci-96mb-3.jpg
      http://www.3dfx.ch/gallery/albums/collectors_xray/ Elliotts_Voodoo5_6000_Quantum3D_Obsidian_100SB_001 .jpg

    2. Re:One (perhaps four) Word(s) (Plus some others) by 0racle · · Score: 1

      pfft. The graphics board in my Indigo Iris is bigger then that. Probably has the same driver compatibility too.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    3. Re:One (perhaps four) Word(s) (Plus some others) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And its nothing compared to the Quad pipe they had in the Onyx 2000's! Why I've seen refridgerators smaller than one of thoes!

    4. Re:One (perhaps four) Word(s) (Plus some others) by AgentAce · · Score: 1

      That website is fucking awful.

  12. Why? by nmg196 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can anyone think of a reason why you need more than one of these cards? Currently my machine runs the most complex game I can think of (HalfLife 2) at 1280x960 at more frames per second than my monitor even scans at.

    Why would you need it to be 4 times faster than that?

    OK, I can see that a handful of people might want to play at 1600x1200 if they have a decent monitor, but usually, running at resolutions higher than that is fairly pointless unless you have a 21" or bigger monitor. The average monitor can't do resolutions that large without blurring the pixels together from what I've seen.

    1. Re:Why? by Darth+McBride · · Score: 3, Funny

      Blurring the pixels results in free real time antialiasing!

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It could be useful for DSP work. With each geforce processor having more FLOPS than a typical processor, it packs a LOT of number crunching power.

    3. Re:Why? by MoralHazard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Half-Life 2 is the most complex game you can this of, right now. Shit, I remember people saying the exact same thing about the ATI Rage 128 and the original GeForce, right about the time the first Half-Life game came out.

      3D game animation is one of the few areas in which ordinary PC consumers run programs that routinely push the limits of their machines. Your machine might be enough to run HL2 perfectly well, but just give it a year or two. Game designers WILL push the envelope of technology, and your machine will eventually struggle to play the newest games.

      Remember, Gigabyte isn't shipping this Quad-GPU motherboard, yet. This might not hit shelves until next year. At which point it still might be overkill, but it'll be ready for the next-gen games.

    4. Re:Why? by willisbueller · · Score: 0

      Even if your monitor cannot refresh at more fps than the game runs at, the game will continue to feel more responsive at a higher framerate, which adds to the quality of the gameplay. http://ucguides.savagehelp.com/Quake3/FAQFPSJumps. html

    5. Re:Why? by jtshaw · · Score: 1

      Never used one of those new 24" Widescreen Dell LCD's have you? 12ms response time, 1920x1200 resolution, and all the pixels really exist...

    6. Re:Why? by Agave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are monitors smaller than 21"?? :)

      I will never understand why someone will spend $500+ on a videocard and then skimp on the monitor.

    7. Re:Why? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can only think of multiple displays with multiple monitors. Instead of a card handling all the monitors, each monitor (or monitors) is handled by a separate card. i.e. One for right, One for center, one for left, one for top or behind. For gamers, they could use it to create panoramic views. It could also be used for large multi-monitor displays demo displays, but for the average person, I don't see a big need.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:Why? by eht · · Score: 2, Interesting

      HD video output 1920x1080, do real time rendering of movies, why send a extremely large pre rendered movie when you can send just a couple scene files (though like compiled code vs source code they could end up being larger than the compiled version).

      Play game with real HD graphics.

      Don't limit the idea to just computer monitors.

      TV stations could use it to make real time HD talking heads, your anchor woman is sick, but signed a release to use her features in case she is sick to render her, or have her be in two places at once, or do without anchor people and CG everything.

    9. Re:Why? by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      Can anyone think of a reason why you need more than one of these cards? Currently my machine runs the most complex game I can think of (HalfLife 2) at 1280x960 at more frames per second than my monitor even scans at.

      Why would you need it to be 4 times faster than that?


      1080p.

      I want 1080p with every chrome setting turned to 11 and getting at least 30fps, preferably 60fps.

      OK, I can see that a handful of people might want to play at 1600x1200 if they have a decent monitor, but usually, running at resolutions higher than that is fairly pointless unless you have a 21" or bigger monitor.

      A GPU's performance at 1600x1200 should be roughly approximate to its 1080p performance. And 1080p "monitors" will probably run well over 45", with one in particular that I'm drooling over clocking in at 61" (I can't fit bigger in my apartment).

    10. Re:Why? by aliquis · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, and also, why do you need more than 640kB of ram? really? ;)

      (on topic: there will be released even more advanced games)

    11. Re:Why? by StonedRat · · Score: 1

      Guys will buy this for the same reason guys buy high-powered sports cars... to get the chicks!

      --
      "Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses." - Arthur C. Clarke.
    12. Re:Why? by CynicalGuy · · Score: 1

      If you have to ask why, then it's not for you.

      To name a few non-videogame reasons why you might want 4 GPUS in your machine:
      Energy - oil/gas exploration, Medicine - Protein and pharmaceutical research, Defense - flight and ballistics simulations, Entertainment and Media - renderfarms, special effects, art and character development.

      So there are still lots of applications out there where the more polygons, the better. Nowadays lots of this work can be done with these high-end graphics cards, which are actually really cheap compared to the SGI system you used to need to buy.

    13. Re:Why? by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      but usually, running at resolutions higher than that is fairly pointless unless you have a 21" or bigger monitor

      Dell has been managing to, quite effectively, stick 1920x1200 15" displays in laptops. I assure you that they are unbelievably crisp, and there is no blurring (because each pixel is an independent element). These sort of ultra high resolution panels are making their way to desktop LCDs now.

    14. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I'm more concerned about is the efficiency-whether it will actually be 4 times faster. I have a 6800 GT SLI system, overclocked. 2 6800GTs is not two times as fast as one- a 60% boost from the second card is more typical, and 80% is about as good as it gets. I wonder how much faster 4 cards will be compared to 1. It would suprize me if it were more than 120-130%.

      Having said, in raw performance, the Gigabyte option isn't that attractive, either. the 6600 GTs they use are much slower than the 6800 Ultra and GT, because they only have 8 pixel shaders. Combined with the efficiency question, I doubt it's much better than 2 6800GTs in SLI.

      Conluding, it's obscenely expensive, and isn't THAT blazingly fast either.

    15. Re:Why? by daVinci1980 · · Score: 1

      In SLI configurations, only the first graphics card can be used to output a signal.

      All traffic that goes out from the other boards goes across the SLI bus.

      --
      I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
    16. Re:Why? by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      " Can anyone think of a reason why you need more than one of these cards? Currently my machine runs the most complex game I can think of (HalfLife 2) at 1280x960 at more frames per second than my monitor even scans at."

      Running 4 copies of it? Joking, but not entirely. One of these days Valve might wisen up and make their games more competition friendly like QuakeWorld, which has a nice split screen mode that makes spectating matches a lot easier.

      That, and of course if videocards were only made to run the games currently out there we'd still be on voodoo's because nobody needs anything better.

      Though I do miss the days when ATI wasn't really a competitor. (See a very old valve hardware survey I found.) ATI and Creative are on my list of people I'd never buy from because of the bad driver history.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    17. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something this powerful may be overkill for the current generation of games played on a single monitor, but I'm already drooling, thinking about the multi-monitor possibilities that this could bring to a flight simulator. Four cards, each running dual displays would allow for a very wide, high resolution external display (7 widescreen monitors in portrait mode, plus one in landscape for the instruments, or 5+3 (think "cave"), or whatever suits your fancy).

      The actual simulation of flight is computationally cheap when compared to rendering the environment. A dual CPU system (1 processor to handle the simulation, the other to handle all the traffic) and a quad-card system (especially if they release dual-GPU cards that will work on this board) would be a real budget solution for a low-level simulator, when compared to the supercomputers that are used for image generation now.

    18. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are absolutely right. And besides that, who could possibly need more than 640MB of RAM?

    19. Re:Why? by pla · · Score: 2, Funny

      Never used one of those new 24" Widescreen Dell LCD's have you? 12ms response time, 1920x1200 resolution, and all the pixels really exist...

      Yeah, but after buying one on of those, you can't afford a quad-GPU system.

      Or games.

      Or food.

    20. Re:Why? by michrech · · Score: 1

      Not all of us.

      Some of us do stupid things like that to get guys. :)

      ---
      telnet://sinep.gotdns.com -- Come play TW2002 and LORD!

      --
      bork bork bork!
    21. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok using blender I can render frame of a movie or clip 100 times faster.

      or we can do many other things that are real uses for computers that can use this hardware.

      Games is the bottom rung of computing.

    22. Re:Why? by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      Doom 3 is more graphically complex/intense than Half-Life 2 at times. And this is all we have today - games don't even have realistic soft shadows yet. This is an 'investment to the future'. Also, some games actually play differently the higher your frames. Also, things like AntiAliasing and Ansiotropic filtering. Compare This. The difference between SLI and non-SLI is huge. If you're a graphics card whore (aka 1600x1200x6AAx16AF), this is the way to go. Now, imagine buying one of these things now. Next year, of course it won't be the fastest thing on the market, but it'll play whatever is out there at blazing speeds. Of course, the kind of person who would invest in this might upgrade in 6 months anyways.

    23. Re:Why? by Warpedcow · · Score: 1

      Jusy FYI, I have a Radeon X800 XT an IBM P275 21 inch monitor that runs HalfLife2 at 2048x1536@75hz. Silky smooth, unless I crank up the AntiAliasing, and yes, even at that high res, AA DOES improve image quality. Nonetheless, the X800 does a decent job, usually 40-80FPS, few dips below that.

      --
      moo
    24. Re:Why? by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Spending ~$1,000 isn't that much for a LCD of that size and quality which will last for more than 3 years. That's especially the case when you consider the insane amounts of money other "normal" people have no problem wasting on options for their status symbol cars. So, if you're the type of person who stares at a screen for >8 hours per day, it's a good investment.

      The 24" Dell's are among the best available today (I've done my research but am still waiting for my 3.5yr-old 19" CRT to die first); most of the larger LCDs usually have shitty response times. e.g. Samsung's 21.3"er - an otherwise awesome LCD - is stuck at 25ms, where ghosting is still very noticable.

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    25. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Currently my machine runs the most complex game I can think of (HalfLife 2)

      I can think of better (Doom 3 with all the settings all the way up.)

    26. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      samsung and others will soon be coming out with update versions of lcd with low refresh times. dell was just the first.

    27. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't you be better off running at 1600x1200@85Hz with everything enabled?

    28. Re:Why? by benow · · Score: 1
      Quad gpu is 8 video outs, which is enough for 2 overlapping stereoscopic projected 4 pane views into virtual worlds. Think 6'x5' rear projected panes each on the up, forward, left, and right. Then another set of projected screens overlapping those. One set of 4 panes is horizontally polarized, the other vertical and the operator wears polarized glasses. It would be a near surround 3d window into a real-time 3d environment. Admittedly, it will be a while 'til such installs are mass accepted (if ever), but the possibility is there.

      Or, perhaps a home brew UUUXGA projected screen of multiple components for massive hd screenings. Many more possibilities, I'm sure. 2 computers firewire sync'd each with 8 outputs at 1600x1200 is a wall at 6400x4800. Assuming no artifacting, that would be very realistic.

      ATI's card scaling tech seems to make possible up to 32 cards in a machine. Such a thing could immerse an entire audience in a 360 surround visually immersive 3d bubble.

    29. Re:Why? by mapmaker · · Score: 1
      Can anyone think of a reason why you need more than one of these cards?

      I bet you can't understand why you need a monkey with four asses either! Some people just don't get it!

    30. Re:Why? by mpn14tech · · Score: 1

      I am not sure if you have used multiple monitors, but I just recently started using them and am a total believer. Unless all you use your machine for is browsing and email, then even having two monitors can be useful.

      I do more than browse and currently run three monitors and wish I could add another three. As lcd prices come down I plan on adding more. So the more GPU's I can stuff into a machine the better.

    31. Re:Why? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The problem with low response time LCD's is that they generally compromise on image quality. While the 25 ms 213T does ghost when playing games it is also one of the few LCD monitors that has image fidelity that is good enough for my eyes.

      In the quest for the marketability of low response time, LCD manufacurers have been moving to lcd panel designs that just don't deliver image quality.

    32. Re:Why? by fr2asbury · · Score: 1

      By "get" you mean download of course. . . ;-)

    33. Re:Why? by menkhaura · · Score: 1

      No shit! More insight than funny IMO.

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
    34. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half-Life 2 is the most complex game you can think of, right now.

      Remember, nobody will ever need more than 640k.

    35. Re:Why? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> Play game with real HD graphics.

      wooo. HD = 1920*1080

      I already play UT2004, Doom3, Halflife2 etc at 1920*1200 silky smooth with just a single BFG 6800 ultra card.

    36. Re:Why? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I now own one of those Dell 1920x1200 24" monitors.

      Eizo is traditionally the Rolls-Royce of monitors for image quality.

      The image quality of My Dell 2405FPW is just as good if not better than my 19" Eizo L675 monitor that cost nearly $4000 a coupla years ago.

    37. Re:Why? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      The average monitor can't do resolutions that large without blurring the pixels together from what I've seen.

      Keep in mind that people doing SLI won't have "average" monitors.

      I don't have SLI but I love playing at 1600x1200 on my 21" CRT. I wish I could play 2048x1536, but I don't know if games support that.

    38. Re:Why? by ninjagin · · Score: 1
      It's a good question.

      Well, the source engine in HL2 was designed to run acceptably on middle-of-the-road hardware. The excellent performance of your card may be, in part, due to efficiencies in the underlying engine. In my game group, the most GPU-taxing game has been Doom3, hands down. Also, speed isn't everything. There's better-quality lighting, shading, texture/bump mappings, AA, and all the rest. It may be overkill today, but I'd really like to see how much better things could look -- regardless of speed -- when platforms like this become cheaper and more widespread.

      My own experience has led me to buy just a little under the top-shelf of consumer graphics cards (I'm running an AGP Radeon 9800XT (8x) on a 4x moboard), and as time marches on and new games come along, I just throttle back on the effects enough to keep the frame rates high on whatever I happen to be playing. My hope is that I can squeeze out another year with it before I'm ready to jump to PCI-express and build an all-new box in the process. That said, I'm not sure that I'd even consider buying a platform like this one -- it's just so much more than I'd need.

      I see the professional animator/CG market as being a good launchpad for this configuration. I used to dabble in it (long ago, using Maya and Poser, on less powerful hardware than I use today), and having to wait for an hour for some scene to render was a little rough on my creativity. I ended up doing other things while the images were baking, but I wished very much for a platform that could give me quick rendering with all the detail I wanted.

      --
      .. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
    39. Re:Why? by MaestroSartori · · Score: 1

      Just as an aside, real-time rendering of movies from the scene files would indeed be bigger than the resultant movie, probably by quite a margin - mainly because of textures, unless they're all procedural...

    40. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well maybe you should stop coding for free and get a real job.

    41. Re:Why? by moonbender · · Score: 1

      In Quake 3, anyway.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    42. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to me that it's more cost effective to buy near the "best bang for the buck" every two years than it is to blow your entire budget on one uber card every 4 years. Why not take advantage of technological improvements along the way instead of trying to "future proof" your machine?

  13. Intel's baby... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly this Intel only solution for quad GPU was designed to give Intel back the gaming throne from AMD.... But you need to have double the number of GPUs to do it, how pathetic ;)

    1. Re:Intel's baby... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well done. It didn't take long, did it? Someone whining that it wouldn't take an AMD CPU, and blaming it on some stupid conspiracy that everyone hates AMD. Look, dumbass, this board was designed to make Gigabyte a shitload of money, and nothing else.

  14. When this becomes standard... by xiando · · Score: 1

    ..then the PC will again be a more cool thing to play games on than PSP and Xbox2! I suspect PSP and XBox2 will be more cool for a while now, until all computers have Quadruple or more GPU's..

    1. Re:When this becomes standard... by rpozz · · Score: 1

      The GPUs that both consoles use are made by both nVidia and ATI, and you can bet your ass that before or shortly after the consoles have been released, you'll be able to get them in the form of (bloody expensive) PCIe cards. Considering that ATI are now also working on multi-GPU technology, the results from both should be interesting.

  15. Re:4 GPU by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they could make a "clicheed Slashdot jokes" filter that automatically mods down Soviet Russia, Overlords and ??? Profit jokes (i.e. starting score -1).

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  16. What's next? by brotherscrim · · Score: 5, Funny

    The new Gillette MACH 6© 6 GPU motherboard, with comfort strip.

    1. Re:What's next? by suso · · Score: 1

      Maybe then your girlfriend will enjoy it while you play games.

    2. Re:What's next? by AllahsAvatar · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of the MadTV Skit with the Mach 20 "The first blade cuts the hair, the second cuts it closer, the fifth blade removes that annoying layer of skin, the 10th takes care of those blood vessels, the 15th cleans the palque of your teeth, and...."

      --
      No sig for you! Come back, one year!
    3. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was taken from a MaD magazine, and it was 33, not 20 blades.

  17. Re:4 GPU by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

    I for one agree with our new humor critic overlord. That jokes getting pretty stale.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  18. Re:4 GPU by wernercd · · Score: 1

    Get accustomed to Overlords, In Soviet Rushia... 1) 2) 3) Profit!!!, 640k will always be enough, etc

    In slashdot, jokes dont' have to be funny...

  19. Maybe it's just me... by theGreater · · Score: 1

    ...but I can think of a lot more important things to do with 4 8x PCIe lanes than dual-SLI. Like pumping several dual-input monitors, or perhaps up to 8 single-input displays.

    -theGreater.
    1. Re:Maybe it's just me... by julesh · · Score: 1

      No, it's not just you.

      I'm waiting for somebody to suggest that you could take a single PC, provide it with four graphics cards, plug a USB hub and four sets of keyboard and mice into it, and use it to serve four users.

      It's "revenge of the mini"...!

  20. ianal, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ianal, but never mind, omfgrotflmao!

  21. From The Fucking Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It appears that the company has made significant progress, as the first picture of such a solution has reached our offices. The board, currently named "GA-8N-SLI Quad", shows four PCI Express slots that can be occupied by SLI-compatible graphics cards.


    So sayteh the 2nd paragraph
  22. I can't afford 1 new GPU... by Dareth · · Score: 1

    I can't afford even one new video card!!!

    I am still running my good ole Voodoo3 3500 w/tv-IN/OUT. For a Linux desktop though, it still kicks major butt!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:I can't afford 1 new GPU... by lotrtrotk · · Score: 1
  23. Kinda pissed at Gigabyte, actually... by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    ... They use some kind of retarded 1394 header pinout on their GV-3D1 kit mobo, instead of the ICH5 pinout that pretty much everyone else uses.. Including Antec... So now I'm stuck carving up the front panel firewire jumper block or snipping the block off and pinning out a whole new set of jumpers..

    Because of this, and the fact that Gigabyte doesn't include at least an ICH5 adapter in the box, they are on my shit list.

    1. Re:Kinda pissed at Gigabyte, actually... by rpozz · · Score: 1

      You should be able to push the clip on the pins into the block, pull them out, and simply re-arrange them or attach them to another block. No need to cut the wires.

    2. Re:Kinda pissed at Gigabyte, actually... by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      I'll try, but they stuck a blocker in one of the holes that's supposed to be live (power), and if that was glued in and won't come out, it's dremel time :/

  24. Covered in hot grits, no less! by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I, for one, WELCOME our cliched joke overlords!


    This is /. , we've gotta give people like you something to whine about.obligatory speeling errur.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  25. but wait, theres more by tezbobobo · · Score: 1
    I've just had a brilliant idea. Maybe someone could combine two of these to create a... no, that's just getting silly.

    But really, this sort of thing is important. People who play that many games need something to compensate for not being able to hold a steady relationship (Lara Croft at XXXXXfps doesn't count [not even as a quickie]).

    1. Re:but wait, theres more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly!

      I took a picture of my watercooled A8N-SLI wit 2*6800GT on my camera phone. It's kinda blurry and hard to see. When people ask 'what is that thing?', I say 'my girlfriend'. :)

  26. Re:4 GPU by bluephone · · Score: 0, Redundant

    1. In Soviet Russia, 4GPU Overlord jokes are very tired of Beowulf clusters of YOU! 2. ??? 3. Profit!

    --
    jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
  27. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...never want to hear that joke again. Dear GOD people, get some new material. Longhorn-running overlords? do you even read what you type?

    1. Re:I for one... by Inigo+Soto · · Score: 1

      I'm blind, you insensitive clod

    2. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, new material gets YOU!

    3. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Register for an account at Slashdot
      2) Get some new material
      3) ???
      4) Profit!

  28. Could someone please explain how this works? by under_score · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is this four GPU's driving a single display? What is this SLI stuff?

    1. Re:Could someone please explain how this works? by zdr1977 · · Score: 1

      SLI is a technology for newer nvidia PCI-Express cards...on motherboards with 2 PCI-E 16x slots, you can use two identical video cards that share in the rendering of graphics. Sort of a throwback to the days when you could have 2 Voodoo2s installed.

    2. Re:Could someone please explain how this works? by kebes · · Score: 4, Informative

      The 4 GPUs are on two dual-core cards. You could use this in an SLI setup to run a single monitor with ridiculous amounts of graphics power, or two monitors with still amazing graphics rendering, or more monitors if you wanted to, I suppose.

      SLI is Scalable Link Interface. It's a way to have two video cards running a single display. If, for instance, you have a video game with really high graphics requirements, but you don't want your frames-per-second (fps) to drop, then you could use the two graphics cards to render alternating frames. That way, you have high frame rate combined with the best graphics. In theory you can double the graphics complexity of whatever you are trying to render. In practice, of course, it can be hard to get it running, and for many games/applications won't make any difference whatsoever. It's still a very much "power gamer" setup, only for people who (1) have the money, (2) like tinkering, (3) enjoy being "bleeding edge" just for the heck of it, (4) really like their games to look slick... at any cost!

      Despite the fact that SLI is currently seen to be sorta frivolous by many, it's quite possible that SLI (or multi-GPU cards) will become common in the future, and will in fact be required to play modern games.

    3. Re:Could someone please explain how this works? by Westacular · · Score: 1

      Sadly, no one yet offers a solution that provides memory-sharing between GPUs, and you end using a lot of very expensive, fast memory to duplicate the same texture and geometry data on each card.

      It seems like a collosal waste to me; given that the memory represents a large proportion of the cost of a high-end gfx card, one would think they'd borrow some knowledge from SMP designs to make better use of it.

    4. Re:Could someone please explain how this works? by rpozz · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, each card had two GPUs, with RAM for each. I don't think they're dual-core - nVidia would have had to have made them specially.

    5. Re:Could someone please explain how this works? by rpozz · · Score: 1

      While dual-GPU is relatively new (not including the Voodoo SLI), the only way sharing the same data between GPUs could be achieved would be by giving them access to the same set of RAM. Unfortunately, while it saves money, I would imagine that given the amount of data that has to be read from the RAM, the performance loss would be a problem.

    6. Re:Could someone please explain how this works? by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Despite the fact that SLI is currently seen to be sorta frivolous by many, it's quite possible that SLI (or multi-GPU cards) will become common in the future, and will in fact be required to play modern games.

      Graphics cards already are massively parallel. The level of parallelisation will only increase, but I think there are more efficient ways of increasing performance than duplicating everything - for instance, it's just extremely wasteful to have individual memory per card. It's necessary for running dual-cards, and this necessity is inherited when running two SLI'd GPUs on one card, but this is one of those things that will prevent SLI from ever gaining mainstream interest.
      As for multi-GPU, well, where do you draw the line. Either today's GPUs already are multi-GPU in a way - they certainly duplicate pretty much everything doing work -, or there are no multi-GPU cards and there likely won't ever be in mainstream usage because of the reasons outlined above.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
  29. Re:4 GPU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine a beowulf cluster of one of these in soviet russia where profit makes you?

  30. 4 GPUs, 4 monitors......... by pg110404 · · Score: 5, Funny

    .....and a hell of a lot of porn. How sweet is that?

  31. Imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine a beowulf ....

  32. What about... by ArcSecond · · Score: 1

    What about when games let you use more than one monitor? Either a side-by-side configuration, or a left-center-right config would be awesome, giving you peripheral vision. I think the 3-monitor setup would be a great way to use a big/expensive center monitor and a couple of smaller/cheaper ones on the sides.

    --

    I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.

  33. Pricey! by JohnPM · · Score: 1

    Gallium costs around $US500/kg.
    It's hard to say how much they would need in
    this product, but it wouldn't suprise me if the
    gallium alone adds $30-50 to the cost.

    --
    Karma police, I've given all I can, it's not enough, I've given all I can, but we're still on the payroll.
  34. 3dfx stuff is STILL good! by burnttoy · · Score: 1

    I'm using the same card and thanks to the amigasport guys there's still 1/2 decent drivers. Works a treat on my lounge PC. Doesn't get used for much hardcore gaming mind. I happened to pick up a couple when my last company had a clear out.

    It depends what you're after but TNT2s and 3000 type cards still run the desktop pretty well.

    --
    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
  35. Why would 4X the GPUs require 65X the cooling? by b00m3rang · · Score: 1

    n/t

  36. That is what I do not understand. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    "Remember, Gigabyte isn't shipping this Quad-GPU motherboard, yet. This might not hit shelves until next year."
    But by next year nVidia will have the next generation of video chip out. Gigabyte is using the 6600GT. Isn't the 6800 Ultra out already? Would four 6600GTs give you more power then two 6800 Ultra's?

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:That is what I do not understand. by MoralHazard · · Score: 1

      Would four 6600GTs give you more power then two 6800 Ultra's?

      Now how the heck am I supposed to know that?

    2. Re:That is what I do not understand. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Since you are posting your opinion I thought you might have some facts to back it up.
      The specs for a 6800 ultra are.
      512 MB
      Memory Bandwidth 33.6 GB/sec.
      Fill Rate 6.4 billion texels/sec.
      Vertices per Second 600 Million
      Memory Data Rate 1050 MHz
      Pixels per Clock (peak) 16
      Textures per Pixel* 16
      RAMDACs 400 MHz
      And for the 6600 GT
      Memory Bandwidth 16.0 GB/sec.
      Fill Rate (texels/sec.) 4.0 billion
      Vertices per Second 375 million
      Memory Data Rate 1000 MHz
      Pixels per Clock (peak) 8
      RAMDACs 400 MHz
      Since the performance of the 6600GT is VERY close to half of the 6800 Ultra. I would say it would be close to a wash. It is probably close enough that the four GPUs are not worth the effort. Remember that SLI does not double your speed and I would expect that four GPUs would not be four times the speed.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  37. Re:4 GPU by ergo98 · · Score: 1

    I didn't see Natalie Portman or hot grits anywhere in that. Clearly all your base are belong to FreeBSD being dead on behalf of the goatse GNAA.

  38. They already do. by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 1

    My GeForce FX 5700 card already has an external power connector.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:They already do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To the PSU but not to the wall, the Voodoo went into the wall.

  39. Bandwidth and the Potential of this Card by vectorian798 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know a lot of you are gonna be saying that there is no mobo with two x16 PCI-E slots so let me point out one right now:

    Tyan Thunder K8WE - definitely the top of the line for dual-opteron mobo's right now IMHO.

    Anyways, the reason this is a stupid idea is of course that as soon as someone 'upgrades' to this and squeezes out a refresh rate higher than our monitors can produce or our eyes can detect, we will have our next-gen cards and games.

    Next-gen cards of course will have hardware features (read: steeped in the architecture) that no matter what you do, this generation of cards won't be able to support. For example, think of the GeForce 4MX versus the GeForce 3 Ti 200. As you may know, the 4MX does not have any shaders and the Ti 200 does. Even if I bundled up 4 4MX's, I would not be able to render reflective water in Far Cry or Half Life 2 (assuming the game in question allowed it with out inferior GPU first of all) simply because there is no dedicated hardware for volumetric per-pixel effects.

    So then, instead of getting more GPU's (or spending money on a more expensive mobo just to be able to SLI) people should just wait until we actually need that extra juice - and now certainly is not the time. I recall that in one of the Unreal 3 Engine demos from a long while back, someone commented that the 6800's would run U3 like crap even on low settings (I think they said 25 FPS).

    1. Re:Bandwidth and the Potential of this Card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did this get marked informative? Gigabyte's dual GPU cards only work on Gigabyte motherboards. This guy is clueless and misleading.

      Furthermore you need two SLI chips to run the two cards with two GPU each option or the 4 with 1 GPU each option that the article talks about. So normal SLI boards cannot be made to support either of them.

    2. Re:Bandwidth and the Potential of this Card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      speaking of the Tyan K8WE, here's someone who has maxed it out (wow, that's easily more than $12K worth of hardware at retail!):

      http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=4 5575

      He mentions running (SuSE) GNU/Linux on it too.

      Supermicro apparently has a similar board although they are being very quiet about it; see for example this machine:

      http://www.colfax-intl.com/jlrid/SpotLight_more.as p?L=88&S=14&B=1004

  40. Re:Why would 4X the GPUs require 65X the cooling? by UnholySauce · · Score: 1

    Well somebody's not an overclocker.

    --
    Cloud and Tree - not just an immature webcomic, but a VISION.
  41. Re:watch out for falling rocks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Masterpiece

  42. And yet... by linebackn · · Score: 1

    hardware manufactures have to save a few cents and give us those lobotomized winmodems instead of real modems. I guess it shows where people's priorities are.

    1. Re:And yet... by I'm+just+joshin · · Score: 1

      What's a modem?

    2. Re:And yet... by javaxman · · Score: 1
      hardware manufactures have to save a few cents and give us those lobotomized winmodems instead of real modems.

      dude, you use a dial-up modem? You're sooo not the target market for these graphics cards. They're trying to sell these to people who can afford broadband. If you still remember when computers used real modems, they've already written you off as too poor to be a customer...

  43. SFF by willisbueller · · Score: 0

    Don't forget making up a small... form factor

  44. Movies by foxhound01 · · Score: 0

    Just imagine when ILM or Pixar gets their hands on a few of these, they'll finally get the processing time down to less than a year per film.

    --


    Linux is to the internet as Duct Tape is to the Universe.
    1. Re:Movies by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Naw, ILM and Pixar will be using something like that Cell-based IBM blade server that there was an article about yesterday...

      --

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

  45. Mod Parent Up Please! by under_score · · Score: 1

    Very informative - thanks!

  46. More Power! by Phu5ion · · Score: 1

    We're going to need a bigger boat^H^H^H^HPower Supply!

    --
    Slashdot is kind of like Playboy; we aren't here to read the articles.
    1. Re:More Power! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone casually looks at your computer and says, "Nice, redundant power supplies!" to which you reply, "No, one of them just powers the video card. And it's still barely enough!"

  47. LAME GPUs by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Quad PCI GPUs offer the best $:MFLOPS we can get, especially for PCs. Who's got SW to harness their linear algebra engines to run a pool of LAME MP3 encoder engines, without bugging the CPU one bit?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:LAME GPUs by morcheeba · · Score: 1

      check out gpgpu or BrookGPU as starting points.

  48. Not true. by imsabbel · · Score: 1

    At least its not quite as bad.
    The 500$/kg is for semiconductor grade gallium (99.9999% pure).
    As the used material should be a gallium alloy (to make is liquid at 20C), purity should not be an issue, so industrial grade gallium for 150$/kg can be used.

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  49. ATi's better:P by ggogeta · · Score: 1

    Crossfire may be able to support up to 32 graphic chips, sources said. -Tom's Hardware guide

    1. Re:ATi's better:P by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      Crossfire may be able to support up to 32 graphic chips, sources said. -Tom's Hardware guide

      And by the time ATI release the 15th driver revision, 2 of them might actually work reliably.

  50. Re:4 GPU by lupinstel · · Score: 0

    Only old Koreans complain about the jokes on Slashdot.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
  51. Good News for CAD and Animators... But... by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 1

    This is seriously good news for solid modelers and animators. These are two fields where you can never have enough horsepower. It also may prove useful in rendering farms (nvidia is working on hardware acceleration for render farms).

    On the downside, you can only use one monitor in SLI mode, and most pros would rather saw off their own genitals than go to a single monitor setup. The workaround would be to grab an older PCI card for the secondary display device. Kinda sux.

    BBH

  52. And, after that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what's the next step after 4?
    8? 16?
    Every day brings us closer to ye olde 3Dfx's dream:
    Wall of Voodoo
    http://www.wallofvoodoo.com/

  53. SGI Prism is delivered with 16 GPUs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SGI has been delivering workstations with several GPUs for many years. This is the configuration of their Prism Linux workstation:

    * 4-16 ATI FireGL GPUs
    * 16-256 Intel Itanium 2 CPUs
    * Up to 6.1TB with RAM
    * Up to 96 PCI/PCI-X slots (91 available)

    http://www.sgi.com/products/visualization/prism/

    1. Re:SGI Prism is delivered with 16 GPUs by benow · · Score: 1

      Yeah, erm, I think the gigabyte solution will be somewhat under $200k.

  54. Re:Til it looks real by vertinox · · Score: 1

    Personally, as an old-skool gamer, I'm hoping that if it ever comes to that, gameplay won't completely be forgotten, as the ratio of gamplay to graphics seems to diminish every day.

    Well... The way I see it... Graphics will improve until you cannot tell the difference from what is on the screen and real life.

    Which maybe be a while... Maybe not. I'm no futurist predictor mind you.

    After that reach that point in which you can generate a video game that looks like real life you can only improve on gameplay since you can't really make anything look more real after a given point (well you can nit pick about artistic value and maybe you could improve the amount of polygons by another 5,000,0000,000 time infinity plus 1, but after a given point the eye can not tell the difference and most people will stop caring as long as the game looks real).

    So after a while of creating video games that are indistinguisable from real life, you are left with just making it easier to make games since once you have generated a game engine to create reality and every bit of it's aspect down to atoms you only have to worry about the art.

    And thats when they start doing templates where they make tools to say "computer generate me a man 5 foot 4 inches and give him a uniform and a mustache and call him bob. Make him bald and give him an ak-47 and stick him on the street corner two years north of the trash can already there. Use the average soldier AI they scripted a few months ago. K thnkx computer". I mean if everything was programmed in a computer you wouldn't have to sit there and draw it each time. I mean an AK47 can only look like an AK47.

    So maybe at this point they will start devoting to game play again.

    Then again we might all be in our 90's by then and bitch about the fact that games don't look like rendered polygons like they did on the original Xbox.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  55. Namco by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

    Katamari Damacy http://www.namco.com/games/katamari_damacy/

    But anyway, you shouldn't complain so much. Just like the great stories have already been told, the game ideas have already been done. They can be improved upon or redone, however, just like movies can be remade or stories can be retold with new novel twists on the characters, situations, or events. Games will continue to improve or maybe just change. But that's okay.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
  56. It doesn't have great graphics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're just functional... very abstract.

    The gameplay concept is based on evolving a species from the cellular stage all the way up to a galactic civilization. You start in a tidal puddle and end up spanning worlds. Everything is procedurally generated based on how you and other players around the world have been doing things.

    Now, the gameplay might turn out to be awful if the balance is wrong, but in no way is it a game which favors graphics over innovation. If it falls into a trap it will be the Black and White/Fable problem of overly high ambitions and not enough actual content.

    Not judging a book by its cover is one thing, but sometimes it is fair to comment on a manuscript based on the excited explanations of the author.

  57. The world doesn't seem new because you're not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The day you say "The world has gone downhill since I was a kid" is officially the day you are old.

    Adults have been saying this for all of recorded history. Cicero said it.

    Cool new music, games, and films come out all the time. Up to a certain age, you want to be exposed to new things. You seek them out. Your friends tell you about them.

    After a certain age, you don't want to be exposed to new things anymore. Your patterns are set. You *think* you want new things, but what you're actually describing is "things that are new in the way things were new when I was young."

    EA, Sony, Epic, Valve and ID do indeed play to their strengths, mostly. However, it is important to remember that any big company will try to rerelease things... movies, music, books, whatever.

    For a very short period, games were free of repetition because there were no games to repeat.

    As early as 1989, the market flooded with identical platformers. There was just as much unimaginative crap then. It's just that you only got one kind of crap. Breakout clones? Space Invaders knock offs? Sheesh.

    When you were young, you had the energy to wade through the crap quickly. You were excited at the possibility of finding a cool game.

    Now you're too old and too isolated to hear about the really great games. You're too busy to play games constantly. You're disaffected. The result is that even though everyone and his brother was shouting "Holy fuck, Katamari Damacy! Lumines! Animal Crossing! Rez! ICO! Morrowind!" during this generation, you missed out on it. To you, the world of games is what's advertised on magazine covers. That's how the advertisers like it. It makes them money.

    When you were young, everything was new to you. Now you are an adult, and there are fewer things you are doing for the first time. Adjust, and stop pretending your window on the world is accurate. None of ours can be alone.

  58. Natalie Portman? by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 1

    Surely there's a picture of her naked in here somewhere. Possibly in... SOVIET RUSSIA.

  59. Real time ray tracing. by Viceice · · Score: 1

    Can you imagine how cool it would be to be able to do full ray tracing in a large complex game world in REAL TIME???

    As it is ray tracing a single frame of a medium polycount room takes a fair bit of time...

    --
    Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
  60. Re:Til it looks real by Talahaski · · Score: 1

    there will always be other improvements to make a game seem more real. These will continue to get in the way of true gameplay, and only the rare games will find ways of breaking this chain. One the visual is near true site, they will move to adding other sense information. Some companies have already started work on computer devices that add smells during gameplay. Once visuals, sounds, and smell is perfected, they industry will move onto motion. We already see this in many arcade games such as Dance Revolutions and flight simulators. Vibrating joysticks will be replaced with miniture pods the side of a small office cubicle that will offer 360 degree visuals along with full flight simulator motion. The next step will improve on touch, at this point technology may be ready to directly link to the brain and send sensory impulses.

  61. Re:4 GPU by Toxygen · · Score: 1

    You forgot the breast option.

  62. System Requirements by William-Ely · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    1.21 Giga Watt Power Supply

    Phase Change Cooling System

    High Resolution Screen

    Really Small Penis

    Full Tower ATX Case

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  63. 3dfx Voodoo5 6k no different from a 3dlabs Wildcat by NRAdude · · Score: 0

    3Dfx was going for framerate, and was a great design. 3DLabs has been designing full-length adaptors for its entire charter; whereas its last actual desktop product before acquisition by Creative Labs was the full-length (~14inch passively cooled 3DLabs Oxygen RPM. All these designs are great, but their sole problem is being implemented when fabrication technology was not as good as it is now. 3Dfx, if it survived, could have shrunk its adaptor down to the size of its Voodoo3 reference board and sport a multiple-core IC of no less than six VSA-100 chips; that would be a great thing to own, even today. Software built with the Glide API has been used in speciality arcade machines, and to date is visually stunning compared to the recent technology from ATI and nVidia. Call me a masochist, but you can run Doom3 (without the added pipeline cruft) on no less than a Voodoo2 graphics accelerator (SLI recommended). Much was specialized by Quantum3D in their Heavy Metal graphics clusters and Obsidian line (X24 is the bomb).

    So much great technology from twenty years ago can be re-implemented today and it'll sell again because it is good. We don't need faster hardware, but uptime and stability and compact dimensions. I want a 386 PDA, some other people want a Commodore 64 or PDP11 wrist-watch. These are original technologies made in the United States, not exported for manufacture oversees. Doesn't anyone remember the glory days when all these foreign countries were duplicating the Motorolla Z80? It breaks my heart that all the technologies today have been pushed overseas. I'ld rather go the Amish route just to be certain that all the furniture, tools, food, carriages, medicine, and whatnot is all non-corporate made in America without the United States (Title 28, Sec 3002, 15(b)).

    The corporate States in these de-jure states of this country are causing such a ruckus; wanting quick-profits moreso than all-Americans to break-even to keep the work here.

    --
    without prejudice
  64. A few important things ... by nilbog · · Score: 0
    First of all, HP already offers a workstation that has dual pci express ports that can either work together for one monitor, or work seperately for up to 4 monitors (HP xw9300).

    Second, you don't need any unholy cooling methods as it is multiple chips, running at normal speeds. You would need special cooling for one chip running at 4x the speed! :)

    --
    or else!
  65. Apostrophe by Stankatz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "Gigabytes experiments with quadruple GPU's on one motherboard"

    Not using apostrophes for posesives is bad. Using apostrophes for plurals is also bad. Actually, abreviations, such as GPU, used to be pluralized with "'s", but this is no longer the preferred way. Go ahead and mod me off-topic if you like, but these errors really make it hard to understand the content.

  66. Re:Til it looks real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    here will always be other improvements to make a game seem more real.

    Meanwhile, the smart ones will go out and have actual real experiences to get our jollies.

    Have you ever had a gun pointed at you in real life? It's pretty fucking intense and scary. Especially on mushrooms. Beats any game I've ever played or ever will play.

  67. But do they all merge into one? by Kris_J · · Score: 1

    Nothing in the article even implied that both pairs of GPUs would subsequently be merged a second time so that all for GPUs we processing the one image. Or did I miss something?

  68. 4 GPU's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry for the lack of specifics. A year or so ago a friend of mine working at ATI showed me some pictures of 32 and 64 GPU boards. It was the fastest GPU's they had at the time(5800 Pro, something like that). Anyways, obviously used for render farms/real time mil simulations. Makes me feel really sad that I'm still running a PIII 450 with a TNT2 card :(

  69. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop saying " Bzzzt", god damn it! Do you know how fucking ANNOYING that is, you stupid motherfucking shit-eating cunt.

  70. mmm..powers of two by Cliff.Braun · · Score: 1

    What if we get two of these babies running together? or two of those? maybe four of them? we could have like 256 GPU's In the future we wont buy sticks of RAM, we'll buy sticks of GPU. The people who don't know anything about computers will ask if you don't have enough GPU's. I think that the trend will end when people replace their central heating(in the winter) with their PC's and need a second air conditioner in the summer. Or maybe one will just spontaneously combust?

  71. Re:4 GPU by confused.brit · · Score: 1

    Ouch! Damn... this graphic is unreadable. Does that make me a script?

    --
    Sigs are for wimps
  72. Only four? by dododge · · Score: 1

    SGI sells single machines with up to 16 GPUs and 96 PCI-X slots. Granted, they are a tad bit more expensive than your average desktop system.