Slashdot Mirror


Nvidia Launches 8800 Series, First of the DirectX 10 Cards

mikemuch writes "The new top-end GeForce 8800 GTX and GTS from Nvidia launched today, and Loyd Case at ExtremeTech has done two articles: an analysis of the new GPU's architecture, and a benchmark article on PNY's 8800 GTX. The GPU uses a unified scalar-based hardware architecture rather than dedicated pixel pipelines, and the card sets the bar higher yet again for PC graphics." Relatedly an anonymous reader writes "The world and his dog has been reviewing the NVIDIA 8800 series of graphics cards. There is coverage over at bit-tech, which has some really in-depth gameplay evaluations; TrustedReviews, which has a take on the card for the slightly less technical reader; and TechReport, which is insanely detailed on the architecture. The verdict: superfast, but don't bother if you have less than a 24" display."

149 comments

  1. WOW! This is FAST! by Salvance · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's actually pretty surprising that the DX10-compatible 8800 runs $450-$600 given it's brand new and has huge performance gains over NVidia's current cards. I don't understand why someone would say only buy it if you have a 24" monitor though ... it seems like buying a single 8800 would be just as good (and cheaper) than buying a couple 7800's ...

    --
    Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
  2. DNF! by spacemky · · Score: 4, Funny

    I heard somewhere that this will be one of the only supported video cards in Duke Nukem Forever.

    *ducks*

    --
    640YB ought to be enough for anybody.
    1. Re:DNF! by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      I'm sure a lot of people are going apeshit with excitement over this card, but in a year everyone will have forgotten about it, because the next big thing will have been released by then. The 7900 was released in March 2006, for fuck's sake, and now everyone is talking about the 8800. People don't even realise that they'll be able to use the 7900 for several years before it gets outdated. Then again, I'm so amazingly oldschool that I use 1024x768 with no AA or AF (=useless gimmicks), so what do I know. I have a X800 and it's still enough to run games without compromising graphics quality too much (except BF2142 because the engine was programmed by monkeys).

    2. Re:DNF! by EvilIdler · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're half-right; it will be the oldest supported card.

    3. Re:DNF! by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      > AA or AF (=useless gimmicks)

      I have a 20" screen. Even with its native resolution of 1600x1200, pixels are quite large. Turn off AA, and particularly AF, and any game looks pretty poor (jagged edges and un-merged texture edges look abysmal when magnified).

      Particularly looks awful if my poor vanilla 6800 won't let me do more than 1024x768 for a game (e.g. the monster that Bethesda created which is Oblivion); generally this looks awful scaled to fill the screen (esp. with AA low or turned off). If I'm using 1280x1024 the screen is large enough that I can just run it centred and it doesn't look silly/too small.

      For most people who have a more down-to-earth screen, I'd agree, there's no need to upgrade so frequently. Even in my case, I'm not going to change from my 6800 anytime soon unless I see a real bargain in the lower high-end bracket (about €300, and something more powerful than say 7950GT). MMMmmmm... I'd love one of these 8800 series cards though...

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    4. Re:DNF! by Saikik · · Score: 1

      DNF runs on DX12 anyway...

  3. another review by brunascle · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hot Hardware has another review

  4. More In-depth Analysis Here At HotHardware.com by MojoKid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    NVIDIA has officially launched their new high-end 3D Graphics card that has full support for DX10 and Shader Model 4.0. The GeForce 8800 series is fully tested and showcased at HotHardware and its performance is nothing short of impressive. With up to 128 Stream Processors under its hood, up to 86GB/s of memory bandwidth at its disposal and comprised of a whopping 681 million transistors, it's no wonder the new GPU rips up the benchmarks like no tomorrow. NVIDIA is also launching a new enthusiast line of motherboard chipsets in support of Intel's Core 2 Duo/Quad and AMD Athlon 64 processors. NVIDIA's nForce 680i SLI and nForce 680a SLI motherboard chipsets will also allow a pair of these monster graphics cards to run in tandem for nearly double the performance and the new chipset offers a ton of integrated features, like Gigabit Ethernet Link Teaming etc.

    1. Re:More In-depth Analysis Here At HotHardware.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      681 million transistors is quite impressive I think the xbox 360 gpu has something like 330 million for comparison

  5. Does this mean.. by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

    ... you can get reasonable framerates with NeverWinter Nights? :)

    --
    meh
    1. Re:Does this mean.. by Mongoose · · Score: 1

      It'll run fine on a 7800, since that's what was used to make it. ;)

    2. Re:Does this mean.. by crossmr · · Score: 1

      It runs fine on my Dell m1710 with a 512MB Geforce 7900GTX at 1920x1200 with everything full including bloom, both indoors, outdoors and during large battles.

    3. Re:Does this mean.. by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      ... you may laugh (go on, I know you want to) but I managed to have fun with NWN1 on a 2001 Toshiba Satellite laptop with 256 MB RAM, 48 MB shared graphics memory, and no hardware acceleration, at 800x600, with almost everything turned down. It even survived the siege scenario in HotU. I think I'd cough up hairballs if I tried that now, mind you.

  6. Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    enough power ot run Windows Vista and DNF at the same time

  7. Yeah, but... by cp.tar · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... does it run Linux?

    Seriously... when are the Linux drivers expected?

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
    1. Re:Yeah, but... by rg3 · · Score: 1

      In theory, the so-called NVIDIA binary blob used by the Linux driver is not platform specific and is used across several operating systems. This means that when that blob supports the new cards, any future driver releases should support them. AFAIK NVIDIA has been pretty fast at introducing drivers for new cards, so I would expect the next driver release to support these cards. Whenever that is, I'm not sure. Maybe 15 days?

    2. Re:Yeah, but... by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 0, Troll

      Better yet, when will we have a video card that actually runs Linux? I'm sure it's possible, even if we couldn't do much with it.

      --
      "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
    3. Re:Yeah, but... by mashade · · Score: 1

      Well, since Nvidia uses a unified single driver for all their cards, the Linux drivers are already out! Unless, of course, this is a special case.

      --
      Technology tips and tricks.
    4. Re:Yeah, but... by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Now

      http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_downloads_rel70b etadriver.html

      Check at the bottom the 32 and 64 bit linux drivers are beta and you can use them right now. It looks like they also have bsd and solaris support today also.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
    5. Re:Yeah, but... by BRTB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is now soon enough for you? =]

      Sure, they're beta, if you want to be picky about it. Probably works just fine - their last beta drivers did.

    6. Re:Yeah, but... by David+McBride · · Score: 1

      NVidia released new Beta drivers which support this card today.

      See: http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_downloads_rel70b etadriver.html

    7. Re:Yeah, but... by allometry · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not to troll, but in using Linux, I've never seen the need for such a card.

      Anyone actually using this card under Linux and can give me a reason? I'm simply curious, that's all...

      --
      http://www.allometry.com
    8. Re:Yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      People actually use high end graphics cards on Linux for things other then games. There are Linux systems running scientific viusalization software, virtual reality systems (flight simulators, driving simulations) and animation software for the non-game entertainment industry.

    9. Re:Yeah, but... by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It makes the other nerds think you've got a HUGE wang.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    10. Re:Yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sure, they're beta, if you want to be picky about it. Probably works just fine - their last beta drivers did.

      Maybe they did for the majority, but they sucked ass for some of us with more esoteric systems.

      For example, all the 7xxx and up cards have dual-link dvi transmitters built into the chipset - it is not an option. Yet, if the driver had problems parsing the EDID information from the monitor, the drivers assumed the transmitters were single-link and misprogrammed them as such, assuring that they would not work at all. No amount of configuration options could force the dual-link behaviour if EDID information was unreadable (like, for example you have a uni-directional DVI over fibre extender, or your monitor's EDID voltage level is just a tad below spec).

      Their only linux support - the informal, unofficial kind provided via a forum at nvnews.com - was seriously lacking in ass, it wasn't even half-assed. All they could do was follow a script and when you got to the end of the script without a solution, they just stopped responding.

      ATI drivers are just as closed, I won't be buying either in the future unless they open up. It is too bad that Intel's fully-open graphics are motherboard only.

      At least I won't lose out on all the fancy-dancy MPEG4 decode acceleration that the Nvidia card can do - their official linux drivers don't support it either. For me, that makes even the 8800 cards just about on par with the Intel offerings.

    11. Re:Yeah, but... by dingDaShan · · Score: 1

      ...I just got a DX9 card...

    12. Re:Yeah, but... by NuShrike · · Score: 1

      Isn't binary binary large object kinda redundant? Nevermind.

    13. Re:Yeah, but... by strider44 · · Score: 1

      Umm, and you can play games on it as well. (I'm waiting for UT2007 to come!)

    14. Re:Yeah, but... by Clever7Devil · · Score: 1

      I'm kind of surprised that two people wasted mod points to get my post to -1. Zero just wasn't cutting it?

      I guess I have to spell it out for people.

      1) NVidia's eternal beta drivers for *nix are a joke.
      2) They never have the full functionality (even compared to running Windows software in OpenGL
      3) On that note, its claim to fame is being the first DX10 compatible card. Whoop-dee-friggin-do. Never going to have a *nix driver for that are ya fellers?

      --
      "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
  8. 24" monitor? by BenFenner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So this will benefit my 13' projected monitor running at 1024 x 768 resolution (60 Hz refresh), and not my 20" CRT running at 1600 x 1200 resolution (100 Hz refresh)?

    You don't say...

  9. Now we need by wumpus188 · · Score: 1

    Now we need Duke Nukem Forever to really put this baby to work.

    1. Re:Now we need by ningeo · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the 24" monitor comment, but directX 10 capability puts this high up on my wish list... mostly because of Crysis. http://www.crysis-game.com/ You'll probably have more luck with Google though, not much of a page. Take a look at the movies though, they can be found, just make sure you see it at high res.

  10. What about the DRM (DX 10 certs require it) by plasmacutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously.. last i checked certification for logo testing and DX 10 required DRM... not just DRM but enough lockdown to get hollywood to sign off on it.

    They kept changing the standards over and over.. so the question is exactly what is required in terms of integrated DRM.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:What about the DRM (DX 10 certs require it) by Firehed · · Score: 1

      That's the FUDdiest post I've read in a while. Back that up with at least a vague reference at anything.

      HDCP support being required wouldn't surprise me, but that's not so much DRM as a stupid thing to try and make you buy a new monitor. But in either case, won't affect gaming whatsoever, or legal content for quite some time (the ICT isn't likely to be enabled before 2010-2012). I doubt it's required anyways, just highly recommended.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    2. Re:What about the DRM (DX 10 certs require it) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about DX10 as a whole, but MS has already said that they will not support hd-dvd/blu-ray playback on anything other than 64-bit vista WITH a hdcp-adled video card. Presumably that also means the various intra-chip encryptions to prevent someone from tapping into a bus that the DVD-Audio guys required for full-rez DVD-A playback.

      ICT has nothing to do with it, it is all about preventing people from figuring out a way to 'rip' the raw digital stream, either post-decode or preferrably pre-decode, but post-decrypt.

    3. Re:What about the DRM (DX 10 certs require it) by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      It's been some months since I last saw the relevant articles (they were on the EFF's Trusted Computing repository and in places like freedom to tinker), but I'll try to bring what stuck in my mind here:

      AACS copy protection on the new generation HD video media has invasively strict requirements, such as encryption of the video path within the system itself to prevent "sniffing" attacks, which means either the hardware itself or the drivers constitute a form of DRM. Any way I look at that encrypted media path requirement I wonder exactly how a set of linux drivers would not be challenged as a "circumvention device", and at the very least the authentication process within the system for this encryption will impose a toll on video performance.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    4. Re:What about the DRM (DX 10 certs require it) by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry if this somehow ends up a clone.. but my original reply somehow got lost in the void through some odd bug I can't seem to replicate.. it's technically still there but does not show up on the page.

      Aaaaanyway.....It's been some months since I last saw the relevant articles (they were on the EFF's Trusted Computing repository and in places like freedom to tinker), but I'll try to bring what stuck in my mind here:

      AACS copy protection on the new generation HD video media has invasively strict requirements, such as encryption of the video path within the system itself to prevent "sniffing" attacks, which means either the hardware itself or the drivers constitute a form of DRM. Any way I look at that encrypted media path requirement I wonder exactly how a set of linux drivers would not be challenged as a "circumvention device", and at the very least the authentication process within the system for this encryption will impose a toll on video performance.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    5. Re:What about the DRM (DX 10 certs require it) by jonwil · · Score: 1

      The DRM will probobly consist of 2 things:
      1.HDCP support so that if the software layer requests it, the data will only be sent to devices that are approved (i.e. those that correctly talk HDCP)
      and 2.Support on the software side so that the drivers (or at least one version of them) will be able to prevent screen scraping programs (think FRAPS etc) and other hacks from being able to read graphics data back if the application and OS request "protected media".

      Basicly, unless you are actaully using software and media that requires this DRM, its unlikely to be noticable.

    6. Re:What about the DRM (DX 10 certs require it) by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      DirectX 10 requires Vista, which comes with five trillion kinds of DRM built in. Isn't that enough?

  11. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by Ant+P. · · Score: 2, Informative

    What they're saying is that if you're only ever going to go up to 1600x1200, this is just going to waste drawing more frames than your monitor can ever display. Right now it looks like the only thing that could strain this card is one of those huge Apple LCDs.

  12. Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...something that can run Vista Aero with 5 stars!!!

  13. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    it seems like buying a single 8800 would be just as good (and cheaper) than buying a couple 7800's ...


    And the driving need for a couple of 7800's are? I have a 24" and I'm fairly happy with the 6800GTO I have driving it. The only reason I'd look to upgrade is to reduce the fan noise...

  14. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by Kenja · · Score: 1

    7800gtx and dual AMD Opterons.

    Modern games still dont run at optimal frame rates at 1280x1024 with max graphics settings. Most recent of these is Neverwinter Nights 2, I get around 20fps which is enough, but I wouldn't mind it being a bit smoother.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  15. MSI's 8800GTX @ Bootdaily by theonecp · · Score: 1

    The folks at Boot Daily take a peek at MSI's GeForce 8800GTX and run it through quite a few benchmarks and discuss its visual qualities.

    1. Re:MSI's 8800GTX @ Bootdaily by theonecp · · Score: 2, Informative
  16. More In-depth Analysis of the ethernet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "NVIDIA is also launching a new enthusiast line of motherboard chipsets in support of Intel's Core 2 Duo/Quad and AMD Athlon 64 processors. NVIDIA's nForce 680i SLI and nForce 680a SLI motherboard chipsets will also allow a pair of these monster graphics cards to run in tandem for nearly double the performance and the new chipset offers a ton of integrated features, like Gigabit Ethernet Link Teaming etc."

    Binary drivers all the way. Or do we get documentation for the ethernet this time?

  17. Virtualisation Support? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I was under the impression that one of the major advantages of DirectX 10 was it supported virtualisation. This means that the device needs to either be able to save its entire state to main memory (for switching) or, ideally, the ability to produce virtual devices that render to a texture rather than the main screen easily (for picture-in-picture).

    TFA didn't seem to mention anything about this though. Can anyone comment?

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    1. Re:Virtualisation Support? by rzei · · Score: 1

      Not that I was a developer or really knew anything about the implementations of todays graphics cards I think that off screen rendering has been supported for some time.

      For example game F.E.A.R. did take use of, among other things the off screen rendering, or straight to textrure when multiple surveillance cameras were rendered on a monitor in the game world.

      The way I see it, the chip itself doesn't have to know so much about how many tasks are using it, it's the drivers or perhaps even higher level software that does the scheduling of "graphic-requests". But then again this is all speculation :)

    2. Re:Virtualisation Support? by pilkul · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Less obviously, many games render to a texture in order to apply full-screen effects (e.g. your entire vision getting blurry when you are damaged) on them before sending to the screen.

    3. Re:Virtualisation Support? by TychoCelchuuu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right now, although the card supports DX10, all your games and Operating Systems are in DX9. Until Vista comes out you're not going to see anything taking advantage of any neato DX10 doodads.

      --
      Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
  18. More at ocp and toms by llZENll · · Score: 1

    http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI xOCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/08/geforce_880 0/
    Although the toms article is pretty worthless as most benches are cpu bound with a fx64 cpu.

    my favorite has to be this page, 8800 GTX SLI/3.80GHz Core 2 Duo SLI
    http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2053791 ,00.asp

  19. Coincidence? by minvaren · · Score: 1

    Any coincidence that they launch the first DX10 card the same day that Vista goes gold?

    --
    Big! Strong! Wow! Tada-O!
    1. Re:Coincidence? by slughead · · Score: 3, Funny

      Any coincidence that they launch the first DX10 card the same day that Vista goes gold?

      No. M$ doesn't release its products until they go bismuth (to treat typical symptoms of M$' early adopters), which is still 4 release candidates away.

  20. [H]ard Review by mr_stinky_britches · · Score: 1
    For those of you who are interested in what the [H] has to say about this card..here is the direct link:

    BFGTech GeForce 8800 GTX and 8800 GTS
    Today marks the announcement of NVIDIA's next generation GeForce 8800 series GPU technology code named "G80." We have two new hard-launched video cards from BFG Tech representing the 8800 products. Gameplay experience TWIMTBP?

    I found their review to be of typical [H] quality, which I think is pretty decent (when compared to other H/W review sites, that is ;)

    -
    Wi-Fizzle Research
    --
    Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
  21. You're forgetting the hidden costs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DirectX 10 will require Windows Vista: $150 (basic version)
    New processor/motherboard or RAM to deal with Vista requirements: $800
    And lets not forge the usual HDCP/Windows EULA: Your soul

    1. Re:You're forgetting the hidden costs... by Tyger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because you have a DirectX 10 capable card doesn't mean you need DirectX 10. Most of those games/benchmarks are against DirectX 9, and the rest are against OpenGL. It will be a few years before most games require DirectX 10.

    2. Re:You're forgetting the hidden costs... by Supergibbs · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Windows Vista will take advantage of it...ducks

      --
      First post! (just in case I am...)
    3. Re:You're forgetting the hidden costs... by gripen40k · · Score: 1

      OK, If you are buying a 8800 then you KNOW you have an adequate rig to run Vista... Besides, who pays for software these days?

      --
      Har?
  22. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by steveo777 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just play Ultima IX on 1028x768 mode without any of the fixes or patches. I do believe the 8800 will have met its match. (never met a configuration that could run it over 10fps, except my friends old 650Mhz PIII with some VooDoo card or another, ran it at 19fps)

    --
    This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  23. SLI? by scombs · · Score: 1

    Is this SLI capable? Not that I would be able to pay for even one of the cards...

    1. Re:SLI? by noSignal · · Score: 2, Informative
      From nvidia.com:

      Q: Do the new GeForce 8800 GTX and GeForce 8800 GTS GPUs support SLI technology?

      A: Yes. All GeForce 8800 GPUs support NVIDIA SLI technology.

    2. Re:SLI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      From the looks of it, with the card having two SLI connectors on it, a 3-card SLI solution will be introduced soon enough. Scary to think that there are people out there willing to spend that kind of cash to get three top of the line 8800s - not to mention paying top dollar for a board that has three PCI-E 16x slots.

  24. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by mikael · · Score: 1

    But if you are doing general purpose computing that requires considerable floating-point performance (FFT signal processing, dynamic systems), then you won't be restricted by the refresh rate of the monitor. Both DirectX and OpenGL support floating-point framebuffers. However, for some simulations, you may have less than four floating-point variables per pixel. So just by using three out of four pixel channels, you are just wasting 25% or more of your processsing time. Having scalar processors would seem to be the way to solve this problem.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  25. Yes... by topace3 · · Score: 1

    ...the original, that is.

  26. Makes PS3 obsolete before launch by ConfusedSelfHating · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At least the Xbox 360 was released before it was obsolete. The PS3 graphics processor is similar to the 7800 GTX if I remember correctly. When the PS3 releases people won't be saying "Buy the PS3 for the greatest graphical experience", instead they'll say "Buy the PS3 for the greatest graphical experience, expect for the PC you could have bought last week". The PS3 will probably be about as powerful as the 8600 when it's released.

    I know I sound very offtopic bringing this up, but many PC gamers also play console games. They will want to compare console graphics to PC graphics.

    1. Re:Makes PS3 obsolete before launch by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      It's really not fair to expect a $500 console to have the same graphics as a $2,000 PC. For mainstream gamers, PS3 will probably compare favorably to a PC when it comes out.

    2. Re:Makes PS3 obsolete before launch by Elladan · · Score: 1

      Graphics processors aren't really as important for a console system as a PC, though, since consoles target an output device with a typical resolution of 640x480 at 60 frames per second at most (and more like 30 in most cases). Sure, a few people might have HDTV, but not many.

      Plus, the PS3 has a herd of vector coprocessors to assist the video engine. I don't think anyone is going not buy a PS3 because it fails to meet some artificial benchmark in the lab. They're going to complain that it costs a hell of a lot for the small number of games available.

    3. Re:Makes PS3 obsolete before launch by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Consoles can tune games a LOT more than PC's, because the hardware is completely standard. They can do tricks and optimizations with rendering and such that you couldn't reliably expect to work on Joe Blow's random PC. The console still isn't out of the game.

      Besides, the video card you can buy costs as much as a whole PS3. The PS3 is still better bang for your gaming buck. Either way, I'm ok with my Go7600 in my laptop and I'm gonna get a Wii, so y'all can go do your own thing when posturing about games.

    4. Re:Makes PS3 obsolete before launch by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You CAN, but I've found almost universally that they don't. The game development cycle is too tight, multi-platform compatibility is too important, and codebases are simply too large to justify optimizing the living hell out of the code you've got.

      And the new gaming PC I'm building costs less than the PS3, and other than perhaps 100 bucks for the chibi version of this monster when it comes out, I don't expect to have to do much to keep the system I'm building competitive with the PS3 in terms of playing a broad spectrum of recent games for the livespan of the machine.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    5. Re:Makes PS3 obsolete before launch by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      Isn't the good PS3 package selling for more like $600?

      The 8800 GTS is around $450. You can easily get the rest of a solid gaming PC for $450. So you're talking more about a $900 PC than a $2,000 PC. And that's before pricing a decent HDTV vs. a decent gaming monitor.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    6. Re:Makes PS3 obsolete before launch by asuffield · · Score: 1
      I know I sound very offtopic bringing this up, but many PC gamers also play console games. They will want to compare console graphics to PC graphics.


      Have you ever played PC games and console games? Console graphics have always SUCKED DONKEY compared to PC graphics. The PS2 had the most advanced graphics processor around when it was released... but the output resolution was 320x200 (because that's about what a TV uses), so it really didn't matter a damn.

      Nobody sane has ever expected decent graphics from a console. Consoles are not intended to give decent graphics, except when compared to other consoles. Consoles are intended to be used with TV sets, which is an incredibly limiting constraint.

      The current round of consoles has made a lot of noise about HDTV but none of them currently have any intention of implementing it (they'll give HDMI output but the quality of the output is not greatly improved over a regular TV). Console games continue to run at painfully low resolutions, compared to equivalent PC games. Gamers who really care about graphics quality will continue to use PCs, like they have done for the past several years.
    7. Re:Makes PS3 obsolete before launch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      target an output device with a typical resolution of 640x480 at 60 frames per second at most
      You're living in the past. Is it a technical requirement to support 720p on both 360 and PS3. Some games are going for 1080, but that it rare.

    8. Re:Makes PS3 obsolete before launch by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      The Resident Evil games on the GameCube (1, 0 and 4) all look really nice, even today.

    9. Re:Makes PS3 obsolete before launch by Slothy · · Score: 1

      Your first paragraph is very false.

    10. Re:Makes PS3 obsolete before launch by Slothy · · Score: 1

      This is true. Essentially, you figure out how many milliseconds of rendering time you can afford (depending on whether you do 30 or 60fps), and then work backwards to see what you can enable. So you can do all sorts of tricks to take advantage of the exact hardware to hit your target framerate. On PC, you can't really do much, because there are so many cards and then new drivers come out so regularly and change performance, you just try to have a really flexible engine and let users turn options on or off depending on the framerate/resolution they want.

      If you know that everyone who buys the game will see this model using this resolution normal map, you can put lots of work into making that look great. On PC, you have no real idea what it will look like for any particular person (will they even enable normal mapping? what res will it run at? what kind of texture filtering will they use? will it be using the highest resolution, or a lower mip level?), so the effort is diluted by trying to make every case look as good as it can. In reality, that will never look as good as making one case look outstanding.

    11. Re:Makes PS3 obsolete before launch by Slothy · · Score: 1

      What methods did you use to determine that nobody tunes their game for the hardware? Can you tell if it's CPU bound, fillrate bound, vertex bound, memory bound, etc? That sounds like a very hard-to-prove statement.

      I would submit Halo as an example of a game that shows just how much it was optimized for the target hardware. The PC version chugs on much more powerful hardware.

      And frankly, you HAVE to tune your game for each platform, it's not optional. Platforms have different capabilities (pixel shader support? unified shaders or fixed pipelines? how big is the L2 cache? is it multi-core? how much performance are you losing to cache misses? what's your threading model?) It's not like you can ignore that stuff and still ship a game.

    12. Re:Makes PS3 obsolete before launch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that your pairing the new proprietary NVidia cards with a Doctor Pentium class CPU that still relies on 1985's technology for more of its operations.

    13. Re:Makes PS3 obsolete before launch by iainl · · Score: 1

      Umm, (a) The PS3 will run on a small monitor over a HDMI to DVI adaptor if that's really your bag, and (b) Sony have been forced to add most of the important features back into the $500 one now - the extra cash just gets you a bigger hard drive and a memory card adaptor that you could by for less than $20 from your local photo shop.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    14. Re:Makes PS3 obsolete before launch by Prophet+of+Nixon · · Score: 1

      Er, the PS2 was not the most advanced graphics processor when it was released, but despite that it typically rendered at 480i (720x480, interlaced). It manages to look quite good, check out SkyGunner, Okami, or Gradius V sometime. I know I've seen better looking games on the PS2 than Neverwinter Nights 2, and unlike NWN2, they ran smoothly.

  27. oh goodie by zulater · · Score: 1

    now we can finally watch pr0n at over 1000fps!

    1. Re:oh goodie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As fun as it sounds at first, I think I'll stick with being with my girl friend at 60 fps.

  28. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by Nimey · · Score: 2, Funny
    VooDoo


    Stop that.
    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  29. NVIDIA CUDA, GPGPU initiative by Vigile · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.pcper.com/article.php?type=expert&aid=3 19

    This review looks at gaming and such too, but also touches on the NVIDIA CUDA (Compute Unified Device Architecture), that NVIDIA is hoping will get super computing into mainstream pricing. What thermal dynamics programmer would love to access 128 1.35 GHz processors for $600?

    http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=319&type=expe rt&pid=5

  30. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by Barny · · Score: 1

    Hrmm, well running a pair of 7900gt cards atm, and on company of heroes, all settings maxed at 1902x1200 (dell 24") things get a little chunky, so yes, other than apple there are screens that need these.... mines pre-ordered btw :)

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
  31. "DirectX 10 Cards"? by Deagol · · Score: 1, Troll
    Isn't this the tail wagging the dog? Shouldn't the video card industry have hardware API standards and shouldn't the software vendors be releasing stuff compatible with the hardware?

    "DirectX 10 Cards" sounds as silly as saying "Vista compatible PC BIOS". WTF?

    1. Re:"DirectX 10 Cards"? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The biggest difference between DirectX and OpenGL is the extension mechanism. OpenGL specifies a set of features which must be implemented (in hardware or sofware), and then allows vendors to add extensions. These can be tested for at runtime and used (and the most popular ones then make it into the next version of the spec). DirectX doesn't have a comparable mechanism; the only features it exposes are those that the current version of the API dictates.

      In their rush to get a chunk of the big Windows market share, vendors put their weight behind DirectX, without noticing that it was a typical Microsoft attempt to commoditise the market by preventing vendors from differentiating themselves easily. Now GPU vendors just have to try to release the fastest card they can that conforms to the Microsoft API, rather than adding new, innovative, features. I doubt something like S3 texture compression would survive if it were added now; only OpenGL programmers would be able to use it, and they don't seem to make up much of the games market.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:"DirectX 10 Cards"? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Isn't this the tail wagging the dog? Shouldn't the video card industry have hardware API standards and shouldn't the software vendors be releasing stuff compatible with the hardware?

      Sure, if you want to go back to the bad old days of games only supporting a small number of very specific video cards.

    3. Re:"DirectX 10 Cards"? by Quasar1999 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh please!

      It's called the CAPS structure, and DirectX has had it for as many versions as I can remember. You check to see what Capabilites the card supports and decided what features you'll use. The OpenGL extensions are the same damned thing, except there you enumerate a big string list, while on the DirectX side you have all extensions visible and most available in software emulation mode, with the CAPS structure telling you what was hardware accelerated.

      Besides, how do you think pixel shaders and vertex shaders got to where they are today? It certainly wasn't because graphics card manufacturers decided to write extensions to OpenGL for the hell of it... It was DirectX specs that pushed them forward. And it's those same DirectX specs that allow developers to write games in parallel with the hardware development cycle, so that when the latest card comes out, there are already games ready to use it.

      If developers had to wait for a card to come out with some OpenGL extension before being able to experiment, understand, and then use it (and only on one brand of card), do you think anything would be adopted in any reasonable amount of time?

      I by no means love DirectX, it's got it's issues... but the OpenGL extension concept is in NO WAY helping innovation in the hardware arena.

      --

      ---
      Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    4. Re:"DirectX 10 Cards"? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's called the CAPS structure, and DirectX has had it for as many versions as I can remember

      It's not the same thing at all. The CAPS structure allows you to enumerate which subset of DirectX the card supports. OpenGL extensions allow you to query for features which were not part of the original specification. This is exactly the difference I was describing. You can't use DirectX 9 features from a DirectX 8 application, but you can use OpenGL 2.0 features from an OpenGL 1.0 application by accessing them via the extensions mechanism.

      Besides, how do you think pixel shaders and vertex shaders got to where they are today?

      As I recall, nVidia designed Cg and wrote a Cg compiler. This could then be used outside the framework of DirectX or OpenGL. Eventually DirectX and OpenGL incorporated derivatives of Cg in their APIs. OpenGL extensions take a while to get into the standard, but they get the technology out there quickly for developers to experiment with. It's not that uncommon for nVidia to implement ATi extensions (and vice versa) before they make it into the standard. By the time something's in the ARB_ namespace, it's close enough to being in the standard that people can start using it.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:"DirectX 10 Cards"? by modeless · · Score: 1

      OpenGL Extensions are not nearly the same thing as DirectX Caps. Vendors can't add new DirectX caps; they can only choose to implement, or not, the caps that Micosoft defines. For an example of why this sucks, consider geometry instancing. Microsoft decided in their infinite wisdom that only Shader Model 3.0 cards could have geometry instancing support. Then when ATI produced some Shader Model 2 cards with instancing they had to disable it by default and use a terrible hack to enable it involving calling an unrelated API (CheckDeviceFormat IIRC) with a special "magic number", just to pass Windows Logo testing.

      For another example, consider the sad, sad state of dual-head support in DirectX. To this day it is impossible to write a windowed (non-fullscreen) DirectX application that performs well when stretched across two monitors as seen by Windows. Graphics vendors have stood on their heads and worked around this problem by telling Windows that there is really only one monitor and replacing all the dual-head code in Windows with logic in the graphics driver! Meanwhile, OpenGL works flawlessly.

      In any case, DirectX Caps suck so much that developers often ignore them in favor of just using the make and model of card to determine a suitable rendering path. Microsoft realizes this, and that's why the role of caps has been reduced in DirectX 10. That's right: DirectX 10 mostly defines a standard set of features that every card must support, leaving very little flexibility for vendors.

      I'm not sure how anyone could argue that DirectX is friendlier to the development of new graphics features than OpenGL. There's simply no way to add new features to it at all, unless you are Microsoft. Everyone has to wait, for years, until Microsoft comes down from Mount Sinai with the next version set in stone. Or, as has become the status quo: implement new features using dirty hacks, and do handstands to hide these new features from Microsoft's APIs until DirectX catches up.

  32. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by Heembo · · Score: 1

    The only reason I'd look to upgrade is to reduce the fan noise...

    Just remove the fan and smear hear-absorbing paste all over your video card! Works wonders!

    --
    Horns are really just a broken halo.
  33. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by JohnnyBigodes · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apparently Neverwinter Nights 2 has some sort of problem in it is *very* slow for some people with reasonably fast PCs. I've tried it and it also runs almost unbearably slow with things set to medium everything and a couple of lows (1024, no AA) on a 7800.

    20fps with your 7800GTX in NWN2 is certainly not acceptable :)

  34. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    You know, I remember being impressed that Duke Nukem 3d ran at 640x480. The point where you need 1902x1200 AND anti-aliasing is the point where you're just doing it to make fun of the people without a Geforce 8800.

    --
    It's been a long time.
  35. Re: don't bother if you have less than a 24" by Kris_J · · Score: 1
    Or a Matrox Triplehead2Go. A 24" panel is only a little over 2 million pixels. Three 1280x1024 panels are almost 4 million pixels. And you can get a TH2G plus three 17" or 19" panels for significantly less than a 24" panel.

    Is anyone testing these video cards in 3840x1024 yet?

  36. "You must be new here." by uhlume · · Score: 1

    Seriously, where have you been for the last 10-15 years, and were you somehow under the impression all this time that OpenGL, DirectX 3-9 and their predecessors were "hardware API standards"? The only difference in this respect between DirectX10 and earlier versions is that DX10 doesn't attempt to provide backward compatability for older hardware, so you'll need an explictly DX10-compatible card in order to take advantage of DX10 rendering paths.

    --
    SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
  37. DirectX cards by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    Forget the review; what catches my eye here is the term "DirectX 10 Card." The very idea that it's categorized by limited software compatibility, rather than categorized by the type of hardware slot that it uses, is a new idea to me.

    I can see a huge upside to it, though. As a time-saver, I would love for the amount of "closedness" to be how hardware gets categorized, so that I could just shop from the "open and compatible with everything" category instead of having to do research along the lines of "is this usable? Is that?"

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:DirectX cards by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

      It runs all the DirectX 7, 8 and 9 games with amazing framerates.
      It just happens to be the first to be able to run DirectX 10 games too.

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
  38. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by Babbster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It depends on the game. In the [H]ardOCP review, this appears to be the first card that can do Oblivion with maxed in-game settings (the grass has been the problem area in the past, even with top-of-the-line cards) at very high resolutions and high AA settings while retaining solid framerates - the settings they considered ideal in their testing were 8x AA at 1600x1200 and 4x AA at 1920x1200. That would be impressive for a SLI setup, let alone a single card.

    How worthwhile that is depends, of course, on just how killer a person wants their gaming rig to be (I can't imagine ever buying a $600 graphics card myself). But, given that the performance seems to exceed that of any other graphics card (or any two, for that matter), it's pretty clearly the card to get to ensure maximum gaming PC penis size. :)

  39. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm... I get mostly 30fps (vsynced, occasionally drops to 20 if the area gets intensive) at that resolution on that game with just a plain vanilla 6800 (and single 3GHz P4 HT) and the shadow options turned down to non-insanity. Can't see it makes much difference visually.

    However, there doesn't seem to be an option for AA. Also my screen is 1600x1200 native; fortunately it's 20", so running 1280x1024 centred non-scaled works OK.

    I want one of these beasties... the cheapest model I could find from a UK retailer was the equivalent of €550. I am sort of in the market for a graphics card update (Oblivion for example I have to run at 1024x768, and that doesn't look so great scaled up to 1600x1200) but my budget is more like €300. I'm not happy with the increase an X1900PRO or a 7950GT would get me (doubtful that the insanity that is Bethesda's creation runs on those at 1600x1200 high settings).

    Just need to keep waiting I guess. Tests the patience though; I could afford to even get an 8800 series right now if I was completely and utterly foolish with my money. I suspect I may end up holding off a whole year more. Took that long when I was price/value-watching for a laptop (heh, the thing manages to run NWN2 800x600 on an X1400 Mobility at 20fps - with high textures and the filtering which are the important things for me!).

  40. Not to be a PS3 fanboy by Inoshiro · · Score: 1

    (Especially as I find Sony a bunch of asshats), but...

    An 8800 GTX is how much, exactly? A PS3 is 550$ CDN. How many PC games will use DX10? 10 games? AFAIK, Halo 1, Half-Life 2, etc, aren't magically DX 10 games since they were written for previous versions of the DX API.

    Will SquareEnix be writing PC versions of Final Fantasy XII? X-2?

    Cost wise, these cards and the PS3 are close. Game wise, I suspect the PS3 will have more games out than there will be DX10 games. The DX10-Vista lock in is another dis-incentive to go and get a raging boner over an 8800.

    I find my Nintendo DS to be a very enjoyable game platform, despite the fact that it doesn't require a 450W power supply, or other conmensurate upgrades, to get the same picture as my PC.

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
  41. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by Handpaper · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Ahem.

    Section "Monitor"
    Identifier "Sun GDM-5410"
    HorizSync 30-122
    VertRefresh 48-160
    Modeline "2048x1536@72" 472.89 2048 2080 3872 3904 1536 1565 1584 1613
    EndSection

    'The old that is strong does not wither' :)

  42. ... bindone? by eneville · · Score: 1

    is this what i need to be able to run vista?

    1. Re:... bindone? by SEMW · · Score: 1

      No, you don't need a DX10 card to run Vista. You need a a DirectX 9 card with 128 MB of Video RAM for Aero Glass, or any old 2D chip for Aero Standard, Aero Basic, Classic, etc.

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
  43. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by mgemmons · · Score: 1

    Actually, I think the point they were making is that until your max out your resolution to above 1920x1200 both the nVidia and the the ATI it was being compared to are so fast that the bottleneck is always the CPU and not the GPU.

  44. I want to see the rest of the family by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

    I am planning to buy a GeForce 7600GT, a card that gives me the framerates and resolutions I want with a very small price compared with the high end cards. Also because a more expensive card would be bottlenecked by my CPU so it would be a waste.

    However I now want to get a card of the same price and watts requirements of the 7600GT but with the G80 chipset (the one inside this beasts), just because of the better anisotropic filtering and antialiasing.

    So... how long until we have the mid end versions of this card ???

    --
    We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
    1. Re:I want to see the rest of the family by dusanv · · Score: 1

      January at the earliest. The really sweet ones (cheap and low power) will come in the spring when they do a die shrink to 45 nm.

  45. Backwards Compatible by gravy.jones · · Score: 0

    The article left an impression that backwards compatibility with DX9 should theoretically be possible. Back in reality I still use a nice high-end AGP card which lets me play my flight simulator online with others. My gaming experience would not yet benefit from this VGA card. According to the article, and my assumptions, I would get more bang for my buck by investing in a multi-core CPU since my current VGA card demands more from the CPU.

    --
    Where's the 0xBEEF
  46. 8800GTS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where the heck is the reviews for the 8800GTS, its like that card doesn't exist for reviewers but yet.... ugh

    1. Re:8800GTS? by PhilDEE · · Score: 1
  47. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1

    Indeed.

    640K should be enough for anyone.

    --
    http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
  48. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by XL70E3 · · Score: 0

    You know i was impressed by it too. But then, i was very much impressed when i bought my 400$ Voodoo 2 card and played Quake 2 at 800*600! You can't stop this! Somehow, graphics improvements are good too in games. My guess is that you need to upgrade, but you can't.

  49. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by Sj0 · · Score: 1

    Anyone using qbasic, yes.

    These are just video games. At some point, you're seriously facing diminishing returns for your $1200USD SLI 8800 rig.

    --
    It's been a long time.
  50. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by LordMyren · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    || VooDoo
    |
    | Stop that.
    | --
    | Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    You just earned yourself one Greyface cursing.

    FUCK-ASS. Consider your banal ass cursed.

  51. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by Sj0 · · Score: 1

    Actually, I reserved a new video card this week. I decided on something with a bit less oomph than this though. Between my Geforce MXes and my super high end video cards, I've found that it's better to buy the cheap video card that'll last you maybe a year or two than to go all-out and get maybe a year or two out of it. (Hey, it's not raw power that neccessitates upgrades, it's Pixel Shaders 4.1, right around the corner!)

    --
    It's been a long time.
  52. Power consumption by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dual power connectors, yeeeha! Video card manufacturers really aren't doing much about idle power consumption. 66 watts at idle just to display a static frame buffer. I can't imagine what will happen running Vista w/ Aero glass. I bet people's power consumption numbers will double.

  53. Power consumption - correction by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    Holy crud! I misread that: It is 220 WATTS AT IDLE! The idle TEMPERATURE in deg C is the 66.

  54. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by saltlick35 · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the ATi's will be like...

  55. Display Lists by PaloDeQueso · · Score: 1

    Is this the first DirectX that can use display lists? Because I was reading the DX10 explanation on Tom's Hardware and it seems that they are either referring to that or the new Geometry shaders? If they are talking about display lists, OpenGL has had those for quite a while.

  56. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by Trinn · · Score: 1

    Just wait until us Beryl developers get ahold of one ^-^

  57. In depth G80's architecture analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for anyone that wants to know more about G80's architecture (not just the same pr material every website publish again and again) have a look at this in depth analysis from Beyond3d.com:
    http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/nvidia/g80-arch/

  58. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

    Wow. I haven't seen Modelines since Xfree86 x-servers. Not that there is a rule against it. Does that tweak it? Do you notice a difference or is it out of habit?

  59. HDMI support? by JoBlo69 · · Score: 1

    I know nvidia has already had HDMI supported video cards with the full rez decryption/audio stuff on board...

    I'v been googleing for at least an hour and haven't been able to find anything about the geforce 8 series cards with full HDMI support...

    Maybe im not looking in the right places but from what i have found i don't think HDMI geforce 8 cards are going to come anytime soon.

  60. Re:Better than sex: sextuple-SLI? by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

    Even better... *3* 7950 GX2s...OoooOOOOOOoooooo...

    That even possible? I've seen quad-SLI boxes in the mod magazines, but I'm not sure what limits the hardware and various OSes have on the number of displays they can support...

    Anyone?

    --
    Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
  61. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

    huge Apple LCDs.

    Well of course only an "Apple" monitor could ever have these HIGH levels of capabilities...

    Is everyone here AppleStupid? - Or maybe the term is MacInTard?

    My freaking laptop has a 1920x1200 LCD, and it is at the bottom of the list of displays in my HOME let alone at my office. Even my old 2002 Toshiba Laptop has a 1600x1200 LCD display.

    I suppose people are going to go all crazy and start saying that they play games on PCs above 1024x768 next. Oh my, the insanity, how could this be possible?

    Geesh.

  62. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by friedmud · · Score: 1

    Indeed!

    With 768MB of RAM you might actually be able to run Beryl and open up _10_ windows before they start going black! :-P

    For those who have no idea what I'm talking about look here:

    http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=7 7248

    My workstation at school is a turbo-cache Quadro card with ony 128MB of RAM... which means I can only open a couple of windows before they start going black... sigh.

    Friedmud

  63. Also GPGPU by Krischi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't forget general-purpose GPU computing. For those highly parallelizable applications that do not need to conform to the full IEEE-754 floating point specs, this card is a dream come true.

    1. Re:Also GPGPU by tuxicle · · Score: 1

      *sigh*
      Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!

  64. Ok.. hopefully THIS time the post will work! by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    Ooooh k...I'm sorry if this somehow ends up a clone.. but my original reply somehow got lost in the void through some odd bug.. it's technically still "there" but does not show up on the page.

    Aaaaanyway.....It's been some months since I last saw the relevant articles (they were on the EFF's Trusted Computing repository and in places like freedom to tinker), but I'll try to bring what stuck in my mind here:

    AACS copy protection on the new generation HD video media has invasively strict requirements, such as encryption of the video path within the system itself to prevent "sniffing" attacks, which means either the hardware itself or the drivers constitute a form of DRM. Any way I look at that encrypted media path requirement I wonder exactly how a set of linux drivers would not be challenged as a "circumvention device", and at the very least the authentication process within the system for this encryption will impose a toll on video performance.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  65. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's actually pretty surprising that the DX10-compatible 8800 runs $450-$600 given it's brand new and has huge performance gains over NVidia's current cards.

    It's not surprising at all. Every single time a new generation of cards comes out, it has "huge performance gains" over the last generation and has a huge price tag. It's like how there are thousands and thousands of old CPU reviews out there that say "This may be the fastest CPU yet." Duh!

    It's the fastest because it's the newest. Wait a little while and there will be another card that makes the 8800 look like a GeForce 4 MX.

  66. Cards have been talked about that way forever by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Generally speaking DirectX and new graphics hardware are closely tied. MS works with the card makers to find out what they are planning with next gen hardware and to let them know what DirectX will demand. Cards are built around that. So the DirectX version of a card becomes a useful way of talking about it's features. For example DX7 cards had hardware T&L units, DX8 card programmable T&L units and pixel shaders, 9 cards fully programmable shaders (among other changes).

    Well DirectX 10 makes more changes and thus there'll be a new generation of hardware to deal with it.

    Now please note none of this means it won't support OpenGL, nVidia has strong OpenGL support. The reason OpenGL isn't referenced is because it doesn't keep up. The GL specs are slow, so new features are implemented as vendor specific extensions. This card is capable of things beyond 2.0, but then so were the 7000 series.

  67. Unifed sghaders in OpenGL already here ? by S3D · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Looks like DirectX 10 functionality - unified (geometry) shader and like will be available in in the NVIDIA drivers very soon. Seems the entry points for new OpenGL extensions are already present in the driver nvoglnt.dll (96.89), including
    GL_NV_geometry_shader4
    GL_NV_gpu_program4
    GL_NV_gpu_shader4
    and new Cg profiles
    All we need now is header file
    Chances are, for OpenGL directX 10-like functionality will be here before VISTA. Another one for swith to OpenGL from DirectX. Also it will be at least couple of years before majority of the gamers switch to VISTA, but with OpenGL developers can utilize latest GPU to their full potential on the Windows XP.
    More about it in this thread form OpenGL.org:
    http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/ultima tebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=014831

  68. Overclocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Overclocking preview

    Neat, it took like 20 seconds for the first world records to fall ...

  69. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by Xamataca · · Score: 1

    good old crt from sony...

    --
    ***Game Over***Insert Coin***
  70. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by daverabbitz · · Score: 1

    People also seem to of forgotten that you could buy 21" CRT's that could run 2048x1536@75Hz 10 years ago.

    I bought a couple of newer 21" monitors second hand a few months back, and they kick the shit out of any LCD's I've seen.

    I still wouldn't mind having one of those Samsung/Sharp 30" displays though.

    Hint: Apple don't make LCD's so obviously the same display, possibly in a different case, is available OEM.

    Just like my IBM P275 21" CRT's, they're actually Sony displays AFAICT (Haven't opened them, but they're definitely FD trinitron).

    It's just such a shame that you can't buy new CRT's anymore, as I haven't seen anything under $5000NZ (~$3000US), that compares favourably to my $200NZ CRT's (second hand of course).

    I think I'll start stockpiling them, so that I don't have to buy an LCD until they actually have the dynamic range and clarity of a good CRT.

    --
    What could be better than a jet powered motorcycle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8l6GTHLSWE
  71. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd have to be stupid to buy an Apple monitor when a Dell is a fraction of the price and has more features.

  72. OpenGL by BlenderFX · · Score: 1

    I was wondering - will these fancy features (esp. the geometry shaders) work with OpenGL, if the necessary extensions are exposed and used? Since the hardware is there, I guess it won't be a problem?

  73. Re: don't bother if you have less than a 24" by kjart · · Score: 1
    Is anyone testing these video cards in 3840x1024 yet?

    I don't think many games would support that resolution (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to when you say testing). Also, would you even want to play a game across multiple displays? For one thing, I'd imagine the bezel around each monitor would get annoying.

  74. Re: don't bother if you have less than a 24" by Kris_J · · Score: 1
    A huge collection of games support that resolution (with some bugs in some cases), and I very much enjoyed playing WoW with a wrap-around image until I quit (for an unrelated reason). Triplehead is not dualhead -- you're not staring at a join, you're typically focused on the centre screen and you use the side screen for extra warning, or space for secondary information.

    Though by "testing", I simply mean benchmarking cards however the reviews currently benchmark cards, with the benefit of actually taxing the video card enough that the CPU isn't the bottleneck.

  75. Someone please fix this modding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF, why is this offtopic? The guy's right.

    Poster makes a good point. This is slashdot, getting all excited over hardware that last week we were all vowing imaginary boycotts over because the vendor refuses to do the right thing and open their specs, if not their driver sources.

  76. Forget the graphics by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

    Yeah, games are fine & all that, but I'm just happy for gamers to bring the economies of scale down for this-here plug-in supercomputer.

    GPGPU is what will really make it stand out. Physics acceleration, Folding@Home, ray-traced audio, ray-traced window managers, fluid-simulator window managers, film-level 2D pixel processing (my field), realtime H.264 decode & encode... I'm just scratching the surface. High performance computing just got a whole lot cheaper.

    Cell? Never heard of it.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  77. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by ivan256 · · Score: 1

    Try turning off shadows. They seem to cause the problem... Runs smooth a silk for me with a 7800GTX at 1680x1050 with everything else at max. If I turn on shadows I get 10 or so FPS.

  78. OpenGL is missing the point by Second_Derivative · · Score: 1

    OpenGL will support these, no doubt, but OpenGL is frankly pretty quaint these days.

    A modern graphics API is comparatively quite simple, and looks nothing like classical GL. You load shader code into the card, map some of the card's buffers into main memory and then fill then with tables of vertex attributes, or texture data. You'd also set a few state flags and uniform variables. The shader code then interprets those attributes and uniforms in whatever way you like to draw stuff to the screen; the graphics "API" doesn't even handle any rendering anymore, because that all happens completely on-card in the shaders. All the API does is keep shovelling arbitrary data into the graphics card.

    Suffice it to say this bears no resembleance to OpenGL, although you could easily implement classical OpenGL as a shader. Any "extensions" that set this sort of thing up will simply rely on OpenGL to set up a rendering context on a window, and then promptly bypass pretty much all of GL itself.

    That CUDA thing looks interesting though. If you coupled that with a mechanism to make the graphics card output to a window, you could code up your renderer using the CUDA framework and then pump in some data as before. I can see CUDA (or an industry standardised version of it) replacing OpenGL as a cross-platform rendering API in the future.

  79. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by mgblst · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that is why I drive a bus to work, even though I live on my own and don't carpool.

    That is why I live in a 10-bedroom, 3-bathroom mansion.

    That is why I have 6 monitors at work, even though I just play solitaire.

    Because the opposite of 640k is enough for anybody means having as much as possible no matter the need.

  80. Re:WOW! This is FAST! by JohnnyBigodes · · Score: 1

    Had heard of that, already did, didn't help, unfortunately :(

    Well, hoping for a patch.

  81. Out of my price range.... by queenb**ch · · Score: 1

    We've been screwed by Microsoft again. Here's an excerpt from my blog, "After a brief phone to ATI, I was informed that both the X1800 and X1900 series cards will support the new Dx10 standard. A quick pop over to PriceWatch shows that the cheapest X1800 card is $176 and the cheapest X1900 card is $203. Now, since I'm getting the whole rest of the box for $667, I find this to be a bit steep. Hopefully, Nvidia will have something under $150." Sadly, that's not the case. This is the ONLY card from Nvidia that supports Dx10. The only sites that I've seen that are pre-selling it are in the EU. The one listed in the article in the orignal post says 605 British Pounds which works out $1,152.59 USD.

    Am I only that see the irony in putting a $1000 video card in a $600 computer?

    2 cents,

    QueenB

    --
    HDGary secures my bank :/