Slashdot Mirror


AMD's Dual GPU Monster, The Radeon HD 3870 X2

MojoKid writes "AMD officially launched their new high-end flagship graphics card today and this one has a pair of graphics processors on a single PCB. The Radeon HD 3870 X2 was codenamed R680 throughout its development. Although that codename implies the card is powered by a new GPU, it is not. The Radeon HD 3870 X2 is instead powered by a pair of RV670 GPUs linked together on a single PCB by a PCI Express fan-out switch. In essence, the Radeon HD 3870 X2 is "CrossFire on a card" but with a small boost in clock speed for each GPU as well. As the benchmarks and testing show, the Radeon HD 3870 X2 is one of the fastest single cards around right now. NVIDIA is rumored to be readying a dual GPU single card beast as well."

146 comments

  1. But does it run Linux? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No mention from the article summary of whether this is supported by ATI's recent decision to release driver source code. If you buy this card can you use it with free software?

    (Extra points if anyone pedantically takes the subject line and suggests targetting gcc to run the Linux kernel on your GPU... but you know what I mean...)

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    1. Re:But does it run Linux? by DoctorDyna · · Score: 1

      Was a Linux version of Crysis released that I didn't hear about?

      --
      Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
    2. Re:But does it run Linux? by habig · · Score: 4, Informative
      No mention from the article summary of whether this is supported by ATI's recent decision to release driver source code. If you buy this card can you use it with free software?

      While AMD has done a good thing and released a lot of documentation for their cards, it has not been source code, and has not yet included the necessary bits for acceleration (either 2D or 3D). That said, I'm watching what I'm typing right now courtesy of the surprisingly functional radeonhd driver being developed by the SUSE folks for Xorg from this documentation release. While lacking acceleration, it's already more stable and lacks the numerous show-stopper bugs present in ATI's fglrx binary blob.

      Dunno yet if this latest greatest chunk of silicon is supported, but being open source and actively developed, I'm sure that support will arrive sooner rather than later.

    3. Re:But does it run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares?

      It's not like linux has any decent games.

    4. Re:But does it run Linux? by Spokehedz · · Score: 1

      Oh how I wait for this to be reality. My dual 8800GTX cards want to be in Linux all the time, but sadly there is no way to run it without Windows.

    5. Re:But does it run Linux? by ronadams · · Score: 1

      What's that? Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of my Unreal Tournament 2004/Nexuiz/Tremulous/Quake4/et. al.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    6. Re:But does it run Linux? by GuidoW · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, what did they really release? I remember some time ago, there was a lot of excitement right here on /. about ati releasing the first part of the documentation, which was basically a list with names and addresses of registers but little or no actual explanations. (Although I guess if you have programmed graphics drivers before, you'd be able to guess a lot from the names...)

      The point is, it was said that that these particular docs were only barely sufficient to implement basic things like mode-setting and 2D-support and maybe TV-Out, but certainly not 3D-acceleration. There was a promise by ati to release even more documentation in the future to allow these things, but so far, I haven't seen anything. I did some googling to find out if maybe I've missed something, but that turned up very little. Even the X.Org wiki didn't help much.

      So, does anyone here know a bit more? What's the real status of the released docs? Is there enough to do a real implementation with all the little things like RandR, dual head support, TV-Out and 3D-support, or is ati just stringing us along, pretending to be one of the good guys?

      --
      If it's so secret, then how come I've never heard of it?
    7. Re:But does it run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    8. Re:But does it run Linux? by habig · · Score: 1
      What's the real status of the released docs? Is there enough to do a real implementation with all the little things like RandR, dual head support, TV-Out and 3D-support, or is ati just stringing us along, pretending to be one of the good guys?

      RandR and dual head work, based on what's running on my desk right now. Better than fglrx.

      No idea about TV-out. Some 2D acceleration is in the works, but the 3D bits were not in the released docs (although rumors of people taking advantage of standardized calls abound, see the sibling of this post).

    9. Re:But does it run Linux? by kensan · · Score: 1

      While there have been some commits regarding the RV670 chipset, it's does not seem to be working just yet.
      AMD needs to keep it's promise and release more documentation before any 2D/3D acceleration can be implemented. Let's keep our fingers crossed...

    10. Re:But does it run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I may not have been speaking loudly enough. The thunderous cacophony of the thousands of games I won't bother listing has ruint my hearing.

    11. Re:But does it run Linux? by smartdreamer · · Score: 1

      So why did you buy it?

      Are you so insensitive to its feelings? Don't you feel its pain? Such a tragedy.

  2. With AMD Open Source Linux Drivers by lord_rob+the+only+on · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's time to change my aging Athlon 900 MHz then :-).

  3. Multiprocessing everywhere! by AceJohnny · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can't make it faster? Make more. Another multiprocessing application. Can I haz multiprocessor network card plz?

    When can I have a quantum graphics card that displays all possible pictures at the same time ?

    --
    Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
    1. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Funny

      Here's your "all possible pictures at the same time" (using additive mixing), and it doesn't even require you to buy a new graphics card:














      Cool éh?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by n3tcat · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that "white" was available on even the first video accelerator cards...

    3. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by afidel · · Score: 1

      Um? Actually video cards are an inherently parallizable problem set. You see this in every modern video card where the difference between the top and bottom of a product line is often simply the amount of parallel execution units that passed QC. All they are doing here is combining two of the largest economically producible dies together into one superchip. Oh and I already have multiprocessor network cards, their called multiport TCP Offload cards =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by kvezach · · Score: 1

      When can I have a quantum graphics card that displays all possible pictures at the same time ?

      Quantum algorithm for finding properly rendered pictures:
      1. Randomly construct a picture, splitting the universe into as many possibilities as exist.
      2. Look at the picture.
      3. If it's incorrectly rendered, destroy the universe.

      But now, with Quantum Graphics, you don't have to destroy the unfit universes - the card will take care of it for you! Buy now!

    5. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by kvezach · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bah, that probability distribution is just wrong! Or you overflowed all your pixels.

    6. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      It's all those screenshots of the 2010 Windows White Screen of Death which does that. Once you've added that in, nothing survives.

    7. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Here's your "all possible pictures at the same time"
      I just saw my own death! In an infinite number of ways.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      I have a quantum graphics card somewhere, standing still, but I can't locate it ! Damn you, Heisenberg !

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    9. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "displays all possible pictures at the same time?"

      Goatse, hot tub girl and "Can I haz cheeseburger" at the same time? No thanks.

      --
    10. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually network bonding is common, and is a very sensible way of increasing throughput. Networking, Storage, and Graphics all scale very well in parallel.

    11. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by Poltras · · Score: 1

      Shhh! No spoilers please!

    12. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine could only display red, green or blue.

    13. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by Ice+Wewe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but look at the Anti-Aliasing! It's so crisp!

    14. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by Spokehedz · · Score: 1

      This raises a good question: If you saw your death, in every way possible, woulden't that make it impossible to die?

      Observing changes the outcome. By observing all outcomes, there is nothing left to change into. Ergo, no way to die?

    15. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by LarsG · · Score: 1

      Dude, posting that without a spoiler warning is so evil.

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    16. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by kvezach · · Score: 1

      Of course it's crisp! It's raw!

      (A raw pixel dump, that is.)

    17. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by MulluskO · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Man is finite, and therefore cannot make infinite observations.

      --

      Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
    18. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by dvice_null · · Score: 1

      Woah, the shadows are quite impressive.

    19. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      In the case of graphics processors, this has been the trend for quite some time (and in fact, has always been the trend). Each generation of graphics processors has been made more powerful than the previous by adding more parallel pixel processors. The main clock for these chips have been kept steadily at the sub-GHz region. In fact, my old 4200 Geforce operates at 250 MHz.

      It makes sense since the processing of a pixel's shading and texture data is very parallel. In theory you could have up to your resolution's number of processors (let's say 1920x1200 which means 2304000 pixels per frame to calculate). Of course, that many pixel processors would mean a severe bottleneck at the rasterize stage and I'm not sure how parallel that algorithm is. Then there's the limitations of the physics engine, etc.

      But the point is, there's always room for more pixel processors.

    20. Re:Multiprocessing everywhere! by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      Idea for a new romantic comedy: When Tubgirl Met Goatse.

  4. External PSU by Krneki · · Score: 0

    I hope I don't need a dual PSU unit too.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  5. Re:crossfire capable? by Chainsaw+Karate · · Score: 1

    You can't put two of these in Crossfire yet. ATI is working on Crossfire X drivers that will allow you to put two 3870x2s in crossfire.

  6. Sounds wasteful, but isn't by mcvos · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Two GPUs on a single card? Who the hell needs that kind of power? Besides, don't modern graphics cards waste ridiculous amounts of energy even when they're simply drawing your desktop?

    For those who haven't been following the recent releases of ATI graphics cards, it's probably interesting to note that the AI HD2850 and HD2870 use only 20 Watt when idling (most low-end cards use at least 30W nowadays, and high-end cards are often closer to 100W).

    So that should mean that this new card should eat about 40W when idling, making this card not just the most powerful graphics card today, but also less wasteful than nVidia's 8800GT. Not a bad choice if you're in dire need of more graphics power. Although personally I'm planning to buy a simple 3850.

    1. Re:Sounds wasteful, but isn't by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Isn't AMD working on a system which switches back to a low-power on-board graphics chip when drawing the OS?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Sounds wasteful, but isn't by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      Who the hell needs that kind of power?


      Who needs it? Probably graphics artists who are rendering amazingly complex scenes. I can imagine it would help some game designers and potentially even CAD architecture-types. Probably not so much with films because I think they're rendered on some uber-servers.

      Who wants it? Gamers with more money than sense and a desire to always be as close to the cutting edge as possible, even if it only gains them a couple of frames and costs another £100 or more.
    3. Re:Sounds wasteful, but isn't by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Who needs it? Probably graphics artists who are rendering amazingly complex scenes. I can imagine it would help some game designers and potentially even CAD architecture-types. Probably not so much with films because I think they're rendered on some uber-servers.

      Not necessarily. Most standard rendering engines eat system CPU a lot more than it ever would GPU - especially when it comes to things like ray tracing, texture optimization, and the like.

      Most (even low-end) rendering packages do have "OpenGL Mode", which uses only the GPU, but the quality is usually nowhere near as good as you get with full-on CPU-based rendering. Things may catch up as graphics cards improve, but for the most part, render engines are hungry for time on that chip on your motherboard, not necessarily the one on your graphics card. Where the graphics card shines in is preview rendering - that is, showing you in the workspace what you'll get while you're still assembling the mesh, texture, composition, etc.

      ...now HD graphics, video editing, and pro-level photography OTOH? Those could certainly use the boost in some cases...

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:Sounds wasteful, but isn't by nonsequitor · · Score: 1

      Isn't AMD working on a system which switches back to a low-power on-board graphics chip when drawing the OS?
      I don't know what AMD/ATI is currently working on, but you can not draw an Operating System. You can however draw a windowing system, for instance XOrg rendering KDE or Gnome. This is Slashdot, us nerds are pedantic.

      Perhaps you meant having a low power chip which can take over for simple 2D graphics. I believe Aero (hopefully I got the name correct) uses 3D graphics now, and its all the rage in the Linux world to use XGL, a 3D renderer for a windowing system. So it is unlikely that it would be utilized by whatever modern OS you install unless you explicitly select 2D rendering for your Desktop.
    5. Re:Sounds wasteful, but isn't by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

      Two GPUs on a single card? Who the hell needs that kind of power?
      Hey, it's not often that the next graphic card released by a company is almost twice as fast. I assume this one has to be at least close. Probably 180% or more faster than the previous one. Usually it's like 20% faster than the one before it. I finally found a game my BFG 6600GT OC can't run maxed out (Oblivion) and let's pretend that was currently the top of the line card. Okay so then they make one with 2 GPUs. It could run the hell out of Oblivion. You know that's actually kinda funny cuz if they seriously did just make a dual core version of my card, it would be fast enough to run just about anything. Okay so for now, it's ridiculously overpowered but that just means it'll be fast for longer.
      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    6. Re:Sounds wasteful, but isn't by balthan · · Score: 1

      Two GPUs on a single card? Who the hell needs that kind of power?

      Never played Crysis, huh?

    7. Re:Sounds wasteful, but isn't by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      I don't know what Linux world you're referring to, but XGL has been obsoleted by AIGLX for more than a year now... and the 3D part is only used for the 3D effects; all the work of drawing windows is still being done by 2D hardware.

    8. Re:Sounds wasteful, but isn't by thealsir · · Score: 1

      Actually, both nVidia and ATi are working on a system that allows a lower powered onboard GPU core to handle things like Veesta aero, then switch to the octal SLi Geforce 10000 GTX when rendering Crysis 2 or something. I believe it's a part of nVidia's hybrid SLi, and ATi's hybrid Crossfire. It's supposed to save a lot of power because not only does it divert light rendering load to a chip that can easily handle it, it suspends the main GPU, saving a lot on idle power draw (current cards, especially high-end ones, are really bad with idle power draw).

      --
      Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
    9. Re:Sounds wasteful, but isn't by Cecil · · Score: 1

      Don't get pedantic if you're not going to go all the way. An operating system operates all parts of the computer, including the video output parts. Even if it's running in text mode, something has to tell it what characters to draw where. Even DOS had to be "drawn" on the screen, so to speak. If you want to get even more pedantic, then yes, what you saw *most* of the time was command.com or some other program, but the OS itself had video output routines too, specifically, "Starting MS-DOS..." and the always-popular "Command interpreter not found", both of which had to be drawn on the screen somehow.

    10. Re:Sounds wasteful, but isn't by tyrione · · Score: 1

      Two GPUs on a single card? Who the hell needs that kind of power? Besides, don't modern graphics cards waste ridiculous amounts of energy even when they're simply drawing your desktop?

      For those who haven't been following the recent releases of ATI graphics cards, it's probably interesting to note that the AI HD2850 and HD2870 use only 20 Watt when idling (most low-end cards use at least 30W nowadays, and high-end cards are often closer to 100W).

      So that should mean that this new card should eat about 40W when idling, making this card not just the most powerful graphics card today, but also less wasteful than nVidia's 8800GT. Not a bad choice if you're in dire need of more graphics power. Although personally I'm planning to buy a simple 3850. Raises Hand. Who needs this kind of power? Ever done any Solid Modeling? Real-time rendering? Engineering computations that can be off-loaded onto a GPU that can do massive floating point calculations? As a Mechanical Engineer I want to be able to do this without buying a $3k FireGL card or competing card from nVidia and I also want to be able to deal with Multimedia compression and other aspects that those cards aren't designed to solve.
    11. Re:Sounds wasteful, but isn't by Justus · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot, us nerds are pedantic.

      In that case, allow me to give you a quick grammar lesson. If you're going to use a phrase like "us [sic] nerds are pedantic," there's a simple rule for determining whether to use "we" or "us." The sentence should be grammatically correct without the additional descriptive word you've added (nerds in this case). Following that rule, you would consider two possibilities: "we are pedantic" and "us are pedantic." Obviously, the latter is incorrect.

      I apologize for being a grammar pedant, but I fear this is something of a pet peeve of mine.

  7. Don't bother by BirdDoggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wait for the nVidia version. Based on their latest offerings, it'll probably be faster and have more stable drivers.

    1. Re:Don't bother by Wicko · · Score: 1

      Or, pick up a pair of 8800GT's for roughly the same price as AMD's X2, and more performance (most likely). This is assuming you have an SLI capable board. An X2 from nvidia is gonna cost an arm and a leg most likely..

    2. Re:Don't bother by Kris_J · · Score: 1

      Why wait? The Gigabyte 3D1 has been available for years. I'm still using mine.

  8. Re:This just in: New technology faster than old. by Chainsaw+Karate · · Score: 1

    http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3209 Anandtech's article compares the 3870x2 against 8800 GT SLI (a good comparison since they cost almost exactly the same). 8800 GT SLI wins in almost every case. 3870x2 is still a damn good card for people with only one PCIe x16 slot though.

  9. Seriously? Yawn. by esconsult1 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Am I the only one underwhelmed by almost every new graphics card announcement these days?

    Graphic cards have long since been really fast for 99.9999% of cases. Even gaming. These companies must be doing this for pissing contests, the few people who do super high end graphics work, or a few crazy pimply faced gamers with monitor tans

    1. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by Cerberus7 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, graphics power isn't fast enough yet, and it will likely never be fast enough. With high-resolution monitors (1920x1200, and such), graphics cards don't yet have the ability to push that kind of resolution at good framerates (~60fps) on modern games. 20-ish FPS on Crysis at 1920x1200 is barely adequate. This tug-of-war that goes on between the software and hardware is going to continue nearly forever.

      Me, I'll be waiting for the card that can do Crysis set to 1920x1200, all the goodies on, and 50-60fps. Until then, my 7900GT SLI setup is going to have to be enough.

      --
      I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
    2. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These cards are morphing into the modern version of supercomputer array processors. SSE is nice and all, but for large vector and matrix operations, you can't beat 128 floating point units connected to a 384 bit memory bus. (8800 GTX there, not sure what ATI has)

    3. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you paid attention to the new games? Most of the graphics cards are crying unless you turn settings down.

      It can never be too fast. If you believe the nonsense of not being able to notice fps differences above 30 fps, then you're right.

      Go try a game at 30 fps, then try it at 130.

    4. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one underwhelmed by almost every new graphics card announcement these days?
      Absolutely not, and the reason these announcements are so 'boring' is the fact the cards are never That Much better than the previous generation.

      I expected to see Double the scores and Double the frame-rates from a Dual GPU card! But alas, steady incremental improvements that don't warrant the extreme cost of the device.

      Maybe now that I've made that realization, I won't overhype myself from now on.
    5. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Graphic cards have long since been really fast for 99.9999% of cases.

      I think they're releasing a new Elder Scrolls soon.

    6. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that within the last year or so we've seen some pretty interesting developments in graphics. Shader Model 3.0, High Dynamic Range Imaging, DirectX 10 with OpenGL coming out 'soon.' Plus if you look at the benchmarks for Crysis in the article you'll see that the best any card can do in the market is 40fps. This is still pretty low for a first person shooter, so increased speeds on gpu's are always welcome.

      And not forgetting the advent of GPGPU, the number of scientists and engineers buying these top end graphics card is likely to rise. Just have a look at the CUDA documentation if you don't believe this AC. You get all the math and Fourier functions a budding Imaging analyst would need.

    7. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by MacarooMac · · Score: 1

      I hear what you're saying, esconsult1, in that the top-of-the-range GPUs are capable of hoovering up the most demanding apps and games at ridiculous resolutions and so product announcements such as this are neither groundbreaking nor exciting.

      In terms of the progression of GPU technology as a whole, however, I for one shall be acquiring a new 'multimedia' laptop in about six months and I need a fairly high spec graphics card that will, for example, support game play of the latest titles but (1) will not drain my bat within 30 seconds and (2) won't blow my budget. I'll probably get a 17" 'desktop replacement' style unit since it won't actually be 'mobile' that often. But the majority of mobile users will be after more convenient notebooks and slick looking ultra-portables. It's the emergence of high-spec, low-cost and low-power consumption GPU's capable of running demanding apps, but which also fit into increasingly confined mobile units, that is beginning to allow CAD designers and other graphics power users to use a laptop as a complete substitute for their desktop *beast*, w/out suffering any significant compromise in GPU performance.

      The GPU power consumption and power management issues mentioned above may not be very important for the desktop and permanently plugged in user, but for frequently mobile users this is a pretty big issue. What remains is for the designers to improve the internal cooling for CPUs and GPUs, as chip power increases. Finally, with the advent of SSD drive technology (when they begin offering a half decent capacity SSD for under $300), with the reductions in HD power consumption and noise and increase in performance that SSDs promise, *power* mobile computing with 4-5 hour bat life will truly have arrived and I for one intend to be out and about considerably more than I'm able to at present!

      --
      "He Who Dares Wins" ...or gets twenty-to-life for totaling their Bimmer on a poodle parade
    8. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Me, I'll be waiting for the card that can do Crysis set to 1920x1200, all the goodies on, and 50-60fps. Until then, my 7900GT SLI setup is going to have to be enough.
      Which should be just in time for the "next big game" to come out. ;)
      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    9. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      That's the biggest problem that I see with PC gaming. Last week, I went out and bought a Nvidia 8800 GTS for $300, so that I could play some of the more recent PC games at an acceptable frame rate at my primary monitor's native resolutions (1680x1050). My computer is fairly modern, with a 2.66 GHZ dual core processor and 2 GB of DDR2 800. The problem is, even with this upgrade, I could only play Crysis at medium settings.

      While it was definitely a performance improvement over my 6800 sli setup, the quality just wasn't there for the price. For another $100, I can get a PS3 that includes a Bluray player and I won't need to worry about tweaking settings and overclocking to get acceptable framerates. Granted, I could probably match the performance of my 360 or the PS3 if I upgraded my processor along with the graphics card, but if I were to do that, I'd be looking at a considerably more expensive upgrade. It just doesn't seem worth it any more.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    10. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by zrq · · Score: 1

      I'll be waiting for the card that can do Crysis set to 1920x1200, all the goodies on, and 50-60fps

      I recently bought a new 24" monitor (PLE2403WS) from Iiyama. Very nice monitor, but a few problems integrating it with my current video card.

      The monitor is 1920x1200 at ~60Hz. The manual for my graphics card (GeForce PCX 5300) claims it can handle 1920x1080 and 1920x1440, but not 1920x1200 :-(

      Ok, I kind of expected I would need to get a new graphics card, but I am finding it difficult to find out what screen resolutions the available cards will actually handle. Most of the online shops don't really supply any details, and the manufacturers websites seem to deliberately make it difficult to find out.

      The information is almost always buried at the back of the user manual (which you normally don't get until after you have bought the card). You have to go to the manufacturers website, select each type of card, transfer to their 'download site', select the card again, download the PDF manual wrapped as a zip file, unpack the pdf .... only to find it is the 'lite' version of the manual which doesn't actually give you details of the screen resolutions.

      Am I missing something ? Does anyone know of a resource on the net where I can find out what screen resolutions graphics cards are capable of handling.

    11. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, graphics power isn't fast enough yet, and it will likely never be fast enough. With high-resolution monitors (1920x1200, and such), graphics cards don't yet have the ability to push that kind of resolution at good framerates (~60fps) on modern games. 20-ish FPS on Crysis at 1920x1200 is barely adequate. This tug-of-war that goes on between the software and hardware is going to continue nearly forever.

      Me, I'll be waiting for the card that can do Crysis set to 1920x1200, all the goodies on, and 50-60fps. Until then, my 7900GT SLI setup is going to have to be enough. But then you'd just be complaining that resolution Xres+1 x Yres+1 can't be pushed as FPS N+1. Honestly, you only need 24 to 32 FPS as that is pretty much where your eyes are at (unless you have managed to time travel and get ultra-cool ocular implants that can decode things faster). It's the never ending b(#%*-fest of gamers - it's never fast enough - doesn't matter that you're using all the resources of the NCC-1701-J Enterprise to play your game.
      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    12. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Judging from the comments here it seems that the market for this card is for Crysis players who want to play at max settings. That is a pretty narrow market.

    13. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      Honestly, you only need 24 to 32 FPS as that is pretty much where your eyes are at


      Honestly, you don't play FPS games if you say that.

      Film has such a crappy frame rate (24fps) that most movies avoid fast camera pans.
      TV runs at 60 fields (480i60, 1080i60) or 60 frames (480p60, 720p60) per second, not 30 frames per second.

      30fps is acceptable for a game like WoW where you have hardware cursor and you aren't using a cursor-controlled viewpoint. It's not as smooth, but it's playable.

      30fps isn't acceptable for a FPS, RTS without hardware cursor, or really any game where your mouse rate depends on your framerate. Precise mouse movement (which is essential in many games) depends on having a consistently high number of updates per second.
    14. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Honestly, I doubt you play FPS games because the difference between the 24-32fps range and the 50-60's is way noticeable. Forget the theoretical technicalities of human eyes capabilities for one second because I'm sure when the FPS of a game reaches the 30's, there are other factors that make it sluggish and all that together give us the perception that the difference between 30's and 60's is an important difference.

    15. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by stewbacca · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Play the game and enjoy it for the best settings you can get. I downloaded the Crysis demo last night for my 20" iMac booted into WinXP (2.33ghz c2d, 2gb ram, 256mb X1600 video card, hardly an ideal gaming platform, eh?). I read that I wouldn't be able to play it on very good settings, so I took the default settings for my native resolution and played through the entire demo level with no slowdowns. It looked great.


      The real problem here is people feeling like they are missing out because of the higher settings they can't play. Just play the game! Quit fueling the ridiculous ten-year-old trend of spending more on graphic cards than the computers themselves! If the game were unplayable at the medium setting, then yeah, I'd say the complaint is valid.

    16. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by ZOMGPONIEZ111 · · Score: 1

      Actually, rendering 3D graphics is about the most boring thing that this generation of cards does. What they're really good for is high-speed number crunching, because the GPUs have advanced to the point of being full-featured vector processors (the only other vector processor system I know of is the Cray X1E, if that tells you anything).

    17. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by IronChef · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one underwhelmed by almost every new graphics card announcement these days? Graphic cards have long since been really fast for 99.9999% of cases. Even gaming.

      Do you play current games? They keep getting more demanding, and people who want to play those games also want hardware to match. If your current hardware suits your needs... Good for you. Please realize that others will have different needs.

      Today's "pissing match" card is tomorrow's budget gamer's choice. I LIKE progress.

    18. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      Pfft, I could just about run Crysis on medium at 1024*768 on my 7950GT; numerous other games need settings turning down and/or resolution decreasing to run smoothly, never mind 4xAA or 16xAS. I recently upgraded to a G92 8800GTS and it's great actually being able to run everything in my monitor's native resolution again, and remembering what "smooth" meant.

      Now I'm thinking about getting a 30" monitor; 2560x1600 -- ruh oh, now my card needs to be twice as powerful again to avoid having to run in non native resolution. And I *still* can't run everything with full settings, never mind think about making use of multiple monitors.

    19. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to add that people often look at this as some kind of flaw in the game as well. It is rarely stated, but the underlying tone is that "this game was programmed so poorly that it can't even run full speed with the latest cards". This should be looked at as a good thing, in my opinion. Future-proofing is of course impossible, but by allowing a game to still look bleeding edge for a year or two into the future makes it palletable for a longer period of time. I have a bunch of old games that are still a lot of fun, but I wish would just look a little bit better (descent, tribes2, even X-Wing!) and I would still play them pretty often.

    20. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but 30 is adequate. If you don't own at 30 fps, you're not going to do much better at 60. I assume you're using a high-resolution mouse, btw, or your statement would barely even make sense.

      You may be too young to remember, but back in the day, we got 10 fps playing Q2, and that's the way we liked it! Ahh, the old days of not having a 3d card and going with full-software graphics...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    21. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the question is why? Crysis sucks.

      I'll be waiting for the developers who can make good games again, like games were before the whole race to see who could push more polygons. These days it seems every game is pretty on the outside and ugly on the inside.

    22. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by CodyRazor · · Score: 0

      You've never seen crysis on max settings have you?

      You cant deny graphics can add a lot to the game. In crysis the graphics are half the game. Try playing fear with all settings off and no shadows, it will be pretty boring. Then play it with all settings max, it will be scary as shit.

      --
      So Skulldilocks threw acid on the schoolchildrens' faces, cause somebody from the bible told her to do it!
    23. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      That's the biggest problem that I see with PC gaming.

      The problem is with your mindset, not with PC gaming.

      Crysis looks *beautiful* on medium settings. The fact that it will look even better on new hardware a year from now is an advantage for people who buy that hardware and completely irrelevant to anyone who doesn't. At least for people who don't have some sort of massive jealousy issue that makes it so they can't handle the idea that someone might, at some point in the future, have nicer toys than they do.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    24. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HEY GUYS I BOUGHT THE BESTEST CARD EVAR FOR $1,000. IT RUNS THE LATEST GAME +5 FPS HIGHER THAN THE $200 CARD. i ARE TEH LEETEST. Two months later you buy his card for 200 bucks.

    25. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by Splab · · Score: 1

      This is a big problem since my 24" is running in 1920x1200 and windows insists on running GL application in windowed mode if they run in a resolution less than 1920x1200.

      Been looking into a new rig, but even high end everything doesn't push fast enough for Crysis to run smooth. I hope the Nvidia 9800 will do wonders.

    26. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      You've made my point for me. The game looks GREAT with the default settings (great being a relative term). I'm sure it looks even better with better hardware, but that doesn't make the game any less fun to play. I seriously doubt there are any graphical items missing that take away from the game play. The highest settings require expensive video cards that don't quite justify the expense, in my book. In the case of Crysis, I read they developed it to play at higher settings than are even possible with current hardware. Fun project, but not really practical, given better games will be out by the time better hardware is available.

    27. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Actually, graphics power isn't fast enough yet, and it will likely never be fast enough.

      We're getting awfully close to real-time ray tracing. When that becomes mainstream, a few years after that the onboard graphics on PC's will probably be good enough for most people. Much like onboard audio is now.

    28. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by CodyRazor · · Score: 0

      You ignored my second example, FEAR is the perfect example where there are elements missing on lower settings. The shadows MAKE the entire game. When it came out you could only have them on smoothly on high end hardware. I dont know why people try to argue that graphics dont matter, if they didnt high end graphics cards wouldnt sell and crysis would look like pong. They're just as important as any other game element, and in some cases a lot moreso. If crysis looked like doom 3 it would be mediocre. And the higher your hardware, the prettier it gets. The highest settings might not be worth it to you, but news of this new graphics card means the prices of cards below will be pushed down, so you shouldnt be yawning, you should be happy.

      Also it takes a long time for the general standard to catch up. HL2 and Doom3 could barely be played on max settings with high end hardware when released and they kept the graphics edge for a very long time. The 9000 series will be out any moment, and they will play crysis well. I dont see a game matching crysis for graphics for at least the next several months, proably more. That means everyone that has been waiting to upgrade will get crysis as its the only thing that will use the full potential of their new card, which means a lot of money. It's a lot more than just a fun project. The GPU is the most expensive part of the computer for a reason. As Stephen Colbert would say, democracy has spoken.

      --
      So Skulldilocks threw acid on the schoolchildrens' faces, cause somebody from the bible told her to do it!
    29. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I dont know why people try to argue that graphics dont matter, if they didnt high end graphics cards wouldnt sell and crysis would look like pong. Crysis doesn't look like Pong, even on a crappy low-ish end X1600 video card. Unfortunately, I have an iMac, so newer cards pushing down prices are of no benefit to me ;-) Perhaps FEAR requires the most subtle of graphics capabilities, but not at the expense of a $500 video card. I'll just play FEAR next year when I can build an entire PC with a decent video card (that will be outdated, but cheap) for less than the cost of that same video card now. For the record, I've played the FEAR demo on my iMac and the lack of high-end graphics capacity is lost on me, because the game was fun and spooky regardless.

      Perhaps it is because I remember "trying" to game in the early to mid 90s when scaling back graphic options meant things like no longer having other cars on the race rack, or not having a sky or stadium display in your sports game...These trivial video settings now days are so minor in comparison. Smoother lines in the face? Turn on AAx4 (or whatever it is called). Ooh neat, now I have smoother face lines. In the old days, you were lucky to have a face.

      Also, you validate my point again, saying high end graphics cards wouldn't sell if graphics didn't matter. Video games pushing high-end graphics cards (which will cost $100 in less than a year, or be flat-out out-dated) is a scam and the industry knows how to suck every last penny from hard-core gamers.

      1. Make game with ridiculous graphic requirements
      2. Make $500 video card that boasts the ability to increase FPS by a marginal amount
      3. ???
      4. Profit!

      (Man, I've never been able to use the 1.2.3.4. Profit! thing until now, and wow, what a perfect example!)

    30. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by CodyRazor · · Score: 0

      wow... that was like... so incoherent. You kind of misunderstood everything i said... doesnt matter tho if your happy with your imac thats good.

      --
      So Skulldilocks threw acid on the schoolchildrens' faces, cause somebody from the bible told her to do it!
    31. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by stewbacca · · Score: 1
      I don't want sound argumentative, but I don't really understand what you don't understand? I'm not trying to make this anything about an iMac. I'm simply trying to point out that a much less than ideal computer can handle the latest crop of games to a "much better than decent" level. I'd even argue that a cheap 3d card coupled with a strong core2duo chip and lots of ram is better than the best video card with a slower cpu and less ram. From what I can tell, it is cheaper to buy a faster cpu and more ram than it is to buy a bleeding edge video card, and the cpu/ram benefis extend beyond gaming.

      Again, not to be argumentative, I just question the value of a few extra frames per second and levels of shaders that a $500 graphic card has over a $150 one. Does it really matter if one card gets 150 fps and the other "only" gets 60? I'd buy your FEAR argument completely, except I know that an average video card (the X1600 on my iMac, for example) can display the essentials required to enjoy the game. Perhaps you can give some additional and tangible examples of how a decent machine with an average 3d card suffers in game play.

      Would you like to comment on this? (Thanks in advanced for keeping the topic cordial and on topic)

    32. Re:Seriously? Yawn. by CodyRazor · · Score: 0

      It is always more beneficial to have a better GPU and slower CPU. You might see no decent improvemnt going from medium to high graphcs but i do. Crysis on medium looks like quake 4. on Ultra it looks way better than any other game. And its not the difference between 60fps and 150fps, its 5fps vs 30fps. unplayable vs playable.

      Also CPU benefits to me are for the most part a placebo effect. An E6300 can give the same XP/vista/wordprocessing/intenet browsing experience as a QX6800. An E6300 is also adequate for max settings on most games. almost all applications dont even use 2 of the 4 cores. Of course cpu specific tasks like mathematical applications are different. Apple always plays up cpu power as they put shithouse gpus in their computers and ridiculously overkill cpus, at least in the mac pro. a 7300GT and 8 3ghz cores? good luck making use of that. Waste of money. Anyway the GPU makes all the difference.

      You cant deny a higher end graphics card will give you better performance, make more games playable and make the graphics much nicer. Some games you will lose a part of the experience but most games you wont. A mid range gpu will give you the essentials. If your haappy with that thats fine. But a lot of people arent happy with just the essentials, they want more. I like having the best experience possible. The same way a lot of people arent happy with a ford mondeo and want a porsche. The game devs understand this, and so do the GPU makers. thats why better GPUS and better games keep becoming available, and they keep selling.

      The problem i had was just because its not worth it for you, doesnt mean you should go saying its a waste of time and yawning about it, much less get modded up. I thought as geeks all mods would understand that geeks often like the lastest technology, (fancy that?), and do get excited by these things. The high end market plays a very important role in any industry. It seems more and more some mods just mod up witty comments that put the article topic down in a patronizing or condescending manner. maybe they want to feel superior i dont know.

      This is good news for you casual gamers as well because as soon as a new flgaship product comes out the prices of lower end products usually drop quite significantly. Also for those interested it can give new information on where the technology is headed and what might be possible in the future. so why are you yawning? you should be thinking great, now next time i upgrade il be able to get a better card for $150 than i could a week ago.

      --
      So Skulldilocks threw acid on the schoolchildrens' faces, cause somebody from the bible told her to do it!
  10. price/performance by pablo_max · · Score: 1

    I am really not that impressed. It's not much faster than the 8800 GT which is MUCH MUCH MUCH less expensive. I am sure you can pick up two 8800 GT's for the price of this card. Of course then you have to deal with the noise, but overall it looks to me that the price/performance ratio of this card is not that great.

  11. RTFA by Fross · · Score: 1

    This card is actually the most power-hungry of the lot.

    They only give power consumption for the whole system, 214W when idle, 374W when under load (!)

    SOme basic math on their results gives you the 3870 consumes 50W when idle, and the X2 consuming 100W when idle and up to a massive 260W when under full load.

    (3870 at idle = 164W, 3870 X2 at idle = 214W, hence 3870 = 50W)

  12. Still a good product by Mishra100 · · Score: 1

    No matter how well they designed the card, at the end of the day price/performance is what you are looking for in a graphics card. This card delivers performance that teeters around the same performance that the 8800 Ultra gives at a much lower cost and produces about the same noise and power ratios.

    ATI announced that they won't sell cards for over 500 dollars and I think that gives them a good standing in the market place. If you are willing to spend 450 dollars http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814103052 and want to upgrade in the future, then this is probably going to be best buy. I think that speaks well for ATI who hasn't even been near the market for a while.

    That being said, I think if you are going to buy a video card and can wait for Nvidia's product (which is supposed to be in Feb) then I would definitely do that to see what competition they will bring.

  13. Re:R680 by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Funny

    You must be mis-pronouncing it - it's R-Upside-Down-Nine-Vertical-Infinity-Circle. That's how the engineers all refer to it internally.

    Pretty cool if you ask me.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  14. Driver dependent performance by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ultimately though, the real long-term value of the Radeon HD 3870 X2 will be determined by AMD's driver team. That doesn't really bode well, given the clusterfuck that the CCC drivers tend to be.
    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Driver dependent performance by chromozone · · Score: 4, Informative

      ATI/AMD's drivers can make you cry. But their Crossfire already scales much better than Nvidia's SLI which is a comparative disaster. Most games use Nvidia's cards/drivers for development so Nvidia cards hit the ground running more often. As manky as ATI drivers can be, when they say they will be getting better they tell the truth. ATI drivers tend to show substantial improvements after a cards release.

    2. Re:Driver dependent performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but with ATI isn't every direction up with regards to their driver quality?

    3. Re:Driver dependent performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may be getting better, but in my experience the ATI Linux drivers are beta quality at best. I've been buying Nvidia for about 8 years, but decided to buy an ATI card a couple of months ago since it offered better bang for buck. Sure it was a quick card, but I was amazed at how poor the Linux drivers were. Getting two displays working (BigDesktop) was a nightmare, in the end I gave up and went back to Nvidia, which just works.

      For me, 'getting better' is not really good enough for a commercial product.

    4. Re:Driver dependent performance by ashpool7 · · Score: 2

      Hm, well if that's the case, then nobody should run out and buy this card.

      WRT Crossfire... I had a friend who wanted to buy Intel because they're "the fastest." Hence, he was stuck with ATi for video cards. Except the latest driver bugged Crossfire and he spent a couple hours uninstalling the driver to reinstall the older one. Doesn't that sound like fun?

      nVidia's drivers aren't better because they're used for development, they're better because nVidia knows "IT'S ALL ABOUT THE DRIVERS, STUPID". ATi still has not learned this lesson. They need to just die and maybe somebody who knows a thing or two about driver development will pick up their charred remains.

  15. Does it come with... by Walles · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ... specs or open source drivers?

    I haven't heard anything about any specs for 3d operations being released from AMD. I know they were talking about it, but what happened then? Did they release anything while I wasn't looking?

    --
    Installed the Bubblemon yet?
    1. Re:Does it come with... by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They probably are pulling a Matrox. Release partial specs, promise to release more, rake in $$$$$$$$$$ from gullible members of the Open Source community, fail to deliver on promises. Great short-term strategy but only works once before said community stops trusting you, especially those who were dumb enough to go for your promises like I was back in 1999.

      Ever since I made the mistake of buying a Matrox G200 (Partial specs - more complete than what ATI has released so far as I understand it, and a promise for full specs which were never delivered) I never make buying decisions based on promised specification/driver releases - only what works NOW, whether binary or not. (Hence I've been happily buying NVidia for 6-7 years now.)

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    2. Re:Does it come with... by EricR86 · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about the radeonhd driver?

      Currently there's only 2d support, but a handful of developers from Novell seem to be consistently working on it.

      As for specs, they just released another batch back in early january.

    3. Re:Does it come with... by Kjella · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I haven't heard anything about any specs for 3d operations being released from AMD. I know they were talking about it, but what happened then? Did they release anything while I wasn't looking? They released another 900 pages of 2D docs around Christmas, 2D/3D acceleration is still coming "soon" but given their current pace it'll take a while to get full 3D acceleration. So far my experience with the nVidia closed source drivers have been rock stable, I have some funny issues getting the second screen of my dual screen setup working but it never crashed on me.

      Drivers are something for the here and now, they don't have any sort of long term implications like say what document format you use. The day ATI delivers, I can buy a new card and switch instantly. They can promise to release specs all they want, I'll promise to buy one when they do. ATI may find that promises are cheap both in the giving and the getting. I'm still afraid that all the good stuff will be stuck in the legal department forever.
      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  16. Re:R680 by somersault · · Score: 1

    Not really. This codename was created in remembrance of those that gave their lives in the 'Crossfire' Revolution of 680AD, where the French (or the Gauls as they were known back then) ambushed the Germans with their Black Widow catapults, from opposite sides of a treacherous ravene, and accidentally killed each other in the process. WTF are you expecting from a codename? o_0

    --
    which is totally what she said
  17. Price point by eebra82 · · Score: 0

    The summary failed to mention the most important factor: the new AMD card is actually much cheaper than the 8800 Ultra and at the same time a lot faster in many tests. In addition, it seems that the X2 equivalent of nVidia is delayed by one month or more, so AMD does have the lead for at least another month.

    1. Re:Price point by beavis88 · · Score: 1

      AMD would have the lead for another month if they would ship actual product. But they haven't yet, in usual ATI form, and I wouldn't recommend holding your breath...I would not be at all surprised to see Nvidia's competitor, while delayed, in the hands of actual consumers around the same time as the 3870X2.

    2. Re:Price point by beavis88 · · Score: 1

      Well shit, serves me right for not checking again - looks like Newegg has some of these in stock and available for purchase, right now. Go ATI!

  18. Well, barely by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    AMD/ATI still has issues delivering drivers on par with nVidia, depending on the application.

    But, yes it does run Linux.

  19. Re:This just in: New technology faster than old. by Kamots · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Interesting thing is what happens when you stop looking at synthetic benchmarks... and start looking at real gameplay.

    Take a read through hardocp's review for an example.

    As to why AMD released? Well, my understanding is that NVidia is looking to release thier own 2-GPU card (9800 GX2) in Feb/March. Given the benchmarks of the current cards, I can't see the 3870 X2 holding up well... so... beat 'em to market. Although when you factor price in, I'd imagine it'll still be competitive; just not anywhere near the fastest.

    What I'm waiting to see come out from AMD is the R700 cards... especially if it convinces nvidia to finally release thier true next-gen cards as well (not merely the continued tweaking/shrinking of the G80 architecture). Then we can all have something to look forward to :)

  20. And the winner is... by steveaustin1971 · · Score: 0

    My 8800 Ultra still beats this thing hands down, and I could put another one in SLI for way less than buying one of these ATI cards... And for all those that say why do you need this? You don't NEED it any more than you need a 4X4 SUV when you only drive in the city... or $200 basketball sneakers to walk down the street. I buy it because I want it.

    1. Re:And the winner is... by i.of.the.storm · · Score: 1

      Really? The benchmarks I've seen put it at a fair bit faster than the 8800 Ultra, which makes sense considering it's got two GPUs. And uh, the 8800 Ultra costs $700, this costs $450, so I don't know what crazy inside deals you've got but there is no way you could get another of those for way less than one of these.

      --
      All your base are belong to Wii.
  21. Re:crossfire capable? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Nice. I get modded down to -1 for legitimately asking if you'll be able to run a 4 core setup using two of these cards. Way to go guys!

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  22. Anyone remember . . . by TheScorpion420 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Anyone remember the ATI Rage Fury MAXX? I've still got one in use. It was a monster in its day. Dual Rage 128 Pro GPU's and 64MB of RAM. But for some reason the way that they jury rigged them on one board didn't work properly in XP, so it only uses one. Oh well, still s nifty conversation piece.

    --
    If you pay your taxes you support terrorism!
    1. Re:Anyone remember . . . by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative
      The Rage 128 Pro was never close to the top of the line for a graphics accelerator (and doesn't really qualify as a GPU since it doesn't do transform or lighting calculations in hardware). It was around 50% faster than the Rage 128, which was about as fast as a VooDoo 2 (although it also did 2D). You had been able to buy Obsidian cards with two VooDoo 2 chips for years before the Maxx was released, and the later VooDoo chips were all designed around putting several on a single board.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  23. it's missing stuff by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Why only pci-e 1.1 a 2.0 switch would better split the bus to the 2 gpus.

    also there should be 2 cross fire slots as each gps has 2 links and 2 out of 4 are used to link each other.

    1. Re:it's missing stuff by Hanners1979 · · Score: 1

      Why only pci-e 1.1 a 2.0 switch would better split the bus to the 2 gpus.

      Because there simply aren't any 3-way PCI Express 2.0 switches available on the market yet - Waiting for that would have delayed the product substantially for very little in the way of real-world gains.

  24. You have been deselected... by kholburn · · Score: 1

    The reason for the existence of your universe is to not be rendered on someone's computer game. Thanks for playing but your universe will not be needed.

  25. Re:crossfire capable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How fast will these be if you run them in Crossfire mode? If you can use one card on 16x with two chips on it, each one gets 8x PCIe (or eight lanes). Put two cards in the same system and each card gets 8x - the equivalent of 4 lanes per core on most motherboards.

    Sounds like you have to replace your new motherboard if you want to get the potential out of the cards.

  26. No 8800 Ultra? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They only compared the card to the 8800 GT and GTX from NVIDIA's selection of cards.

    What i really want to know is how much power does it have against NVIDIA's top card the 8800 Ultra. I read the article and i think i didn't even spot a single mention of the Ultra being tested along side all the other cards. So, did they run out of budget or something?

  27. Re:This just in: New technology faster than old. by jrwr00 · · Score: 1

    na the trick with these cards are that you can crossfire 2 of those (4 GPUs anyone)

  28. If you can't beat 'em... by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

    Just take two of your cards that are getting beaten by NVIDIA and then combine them in the hopes that they'll beat NVIDIA! aaaaand go!

    --
    You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
  29. Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    666 million transistors The card is evil! Radeon is a servant of the devil and creates wares in his name!
  30. Re:crossfire capable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are plenty of motherboards out there that can drive two PCIe x16 slots. Only mediocre boards will downgrade the second slot to x8 when a second card goes in.

  31. Re:crossfire capable? by toleraen · · Score: 1

    You admitted that you didn't even RTFA before asking, your question is covered in TFA, and you said you were about to read it. Kinda like asking a mechanic how much oil your car takes while you start to open the car's manual.

  32. Next up... by jez9999 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Work is in the pipeline for a board which can house all your computer's necessary components, including a multiple core CPU that can handle graphics AND processing all-in-one! It will be the mother of all boards.

    1. Re:Next up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  33. Offtopic, but... by gaelfx · · Score: 1

    whatever happened to the physics card that some company released a while back? It seemed like a pretty good idea, and I wonder if it could be modified to fit onto a graphics card as well. I just think that would be a nice coupling because I like the small towers rather than the huge behemoth that I have in my Mom's basement (no, I don't live at home any more, wanna take my geek card back?). It's nice that they are putting an extra chip into their cards, I can definitely imagineer that as being pretty helpful, especially with buffery stuff, but it seems that the physics processing unit (ppu) would be an even more handy addition since I can't think of many things you would do that require a powerful gpu that couldn't also make use of some nice ppu functions. Maybe if it were designed really well, the ppu could even workhorse as a secondary gpu for those applications that I can't think of. Although, I certainly have no concrete evidence for this, nor reason to believe that what I'm saying makes any sense to anyone who does know about these things, I still think it seems like a more "revolutionary" step than this.

    1. Re:Offtopic, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like when 3D cards were introduced, it'll be awhile before these catch on. Making a game that requires a PPU isn't going to happen for some time, so games that use it will have to use it in a way that is optional. Which is even harder than with a GPU, because while that only affects the visuals, a PPU is designed to affect things that could have a serious effect on gameplay.

      I'm pretty sure UT3 supports a PhysX PPU, even though there hasn't been a new card released in some time.

    2. Re:Offtopic, but... by gaelfx · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the trailers for The Force Unleashed? If ever there were a candidate for a game that could use a PPU, I would think that would be it.

  34. Re:R680 by bob.appleyard · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    In the 7th Century what we know as France today, along with the low countries and some of western Germany, was known as Francia and was ruled, at least in theory, by the Merovingian line of Frankish kings. This century saw the rise of the Carolingian dynasty within Francia, which reached their height in the late 8th and early 9th Centuries with the reign of Charlemagne.

    Germany wasn't a single political entity until the 19th Century, and the Franks were Germanic, which is more of a group of identities, but as close as your going to get at this point in time.

    Francia would form the basis of the Carolingian Empire, which would itself lead on to the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire, one of the most important political entities in Western Christendom throughout the High Middle Ages, when it was more usually thought of as a continuation of the Roman Empire in the West, even though it was nothing of the kind.

    I did appreciate the joke, and I'm not being a pedant or anything. I just thought I'd share with you some of the history of the time. After the Volkerwanderungzeit, but before the second wave of barbarian invasions, this is a crucial period in the early formation of Europe.

    --
    How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
  35. Buy Intel by Kludge · · Score: 1

    I keep repeating this: Buy vendors that do offer open source drivers.

    Typical Reply: Boo hoo, Intel is too slow, boo hoo.

    My reply: Intel's graphic cards won't get faster if no one buys them. Other companies won't open source their drivers if you keep buying them with closed source drivers. Other companies will only open their drivers if they see it works for Intel.

    1. Re:Buy Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel's graphic cards won't get faster if no one buys them.

      If they're too slow to use yet we buy them, what's their motive for fixing them? If we say "this is the last one we'll buy until they work right", should they believe us? Aren't they supposed to have marketers that can make these decisions without us subsidizing their engineering team by paying for worthless hardware?

  36. Newegg lists them... by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 1
  37. Crossfire on a Card. by seeker_1us · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So we have come full circle to the Voodoo 5 then?

  38. Not at all by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many things you are wrong with there. The first is framerate. If you can't tell the difference between 24 and 60 FPS, well you probably have something wrong. It is pretty obvious on computer graphics due to the lack of motion blur present in film, and even on a film/video source you can see it. 24 FPS is not the maximum amount of frames a person can perceive, rather it is just an acceptable amount when used with film.

    So one goal in graphics is to be able to push a consistently high frame rate, probably somewhere in the 75fps range as that is the area when people stop being able to perceive flicker. However, while the final output frequency will be fixed to something like that due to how display devices work, it would be useful to have a card that could render much faster. What you'd do is have the card render multiple sub frames and combine them in an accumulation buffer before outputting them to screen. That would give nice, accurate, motion blur and thus improve the fluidity of the image. So in reality we might want a card that can consistently render a few hundred frames per second, even though it doesn't display that many.

    There's also latency to consider. If you are rendering at 24fps that means you have a little over 40 milliseconds between frames. So if you see something happen on the screen and react, the computer won't get around to displaying the results of your reaction for 40 msec. Maybe that doesn't sound like a long time, but that has gone past the threshold where delays are perceptible. You notice when something is delayed that long.

    In terms of resolution, it is a similar thing. 1920x1200 is nice and all, and is about as high as monitors go these days, but let's not pretend it is all that high rez. For a 24" monitor (which is what you generally get it on) that works out to about 100PPI. Well print media is generally 300DPI or more, so we are still a long way off there. I don't know how high rez monitors need to be numbers wise, but they need to be a lot higher to reach the point of a person not being able to perceive the individual pixels which is the useful limit.

    Also pixel oversampling is useful just like frame oversampling. You render multiple subpixels and combine them in to a single final display pixel. It is called anti-aliasing and it is very desirable. Unfortunately, it does take more power to do since you do have to do more rendering work, even when you use tricks to do it (and it really looks the best when does as straight super-sampling, no tricks).

    So it isn't just gamers playing the ePenis game, there's real reasons to want a whole lot more graphics power. Until we have displays that are so high rez you can't see individual pixels, and we have cards that can produce high frame rates at full resolution with motion blur and FSAA, well then we haven't gotten to where we need to be. Until you can't tell it apart form reality, there's still room for improvement.

  39. Power Supply requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their next vid card will prolly require you to buy a diesel-powered Lincoln Arc Welder just to feed enough current to supply the GPU chips.

  40. I'm still waiting for a working driver for my 2600 by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Six month old card, no working driver. ...and by that I mean a driver which doesn't say "Card not supported" when you try to install it.

    This month they released an unsupported "hotfix driver" which installs but puts garbage on screen when you try anything - even with obvious things like 3DMark.

    --
    No sig today...
  41. All the glorious color the author imagined.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when my level 58 Troll gets gang-ganked outside the gates of the Dark Portal by a pack of teamspeak-using 12 year olds, I'll be able to see him melt in the full techno-color the author envisioned. Sweet.

  42. Rename already by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

    They should just rename them selves to DAMMIT already. Props to the person who thought of it originally.

  43. Re:crossfire capable? by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 1

    That is only the case on lower-end CrossFire boards. The better ones not only have two full x16 slots but they are PCIe v2.0 and have 8 MB/sec full duplex. So a 3870 X2 on a new 790FX board allows each GPU the 4 MB/sec bandwidth that a single PCIe v.1 x16 slot provides.

    --
    Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
  44. Nice, but... by WaroDaBeast · · Score: 1

    That's still 256 bit memory; if (when?) nVidia releases a dual GPU with the 8800 series, ATI will get beaten for sure. And I'm not saying this because I own an nVidia videocard; the tests just made it obvious.

    --
    "The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient." -- Deus Ex: Human Revolution
  45. How about Connecting X of those by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if this is Crossfire on one Board doesn't that fact limit the maximum number of crossfire cards in one board even more?
    I mean you can have the same power with 2 crossfire cards containing the same gpu chip, but how about even multiplying the power of those.
    That might not be of any practical interest for most of you (at least not for me since I could never afford to buy those and don't have any idea of a practical use).
    But can you still connect the same number of cards as with the single gpu models?

  46. Too much of a bad thing... by billcopc · · Score: 1

    Two times crap is just a bigger pile of crap. The fact that this card only occasionally outpaces the 15-month-old 8800GTX is just pathetic. Sad and pathetic.

    Take the same money, buy a pair of cheap 8800GT's and you'll cream this ATI blunder.

    When it comes to graphics, I'm all about rooting for the winner. I've jumped from one company to the other many times over the last decade, but ATI has been all thumbs for the last little while. They finally cleaned up their drivers but that only highlighted the fact that the hardware still sucks. Just like AMD's Phenom, it's a big boring release over a year too late. There's nothing to be proud about when your flagship product falls in the "budget" category before it's even released.

    Wake me when the Geforce 9 hits, or the Radeon 5xxx (yeah, skip the 4xxx range) - until then it's going to be a dull ride.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  47. Finally by www.tech4um.com · · Score: 0

    Now I can play Crisis with Medium settings

  48. Seriously? 3D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Actually, rendering 3D graphics is about the most boring thing that this generation of cards does."

    Oh I wouldn't say that.

  49. Not Worth A Damn... by ThomasMc1337 · · Score: 1

    It's not worth a damn unless you can use it in a quad-gpu setup (2 of these in a crossfire configuration)