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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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.