Low fixed resolutions (often 1024x1024 at midrange)
Huge pixel gaps which are horrible from a short distance (especially lower end models)
Poor blue reproduction (especially lower end models)
Often more heat and power than a CRT
Not final clocks (Re:Anand's benchmarks)
on
ATI R300 and R250V
·
· Score: 1
It should be noted that the sample they sent out is not necessarily what the final clocks will be.
The obviously didn't pick the slowest sample they got back from the fab.
If the production boards ship at 325 MHz then these numbers mean something. I am betting on 300-315 MHz but I could be wrong.
Radeon 9000 naming debacle (ala GeForce4 MX)
on
ATI R300 and R250V
·
· Score: 1
Boy, I sure hope people give ATI a ton of shit for breaking their own naming convention like they did NVIDIA for calling NV17 GeForce4 MX.
ATI gave tons of presentations about how clear their naming scheme was and that the first digit represents the DirectX version. Now they have screwed that up by calling R250 Radeon 9000 when it is a DirectX 8 part and not a Direct X 9 part like the Radeon 9700.
The difference between 0 and 7 is no better or worse than the difference between MX and Ti.
>The Ti has a programmable, 4 texels per clock pipeline derived from the GeForce3. >The MX has a fixed, two texels per clock pipeline derived from the GeForce2.
That should read that the Ti's have 4 pixel pipelines that are two texels per clock and The MX's have two pixel pipelines that are two texels per clock.
Sorry about that. Everything else is spot-on brilliance.:-)
WOW! Someone that really gets what is amazingly cool about nForce. The only Dolby Digital 5.1 _encoding_ solution in this market (other than Xbox). Not via, not intel, not creative soundblaster, not Playstation2, and not gamecube.
What happens when you play a game with your Audigy 5.1 hooked up to your dolby digital receiver via coaxial/optical digital hookup???
Two channel stereo! Ha!
They talk 5.1 all over the box and conveniently leave out that it is for _decode_ of pre-encoded material only (i.e. DVDs).
Re:remember: it's not a geforce4!
on
nForce2 Preview
·
· Score: 1
...and here you go:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020716/sftu013_1.htm l
Re:remember: it's not a geforce4!
on
nForce2 Preview
·
· Score: 1
And guess what? You can put "a GF3 or 8500" in an nForce2-ST (SPP + MCP2) system (does not have integrated graphics) and have an awesome Doom3 system.
Better yet, you can upgrade that to a GeForce6 AGP 8x card with 256 MB of RAM on it (which should be coming out just as Doom3 ships) for an even more kick ass system.
Or you can go with an nForce2-GT with integrated (DirectX7 level) GeForce4 MX graphics and play 98% of today's games as good as any other setup and use the money you save for the GeForce6 Ti card.
Advice to all the GeForce4 MX naming whiners:
Let it go man.
It has the exact same backend (memory subsystem, zculling, FSAA, display subsystem) of a GeForce4 Ti and the fixed pipeline of a GeForce2 Pro.
WTF would you have called it?
I personally don't know but GF4 MX seems to make it clear to me.
Yes and no.
In nForce, the integrated graphics is on a different AGP bus (it was 8x in nForce1) but when you plug an AGP graphics card into the slot on the AGP bus the integrated graphics is disabled.
Also to be clear, the integrated graphics in nforce2 will drive two displays all by itself. VGA + VGA or VGA + TV.
A good number of NVIDIA's GeForce4 cards (MX and Ti) will drive two displays as well and have TV out so if you upgrade the graphics, you will still have that feature (nView).
Re:What the hell was nVidia thinking?
on
nForce2 Preview
·
· Score: 1
So, you want NVIDIA to put the graphics from a ~$200 graphics card inside a chipset for motherboards that compete against other products that cost in the $100-$159 range. Correct?
Why shouldn't you be blown away and impressed that what you will get with nforce2 is a complete system architecture, multi-media platform, and GeForce4 MX 420 graphics that cost almost the same as a GeForce4 MX 420 graphics card does by itself?
The answer to your question is simple, they don't put $200 graphics and (more importantly) the chip space required to implement those graphics in a motherboard chipset solution that has to come in at sub $150 for final customer products.
Sounds cool. I think I have seen it at BestBuy
and the screen is freakin' hudge.
Too bad it doesn't have decent, stable, and
better supported graphics in it.
Milalwi is right...
Cg gets compiled into GPU assembly code along with the necessary C-language OpenGL (NVIDIA's compiler) and Direct3D (Microsoft's generic compiler) to download the shaders to the GPU.
It is so easy to download and read about what Cg will really do (and not do). I will never understand why people don't do that first before running at the mouth.
Slashdot Mirror
Serious burn-in problems
Low fixed resolutions (often 1024x1024 at midrange)
Huge pixel gaps which are horrible from a short distance (especially lower end models)
Poor blue reproduction (especially lower end models)
Often more heat and power than a CRT
It should be noted that the sample they sent out is not necessarily what the final clocks will be. The obviously didn't pick the slowest sample they got back from the fab. If the production boards ship at 325 MHz then these numbers mean something. I am betting on 300-315 MHz but I could be wrong.
Boy, I sure hope people give ATI a ton of shit for breaking their own naming convention like they
did NVIDIA for calling NV17 GeForce4 MX.
ATI gave tons of presentations about how clear their naming scheme was and that the first digit
represents the DirectX version. Now they have screwed that up by calling R250 Radeon 9000 when
it is a DirectX 8 part and not a Direct X 9 part like the Radeon 9700.
The difference between 0 and 7 is no better or worse than the difference between MX and Ti.
Oh my Lord, I had severe brain fade.
>The Ti has a programmable, 4 texels per clock pipeline derived from the GeForce3.
>The MX has a fixed, two texels per clock pipeline derived from the GeForce2.
That should read that the Ti's have 4 pixel pipelines that are two texels per clock and
The MX's have two pixel pipelines that are two texels per clock.
Sorry about that. Everything else is spot-on brilliance.
This is absolutely wrong.
The GeForce4 MX and the GeForce4 TI have the exact same backend of the pipeline.
The same memory subsystem, the same display subsystem, the same z-culling and zbuffer data
compression, the same FSAA improvements and performance.
The Ti has a programmable, 4 texels per clock pipeline derived from the GeForce3.
The MX has a fixed, two texels per clock pipeline derived from the GeForce2.
What would you have called it?
They chose GeForce4 MX because their focus was on nview, FSAA, and performance which both the Ti
and MX have.
I think Ti and MX make it clear but I guess you feel that people which are less smart than you
can't figure that out and you need to protect them.
That is fine but at least know what you are talking about first.
Cool?
WOW! Someone that really gets what is amazingly cool about nForce. The only Dolby Digital 5.1
_encoding_ solution in this market (other than Xbox). Not via, not intel, not creative
soundblaster, not Playstation2, and not gamecube.
What happens when you play a game with your Audigy 5.1 hooked up to your dolby digital
receiver via coaxial/optical digital hookup???
Two channel stereo! Ha!
They talk 5.1 all over the box and conveniently leave out that it is for _decode_ of pre-encoded
material only (i.e. DVDs).
...and here you go:
m l
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020716/sftu013_1.ht
And guess what? You can put "a GF3 or 8500" in an
nForce2-ST (SPP + MCP2) system (does not have
integrated graphics) and have an awesome Doom3
system.
Better yet, you can upgrade that to a GeForce6
AGP 8x card with 256 MB of RAM on it (which
should be coming out just as Doom3 ships) for an
even more kick ass system.
Or you can go with an nForce2-GT with integrated
(DirectX7 level) GeForce4 MX graphics and play
98% of today's games as good as any other setup
and use the money you save for the GeForce6 Ti
card.
Advice to all the GeForce4 MX naming whiners:
Let it go man.
It has the exact same backend (memory subsystem,
zculling, FSAA, display subsystem) of a GeForce4
Ti and the fixed pipeline of a GeForce2 Pro.
WTF would you have called it?
I personally don't know but GF4 MX seems to make it clear to me.
Yes and no. In nForce, the integrated graphics is on a different AGP bus (it was 8x in nForce1) but when you plug an AGP graphics card into the slot on the AGP bus the integrated graphics is disabled. Also to be clear, the integrated graphics in nforce2 will drive two displays all by itself. VGA + VGA or VGA + TV. A good number of NVIDIA's GeForce4 cards (MX and Ti) will drive two displays as well and have TV out so if you upgrade the graphics, you will still have that feature (nView).
So, you want NVIDIA to put the graphics from a ~$200 graphics card inside a chipset for motherboards that compete against other products that cost in the $100-$159 range. Correct? Why shouldn't you be blown away and impressed that what you will get with nforce2 is a complete system architecture, multi-media platform, and GeForce4 MX 420 graphics that cost almost the same as a GeForce4 MX 420 graphics card does by itself? The answer to your question is simple, they don't put $200 graphics and (more importantly) the chip space required to implement those graphics in a motherboard chipset solution that has to come in at sub $150 for final customer products.
Sounds cool. I think I have seen it at BestBuy and the screen is freakin' hudge. Too bad it doesn't have decent, stable, and better supported graphics in it.
Milalwi is right... Cg gets compiled into GPU assembly code along with the necessary C-language OpenGL (NVIDIA's compiler) and Direct3D (Microsoft's generic compiler) to download the shaders to the GPU. It is so easy to download and read about what Cg will really do (and not do). I will never understand why people don't do that first before running at the mouth.