1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Bad news for ATI: Nvidia to 'own' ATI at CeBit - no pixel shader 3.0 support in R420 (long)

Discussion in 'ATI' started by NV55, Feb 22, 2004.

  1. NV55

    NV55 Guest

    Bad news for ATI: Nvidia to 'own' ATI at CeBit / no pixel shader 3.0
    support in R420

    It looks like R420, while potentially up to 3 times faster(in PS 2.0
    and VS 2.0 shaders) than R360, will not be PS 3.0 compliant. If NVIDIA
    notches up similar PS 2.0 performance, ATI is in trouble.

    Lastly there is word on the NV40 R420 front. Neither card was shown,
    but several people who would be familiar with both have said Nvidia is
    going to come back very strong soon. The word 'own' was bandied about,
    as in Nvidia will own ATI. Not sure what it means, but CeBit should be
    a very interesting show.

    Babelfish translation of the 'no PS2.0 shaders in R420' article:

    ATi R420, R423 & CO. Information
    22. February 2004/from Leonidas /page 1 of 2

    After we could give at the end of January an already rather complete
    overview of the coming nVidia Grafikchips, naturally the question was
    located in the area, which is to be expected 2004 now from ATi for the
    spring. At the time of the nVidia article the information was however
    still quite RSR sown to the coming ATi Grafikchips, which left itself
    whole roughly in three paragraphs to summarize.

    Remedy created here only an article on the part of AnandTech of last
    week, in which the plans were stated in detail by ATi already quite.
    We want in the following predominantly to rely on these information on
    the part of AnandTech, enweaving thereby however still somewhat own
    knowledge - and some substantial details have to in addition-carry for
    the classification of the individual diagram chips, which do not admit
    to date yet were and from which zumindestens one for more than
    plentifully Diskussionstoff will provide: -).

    First still briefly to the "class" of the following information: These
    are - if not differently characterized - secure information. Both that
    confirmed with AnandTech said and our additions us by one called from
    first hand informed source and/or.

    And thus to the coming main project of ATi, the R420 chip. That one
    has - one believes the rumors to this case - a plentifully eventful
    history behind itself. Originally the R400-Chip with Shader 3,0
    support the chips of the R3x0-Serie should beerben still in the autumn
    2003, but allegedly ATi was not really content in the last year with
    the all first performance Simulationen of the R400. One can speculate
    upon it that the Shader was possibly 3,0 performance correct, however
    the Shader 2,0 performance to expectations here did not correspond.
    Since however at present and in the near future with
    DirectX9-Benchmarks the employment of Shader 3,0 takes time still, one
    would have 3,0 with a beautiful technical toy for Shader, but without
    the necessary basic performance in the reality with Shader 2,0 stood

    So anyhow a possible explanation, why ATi of the R400-Chip in a still
    very early Design phase displeased so that one cancelte the project
    completely. The useful parts of the R400-Designs for the R420
    following the R500-Projekt are alleged were taken over - and for the
    meantime, there one not simply after the R350 (Radeon 9800/pro)
    nothing new to finally bring could, did not need one a solution which
    can be realized fast, which above all the error of the R400 -
    technically point, but with the performance less well - did not begin.
    One decided in the long run to begin beside the R360-Chip (Radeon
    9800XT ) as a further Refresh of the R300-Chips (Radeon 9700/pro ) for
    temporal bypass, the R420-Projekt.

    The R420, first also admits Loki "as project", should not thereby not
    the large technological project like the R400 become, but the proven
    technology of the preceding chips R300 (Radeon 9700/pro) , R350
    (Radeon 9800/pro) and R360 (Radeon 9800XT) in substantially improved
    way to resume, without beginning thereby however a generally new
    Design as with the R400. Speak: Primarily clearly more performance,
    less however new features.

    Became already early for this the substantial point admits, in which
    kind ATi wants to realize this: The use of the 130nm production
    technology. The preceding chips of the R3x0-Linie all together still
    in 150nm manufactured, in particular 412 MHz chip clock of the Radeon
    9800XT (nevertheless 107 million transistors heavily) appear with it
    as engineer-technical master achievement. By means of the smaller
    production technology ATi might know the R420 with ease more highly
    clocks, even if this more transistors bring along than the
    predecessors from the R3x0-Linie.

    The other substantial point resulted already indirectly from leading -
    however naturally only on rumors are based - history over the
    career/development of the R400 and R420-Chips. Because since the R420
    descends generally seen still from the R3x0-Design, it was actually
    improbable rather that the R420-Chip Shader 3,0 support could offer.
    To a R3x0-Chip the support for Vertex and pixel Shader 3,0 simply "to
    to-seal", is not really possible, but the Shader 3,0 to the Shadern
    2.0 is too different.

    Now, this was the theoretical consideration on basis of the rumor
    Story around R400 and R420. In the future this opinion, the R420 did
    not turn out could Shader 3,0 support have, however more and more into
    oblivion - all world including even S3, XGI and Intel talked on its
    Roadmaps finally about the Shader 3,0 support and each rumor kitchen
    arranged the R420 generally than "Shader 3,0 chip", so that it became
    ever more improbable that this like that is not. But far been missing
    - the original theoretical consideration was nevertheless correct,
    because: We can confirm free of doubts that the ATi R420-Chip will not
    offer Shader 3,0 support.

    Now the renouncement of this feature reaches alone still no
    performance increase - apart from it that one saves for transistors
    and so that only on 160 million with the R420 comes contrary to 175
    million with nVidia the NV40. behind this renouncement it stands
    nevertheless a clear intention: ATi says for this that the Shader 3,0
    will not have such meaning, as the IT world assumes possibly at
    present, to insert and that one concentrated therefore with the R420
    rather purposefully on the Shader 2,0 performance, instead of with the
    Shadern 3,0 a beautiful, but rather useless check list feature.

    One does not refer here also to injustice to the Shader 2.X nVidia of
    the DirectX9-Chips, which were used only extremely rarely by the play
    programmers. Besides the compatibility of the R420 and its successors
    endangered by the renouncement of Shader 3,0 is probably hardly,
    because already million Shader 2,0 diagram chips were sold in form of
    the present DirectX9-Beschleuniger, whose user can probably annoy no
    play programmer in the next years by the requirement of Shader 3,0
    capable diagram chips. Besides play programmers set gladly and often
    on the smallest common denominator - and this reads now once with
    DirectX9-Chips Shader 2.0.

    Generally seen one must here thus quite give right to ATi: Presently
    and also during lifetimes of the R420-Chips simple Shader 3,0 support
    in plays could be counted probably still at a hand. Plays, which
    Shader presupposes 3,0 directly, besides into the market will probably
    only come if the R420 were degradiert long to the LowCost product.
    Because straight come at present once the first plays with obligation
    to DirectX8-Hardware into the market, plays with obligation to
    DirectX9-Hardware (on Shader 2,0 basis) are not even announced our
    knowledge to.

    With difficulty it only to arrange this for the users and customers
    had finally zeroed in itself more or less all on the Shader 3,0
    support as the feature of the coming NEXT gene generation of ATi and
    nVidia. Also the Shader makes itself 3,0 support surely outstanding as
    check list feature in the OEM market, of the manufacturing firms then
    gladly also falsely as "DirectX 9,1 support" described (which nonsense
    is natural, as here already implemented) . Positive way is not
    sufficient however the support of Shader 2,0 also, in order to come
    with the Windows XP successor "Longhorn" into the highest possible
    hardware class ("animal 2 ") to the representation of the new
    3D-Oberflaeche von Longhorn, for this Shader 3,0 support is needed.

    Surely the message, which equips ATi the R420 only with Shader 2,0
    support, will provide for a violent discussion. ATi made the strategic
    decision here to omit the Shader 3,0 support with the R420 in order to
    concentrate on the performance under Shader 2,0 applications - these
    are those applications, with which the R420 will be confronted during
    its lifetimes. From the thing this consideration is correct, but ATi
    offers thereby naturally also some attack region for nVidia, which
    will evenly offer the Shader 3,0 support with the NV4x-Linie - and
    this technological superiority surely also marketing-technically to
    use will try.

    Off the surely flashing discussion over sense and nonsense of Shader
    ATi with the renouncement of these in addition, a clear guideline for
    the R420 gave 3,0: This chip is to accumulate under Shader 2,0 to the
    absolute maximum form. The chip will have further 8 Rendering
    pipelines like its predecessors, but these are to have been
    substantially improved. Which hides itself exactly behind it, one did
    not want to say us however yet. Several texture units per pipeline
    could be (the R3x0-Chips had everything only one texture unit per
    pipeline) , it could also internal improvements be, which will then
    probably understand rather only the chip experts by us. Zumindestens
    is to have energetically worked on the Rendering pipelines, in order
    to carry the Shader 2,0 performance on a new level.

    Furthermore the number of Vertex Shader of 4 to 6 was increased, which
    could give an increase of the Vertex achievement to the R420 as well
    as the clock increase and the internal improvements over up to 100 per
    cent . In all other respects this increase of the number of Vertex
    Shader (the number is not directly comparable in all other respects
    with the nVidia chips, which a Vertex Shader array uses) is not enough
    out, in order to explain the 50 million more transistors according to
    our calculations - here might be in the R420 thus still place for or
    other surprise, is it mentioned more texture units or however improved
    anti- Aliasing and/or anisotropic filtering the already.

    Unfortunately at present still no information is present, which
    intends to really change and/or improve ATi with the R420 concerning
    anti- Aliasing and anisotropic filter. Off the performance, which
    enough is naturally never: -), is the quality of the anti- Aliasings
    of the current ATi chips surely already quite optimally , while one
    bilinearen however with the quality, trilinear and anisotropic filter
    to surely still add can. From it thus momentarily the following can
    refrained be said in summary about the R420-Chip:

    ATi R420
    generell basierend auf den R3x0-Chips, allerdings mit vielen
    Verbesserungen an der Shader-Architektur
    160 Millionen Transistoren, in 130nm bei TSMC gefertigt
    8 Rendering-Pipelines, Anzahl der Textureneinheiten unbekannt
    6 Vertex Shader Einheiten
    DirectX 9.0 Architektur, unterstützt Shader 2.0
    256 Bit Speicherinterface, unterstützt DDR1, GDDR2 und GDDR3
    internes AGPx8 Interface
    genaue Taktraten: unbekannt; laut AnandTech runde 500 MHz Chip- und
    Präsentation: vermutlich noch erstes Quartal 2004
    Markteintritt: zweites Quartal 2004
    Die aus dem Artikel von AnandTech stammenden Chip- und Speichertakte
    hören sich erst einmal relativ niedrig an, insbesondere wenn man den
    NV40 derzeit auf 500 bis 600 MHz Chiptakt und 600 bis 800 MHz
    Speichertakt taxiert. Allerdings wären das gegenüber dem R360-Chip
    (Radeon 9800XT) immerhin auch schon 21 Prozent mehr Chip- und ganze 37
    Prozent mehr Speichertakt, während nVidia bei angenommenen 550/600 MHz
    gegenüber dem NV38 (GeForceFX 5950 Ultra) takttechnisch "nur" um 16
    bzw. 26 Prozent zulegt.

    Zudem kann man davon ausgehen, daß beim Speichertakt definitiv noch
    Spielraum nach oben ist, immerhin hat Samsung kürzlich die
    Massenproduktion von GDDR3 mit bis zu 800 MHz Taktfrequenz begonnen.
    Auch beim Chiptakt sollte aufgrund der 130nm Fertigung eigentlich noch
    etwas mehr möglich sein - in diesem Punkt erscheinen uns die genannten
    Taktraten doch etwas konservativ angegeben. Wir können uns für unseren
    Teil also durchaus vorstellen, daß ATi eine mögliche Pro-Version des
    R420 auch höher taktet als jene 500/500 MHz, welche AnandTech genannt

    ATi R420, R423 & CO. Information
    22. February 2004/from Leonidas /page 2 of 2

    As evident from previous enumerating list, the R420 - like also the
    NV40 - start still with an internal AGPx8 interface. In the coming age
    of PCI express needs ATi naturally also a PCI express diagram chip
    within the HighEnd range, which the R423 will place. That chip becomes
    however, then one insured us, a native PCI express x16 interface to
    have. This is in as much unusual as that is to appear the R423 in
    principle in the same period as the R420 - in the second quarter. Two
    160-Millionen-Transistoren-Chips however more or less in the same
    period on the mass production to prepare, might be however not only
    extremely expensive, but also to the personnel capacities of ATi push.

    To that extent we can explain ourselves this at present only in this
    kind, when the R420 and R423 are in principle the same chip. Either
    the R420 is a R423 with settled AGP Bridge, which converts thus the
    PCI express x16 of signals of the diagram chip into AGPx8 signal for
    the AGP haven on the Main board, or however - hears themselves
    improbably on, is however not not impossible - both internal AGPx8 and
    internal PCI express x16 interface, which is then activated depending
    upon need by BIOS, have R420 and R423. As this point dissolves in the
    long run, remains being waiting however.

    Abseites its is considered against the fact as safe that the R423
    represents really only a pure PCI express modification of the R420:
    There are no technical changes and also not more clock. Only the R480
    chip will represent a genuine Refresh to the R420/R423, which will
    throw however - after the experiences with the last Refresh chips of
    ATi - probably only more clock into the scale pan, possibly already in
    the 110nm production technology. The R480 is to begin sometime in the
    second half-year 2004, in the third quarter is probably thus
    introduced and in the fourth quarter delivered.

    And thus we come off the HighEnd chips to the candidates for the
    Mainstream and LowCost range. AnandTech have to offer here already
    beautiful technical information, we can besides again the appropriate
    classification of the chips offer. In the second quarter it will give
    only once the RV380 to chip, which one can charaktersisieren briefly
    in such a way:

    ATi RV380
    direct descent of RV350/RV360, invariably internally in principle
    75 million transistors, in 130nm with TSMC manufactured
    4 Rendering pipelines with ever a texture unit
    2 Vertex Shader units
    DirectX 9,0 architecture, supports Shader 2.0
    , DDR1, GDDR2 and GDDR3 supports 128 bits memory interface
    internal PCI express interface
    exact clock rates: unknown; according to AnandTech round 500 MHz chip
    and 400 MHz storing act
    Presentation: probably still first quarter 2004
    Market entrance: second quarter 2004
    It is not correct that AnandTech indicate the same improvements on
    architecture here for the RV380 as for the R420 have. The RV380 is our
    knowledge after only a further Refresh of the original RV350-Chips
    (Radeon 9600/pro/cSe) , which already found a first Refresh in the
    RV360-Chip (Radeon 9600XT). With the RV380 apparent at the chip clock
    one does not turn, which however with 500 MHz enough is already
    sufficiently high, but alone the storing act raised, which in view of
    the unfavorable relationship between chip and storing act with the
    direct predecessor Radeon 9600XT (500/300 MHz) might be also the best
    way to give to this chip more performance.

    Internally the RV380-Chip thereby might be perfectly unchanged to the
    RV350 and/or RV360, however the native PCI express interface would be
    new. ATi goes here not the way of nVidia with the PCI express Bridge
    chip, but presents the chip specially for PCI express again. The
    reason for this lies in the universe in Wonder maps and their TV
    abilities: For the use and treatment of in America momentarily heavily
    in coming HDTV present the backward channel is needed by PCI express
    x16, which nevertheless 4 GB/sec carry out can - and this
    independently of the Hinkanal, which likewise 4 GB/ses width exhibits.
    Because ATi for its universe in Wonder maps wants to use this
    potential, one needs native PCI express interface and therefore to
    Bridge chips, how she begins nVidia, a general refusal gave.

    It will really give one of the R420 to descending Mainstream chip only
    with the RV410 in the second half-year 2004 (the indication of
    AnandTech "Q2'04" is surely a write error) . This then also the
    improvements on the architecture of the R420 into the Mainstream
    market to carry, wommoeglich opposite the RV380 again more clock bring
    along and completely possibly already in 110nm manufactured its -
    which applies to however naturally wait for it.

    For the LowCost market ATi for the second quarter positioned the RV370
    chip, which will be according to AnandTech the first diagram chip in
    110nm production technology and can be characterized as follows:

    ATi RV370
    complete (?) new development for the LowCost market
    unknown number of transistors, in 110nm with TSMC manufactured
    4 Rendering pipelines, number of texture units unknown (probably per
    2 Vertex Shader units
    DirectX 9,0 architecture, supports Shader 2.0
    64/128 bit memory interface, supports DDR1, GDDR2 and GDDR3
    internal PCI express interface
    exact clock rates: unknown; according to AnandTech round 300 MHz
    storing act
    Presentation: probably still first quarter 2004
    Market entrance: second quarter 2004
    The objective of ATi with the RV370-Chip is clear thereby: Finally a
    competitive chip for the DirectX9 OEM market. So far nVidia in this
    rough sells quantities of GeForceFX 5200 chips, partly also with only
    64 bits memory interface, at prices, with which ATi only with the own
    DirectX8-Grafikchips Paroli offer can. Problematic way is however
    calculated this OEM market a market, where it depends much on check
    list features like "DirectX9 support", with which ATi cannot score in
    the long run with a Radeon 9200 despite possibly better performance
    opposite a GeForceFX 5200.

    Differently around the RV350-Chip is even in its lowest form, the
    Radeon 9600SE diagram map not to get so cheaply than the fact that ATi
    the prices, which nVidia for the GeForceFX 5200 makes, could reach.
    The reason lies here by the majority in the transistor quantity and/or
    the origin of the chips: The RV350 was now once for the Mainstream
    segment intended the NV34-Chip (GeForceFX 5200/Ultra & GeForceFX 5500)
    and weighs nevertheless 75 million transistors, during nVidia
    specially only for the LowCost segment developed and by various
    reductions the number of transistors on 45 million to lower could.

    ATi will hit here in our view same way with the RV370. Surely one
    could manufacture also simply a RV350 in 110nm, but one will achieve
    most piercing success with a clear lowering of the number of
    transistors. Momentarily this point is only, safe of speculation is
    however the 110nm manufacturing and the adjustment as GeForceFX
    5200/5500 competitor to down into the absolute LowCost market. For
    genuine players such diagram maps should be naturally no view worth,
    but for ATi as nVidia they also represent the lion's share of the
    business - and also this field, where in the long run on basis of the
    high numbers of items set off there profits are erwirtschaftbar.

    Thus still another one point remains: As already mentions, ATi gave
    all solutions with Bridge chips a general refusal, since one for the
    own universe in Wonder maps native PCI express interface necessarily
    and there temporary solutions with Bridge chips do not lead to the
    desired result. This refusal refers however also to the past AGPx8
    maps of ATi, speaks Radeon 9800/Pro/XT, Radeon 9600/Pro/XT/SE and
    Radeon 9200/pro/cSe. This does not want to offer ATi in accordance
    with current planning on PCI to express - in contrast to it nVidia
    well-known-measured its complete present line places at diagram maps
    still on PCI express over, before the new chips come.

    With ATi this may be connected surely also with the fact that one
    wants to bring new diagram chips in the second quarter in all partial
    markets into the market, while with nVidia the new Mainstream is to be
    expected as also LowCost solutions rather only in the third quarter.
    Nothing the despite surprises this step of ATi something, because the
    need at the predecessor hardware does not even shrink according to
    experience over night with the introduction on the market of new
    diagram maps. Speak: It will quite give users, which for a new PCI
    express Main board possibly a Radeon 9800 express wish themselves pro
    on PCI (which could be realized by means of a Bridge chip
    problem-free) . It remains hoping that the diagram board manufacturers
    will fill to substitute accordingly here and these by ATi somewhat
    left open market gap.

    There itself in the article with nVidia the NV40, NV41, NV45 & CO.
    Information still another (naturally prospective) nVidia Roadmap
    finds, wants we also this article with such to the coming ATi
    Grafikchips to lock. It would pay attention that the individual chips
    are arranged after their market entrance like already with the nVidia
    Roadmap after their supposed presentation time and not:

    After the R4x0/RV4x0-Linie it will continue with ATi with the R500
    chip in the year 2005. This will support DirectX10, which covers among
    other things the support of the Shader 4,0, ATi jumps over the Shader
    3,0 thus completely. More details on this chip, which already is in
    development, is not well-known, just as little relative to the further
    plans of ATi however yet from R500-Abkoemmlingen for the Mainstream
    such as LowCost market.
    NV55, Feb 22, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. NV55

    Dark Avenger Guest

    * allot of snip snip *

    Hehehe, nvidia would just WISH!

    WE shall se.. we shall see!
    Dark Avenger, Feb 22, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. NV55

    K Guest

    Well as an ATI owner, if Nvidia can produce cards that are the best value
    for money with great performance I would switch back to them like a shot.
    ATI's drivers have come a long way but they still have a number of
    annoyances, especially in games that are not so well known.

    Also Nvidia is still the king of OpenGL and Linux. ATI's Linux drivers
    *really* suck.

    K, Feb 22, 2004
  4. NV55

    NightSky 421 Guest

    If what you are saying turns out to be true, I'm still not particularly
    concerned. I know that my current 9800 Pro card will carry me over nicely
    until the second half of 2005. At that time, I'll see what video card
    technology in general is like and how the driver and public relations
    departments of both companies are behaving and base my upgrade decision on
    those factors.
    NightSky 421, Feb 22, 2004
  5. Allow me to suggest something. One of the main reasons cited for NV30's
    lackluster performance was because of NVIDIA's prior focus on the X-box. .
    ..the engineering resources required for that sapped them for their next
    generation PC part. ATI's movement of R400 from late last year to the X-Box
    2/R500 could have been to pre-empt the fact that they are going to have to
    divert resources to meet the X-Box deadlines, so rather than take the hit
    later they are doing it now. In other words, release the next part (R420)
    with a lower specification that's build primarily upon their existing
    architecture and therefore requires less engineering time and resources to
    finish, and where the key inflection point isn't going to be architectural
    abilities (i.e. Shader 3.0 is an interim spec) but a relatively small change
    to PCI-Express, while ensuring that the technology isn't lacking after the
    X-Box is released. In short, the hit that NVIDIA took post-X-Box, ATI are
    trying to minimize by taking it pre-X-box2.

    Just a thought. And I don't know NV40 or R420 specs.

    John Reynolds, Feb 22, 2004
  6. Agreed, but what I'm hoping for more than raw speed is that they've
    finally used those 3dfx engineers to generate FSAA to match or beat the
    V5. I moved to ATI for a combination of speed *with* superior FSAA (which
    makes a huge difference to flight and driving sims IMO). But I have no
    loyalty to any hardware supplier... all I want is good kit at a fair

    Andrew McP
    Andrew MacPherson, Feb 23, 2004
  7. NV55

    DD Guest

    FSAA is just a cheap way to try and make a low-res image look better.
    1600x1200 res with 2x FSAA is better image quality than 1024x768 or
    1280x1024 with any amount of anti-aliasing. If you are going to spend a lot
    of money on a video card, get a monitor to match it and turn FSAA off or as
    low as possible.

    DD, Feb 23, 2004
  8. How many monitors display 1600x1200 well? I mean *really* well. Artificial
    blurring is not the same as deliberate FSAA, though it does a fair
    impersonation. And how many cards drive 1600x1200 as fast as 1280x1024?
    Even minimal fsaa at 1600x1200 involves an awful lot more processing than
    at 1280x1024, and I'd much rather display good FSAA at lower resolutions
    than bad FSAA at higher.

    As ever, everyone's opinion is different on this. The debate's been going
    on for a looong time and will still be going long after you and I are
    worm-fodder... just like the one about frame rates :)

    Andrew McP
    Andrew MacPherson, Feb 23, 2004
  9. NV55

    Minotaur Guest

    LOL, But nothing shall use it! PS3. As everyone shall be working on DX10
    and PS4 as you have mentioned. Also, ATI shall own nVidia, because they
    are supplying the GFX for the XBox2 and developers shall be focusing on
    what it can do, not what nVidia could have done. Why is the XBox2
    important? Because most games shall be ported between the XBox2 and PC
    as it is happening now with the XBox.

    Just like how Halo was a crap port to the PC, for ATI owners because it
    was tweaked for nVidia.
    In the future games ported from the XBox2 to the PC, shall be optimised
    for ATI.
    Minotaur, Feb 23, 2004
  10. NV55

    DD Guest

    Hmm...I would guess by that time, we will just be plugging our wristwatch
    supercomputers directly into our brains, or something of the sort, and the
    issue will be something even SF writers might have trouble speculating about

    DD, Feb 23, 2004
  11. NV55

    DD Guest

    LMAO your posts get funnier and funner with each one I read.

    Ports notwithstanding, console gaming and PC gaming are two completely
    different experiences, and consoles will never beat PCs for screen
    resolution. As for X-Box, Microsoft's little overpriced half-computer,
    half-console, it was and still is the biggest joke in electronic
    entertainment since the Intellivision. It only has decent market share in
    the USA, the global market spits on it, and will be happy to see Microsoft
    give up on it when the new machine fails to corner the console market once
    Ported games suck, plain and simple, consoles games and PC games just don't
    make the transition well, optimised or not.

    DD, Feb 23, 2004
  12. NV55

    JTS Guest

    Good news for consumers!!

    If Nvidia makes a better care, hopefully it will force ATI to top Nvidia.
    Nothing like good old fashioned competition that will ultimately benefit the

    JTS, Feb 23, 2004
  13. NV55

    Darthy Guest

    Nobody OWNS anyone until the fat lady sings.

    These are all rumors until the cards come out.

    Remember... ATI's hyped 9700 was NOT going to be a killer card, it
    would not compete with the GF4 Ti series.... The Nvidia fans yelled
    "another failure!"

    Of course... ATI did produce a good product... But that's okay,
    because the GF5 card will WHOMP its ass in a month or so... but it was
    late... very late.... and worse- it was slower, louder and could scare
    bugs and birds away from your home.

    Nvidia brings DX9 to the masses - but in reality, most of their DX9
    products are USELESS for actual DX9 functions.... and even funnier -
    they continue to introduce NEW products that are SLOWER their own
    stuff. mx4000 fx5500... etc.

    I'm sure both NV40 & R400s will be good products.... speculation at
    this point is stupid.
    Darthy, Feb 23, 2004
  14. NV55

    chrisv Guest

    Big freaking deal. There won't be diddly-squat for games, for which
    Pixel Shader 3.0 will be an important factor, for YEARS.
    chrisv, Feb 23, 2004
  15. When I was ten and reading all the science fiction I could get my hands
    on, The Future seemed like an amazing place. Now I'm 40, halfway to the
    grave (statistically speaking), and that big bright Future still seems as
    far off as ever.

    Besides, even if they had brain-interfacing computers now, can you imagine
    how long it'd take them to get licensed? :) The only thing we'll see
    interfaced with the brain this side of next century (or three) is a cotton
    bud pushed a little too hard.

    Andrew McP... over the hill and coasting towards senility.
    Andrew MacPherson, Feb 23, 2004
  16. NV55

    Dark Avenger Guest

    Well Vice City was pretty playable, much better as GTA3 was, GTA3 was
    very pure ported, Vice City though came out MUCHOS later then the PS2
    game so tweaking probably worked out fine, yes the game would look
    nicer if they began from a pc approach to start with... but what the
    hell Vice City is one of the better ported games.
    Dark Avenger, Feb 23, 2004
  17. NV55

    Ben Pope Guest

    Well they've demonstrated artificial (using some form of ICs) eyes and ears
    (with very limited resolution so far) interfaced directly to the brain, at
    least in people with fully developed functions in the brain, i.e., they were
    born with the ability, but lost it in an accident. It's getting pretty
    close to do-able, if cost and learning curve are not important. :p

    Ben Pope, Feb 24, 2004
  18. I know, and it's nice to know they're having some luck despite the fact we
    still know approximately 9/10ths of bugger-all about the brain :)

    The best bet for brain interfacing is probably to experiment with devices
    wired into growing brains. That way the brain can *perhaps* assimilate the
    new inputs in a way which can later be trained into some kind of use.
    Which I guess means laboratory mice will be the only ones ever to
    interface directly with a computer. Exactly what they'll do with it is
    anyone's guess :)

    Andrew McP
    Andrew MacPherson, Feb 24, 2004
  19. NV55

    Andrew Guest

    GTA3 with the patch works great for me, much better than the PS2
    version, so is obviously not "pure ported".
    Andrew, Feb 24, 2004
  20. NV55

    Darthy Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:47 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
    My 19" monitor has a max res of 2048x1460 (roughly) but thats at a
    useless 70hz.

    Sometimes I pump it up beyond 1600x1200... but its a bit small
    Darthy, Feb 26, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.