7246542
story
Comments: 220 +- Technology: Nvidia's DX11 GF100 Graphics Processor Detailed on Tuesday November 24, @03:05PM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Tuesday November 24, @03:05PM
from the will-do-physics-for-food dept.
from the will-do-physics-for-food dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgraphics3.gif); width:69px; height:62px;
graphics
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topictech2.gif); width:60px; height:80px;
technology
J. Dzhugashvili writes "While it's played up the general-purpose computing prowess of its next-gen GPU architecture, Nvidia has talked little about Fermi's graphics capabilities — to the extent that some accuse Nvidia of turning its back on PC gaming. Not so, says The Tech Report in a detailed architectural overview of the GF100, the first Fermi-based consumer graphics processor. Alongside a wealth of technical information, the article includes enlightening estimates and direct comparisons with AMD's Radeon HD 5870. The GF100 will be up to twice as fast as the GeForce GTX 285, the author reckons, but the gap with the Radeon HD 5870 should be 'a bit more slender.' Still, Nvidia may have the fastest consumer GPU ever on its hands — and far from forsaking games, Fermi has been built as a graphics processor first and foremost."
Related Stories
Because I don't need to worry about finances I can ignore Microsoft
and take over the (computing) world from the grassroots.
-- Linus Torvalds
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
When's it coming out? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no point bragging about being faster than last month's graphics card if your own is still a quarter of a year from being an actual product.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm more worried about the state of PC gaming. We're taking a long slide recently and I'm starting to worry if this high end hardware is worth it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's how it really works : no one (on PC) buys single player games, they only buy multiplayer games because, I don't know if you've tried lately, but if you want to be a pirate there are very few games on which you'll be able to play multiplayer, if you're lucky you'll get access to a few cracked servers.
So PC gamers buy multiplayers, they HAVE to. MW2 shipped with a multiplayer system that fell VERY short of people's expectations for a multiplayer game, henceforth they treated it like a single player g
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However, dedicated servers ARE relevant. If there is no dedicated server, the functionality of your game can be reduced or disabled at a moment's notice. I can still play Quake or UT (1, i never bothered with the others because they didn't play as well imho) multi player because no matter wh
Re:When's it coming out? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's true that a few years ago you had to stay close to the cutting edge and now you don't; but I'm pretty sure it's not because graphics cards had outpaced games, but because game developers slowed their pace because they wanted good performance on consoles.
I'm sure game developers could easily overwhelm graphics cards if they wanted to, but that doesn't only block PCs without high-end cards, but also all the consoles. I have to say that as a PC-only gamer, I find the situation very positive. I like not having to upgrade constantly.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:When's it coming out? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there.
Look at the 4850. When it was brand new, it cost $199, and it could run ANY game on the market at full resolution and detail with a smooth, sustained framerate. Flash back to the year 2000. Try to find me a $200 card back then that could do the same. Hell, I challange you to do the same thing just 5 years ago, back in 2004.
Good luck.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there.
Look at the 4850. When it was brand new, it cost $199, and it could run ANY game on the market at full resolution and detail with a smooth, sustained framerate. Flash back to the year 2000. Try to find me a $200 card back then that could do the same. Hell, I challange you to do the same thing just 5 years ago, back in 2004.
Does this mean that we're hitting a software complexity wall?
It's now the devs turn to play catch up... I hope nobody cheats by adding idle loops (looks around menacingly).
Re:When's it coming out? (Score:5, Insightful)
As a poster previously in the thread stated, a big part of it are games that need to work on consoles and PC. As an example, considering the 360 has a video card roughly equivalent to a 6600GT, there is only so far they can push ports. Hell, even now, 3-4 years into the current gen, there are STILL framerate problems with a lot of games...games that can now run at an absurdly high FPS on a decent gaming PC.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
companies don't want games on console and PC. The reason is there is a lot less control on PC. So they want to shove console requirements onto a PC and you end up with horrible ports like Borderlands and MW2. Thus, nobody wants the PC version and they go "oh, nobody bought the PC version" even though the reason is they fucked their own community, so that they don't have to keep making games for PC.
It's a really shortsighted strategy, but it's basically an attempt at creating a walled garden all over again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think the problem is the 360, I think the problem is your fanboyism. Multi-platform games look more or less the same between the 360 and the PS3.
Trust me, I know. I have both systems.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Trust me, I hack both systems.
The 360 and PS3 are practically identical. Both use IBM Power-PC based main cores and a bunch of side processing units. the 360's total performance capability is HALF that of the PS3 (360 does 1TFLOP PS3 can do 2TFLOP) the PS3 also has a superior graphics hardware set. Comparing GTAIV on the 360 vs the PS3, the 360 looks like it's running in 16-bit color depth, shadows are absolutely horrible, and the draw distance isn't even on par with the PS3.
Sorry, speaking from an 'inside'
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The 10MB of "VRAM" you refer to on the xbox 360 is actually called eDRAM, and is more similar to the cache memory found in CPUs than video memory. It's often not even used, but reportedly can reduce the hit when anti-aliasing to nearly nothing. The main difference between the 360 and the ps3 in terms of memory is that the 360 GPU serves as a memory controller. Since this is the case developers can use up to about 480mb as either system memory or graphics memory - as they decide, instead of being limited
Re:When's it coming out? (Score:4, Insightful)
The 360 and PS3 are practically identical.
The PS3 and 360 PPC elements are identical, yes. But the rest aren't. The SPUs are vastly different to the PPEs ranging from the ISA, to the memory architecture, to the instruction latencies, to the register file size/width, to the local memory latencies, to the...oh boy, they're vastly different on so many levels. I also don't know how those TFLOP numbers came about, because they're totally wrong.
Comparing GTAIV on the 360 vs the PS3, the 360 looks like it's running in 16-bit color depth, shadows are absolutely horrible, and the draw distance isn't even on par with the PS3.
Using GTA to compare the graphics hardware and concluding that PS3 is better? I just hope you don't mention that to the devs, because they'll laugh their ass off about how wrong that comment is.
the PS3 has 256MB of GDDR3 for their GPU, and the 256MB of XDR DESTROYS the 512MB of GDDR3 that the 360 uses for system memory (For one GDDR3 isn't meant to be used as main system memory, XDR is.)
On the XDR front, I don't know how it destroys the GDDR3. Both are pieces of memory and they're just there to support reads and writes. As long as they have the bandwidth, size, and low latency, that's all that really matters to devs (obviously, devs shouldn't have to worry about signal integrity and what not here).
PS3 stomps the 360. The 360 is by far inferior, it's locked down, and it burns itself out more often than not.
And the slim isn't locked down? But true, the original PS3 doesn't burn itself out more than the original 360.
Parent
Re:When's it coming out? (Score:5, Informative)
When the differences are minute to the point where you have to pause a Gametrailers video and lean in close to your monitor, they may as well be the same...you aren't going to see that during actual gameplay, ESPECIALLY not in a frantic shooter like MW2.
That being said, there is one consistant difference between the 360 and the PS3 in terms of image quality: the 360 tends to be a little washed out, and the PS3 tends to be a little dark. Thank goodness for auto-switching color profiles based on the input selected.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why Metal Gear Solid 4 still looks better than games that are coming out now that are both PS3 and XBox 360.....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pull the other one. It has got bells on it.
Define "full resolution".
If I have a very old 1280x1024 monitor, sure.
If I have a new 1920x1200 monitor, not so much.
If I have a dual 2560x1600 monitor setup, not in this life time.
Also, define "full detail". Is that at medium? High? Maximum? What level of anisotropic filtering? Anti aliasing?
But let's have a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They have admitted those 2 games were programmed by monkeys.
If you compare a 4850 from then to a 4850 today with the game fully patched and monkey shit removed you'd see an increase in frame rates. Or compared it to the squeal which had even more monkey shit removed there would be a further increase in frame rates.
Besides the fact that 2 games, that received crap reviews except from the "Oh so pretty" crowd do not represent the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I don't even mean it from a technical standpoint. I just feel like the influx of console tailored games, designed to run on local hosts for multiplayer, and designed to prevent modification are really screwing with things. Of course, I have to say that my view is strong in that I'm mainly looking at blockbuster games and not some of the real gems that are PC centric.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the model? It sounds interesting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
since WoW controls 50% of all pc game revenues, the market as it was a few years ago is over. it's not even fun building a PC anymore since everything is integrated on the motherboard except for a decent graphics card.
i'm personally tired of chasing the latest graphics card every year to play a game. i'll probably buy a PS3 soon and a Mac next year just because it's lack of wires makes the wife happy
Re: (Score:2)
it's not even fun building a PC anymore since everything is integrated on the motherboard except for a decent graphics card.
And the RAM. And sound card if you want to get it off the mobo. And the hdd/optical drive(s)...
Building a PC can be really fun, still. Getting a decent graphics card for cheap is still possible, too, and you don't have to chase the latest graphics card. You don't have to play games on the Ultra High setting, either...
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is not that building a PC *can* be fun, but rather, it's usually not anymore. ie, the time+cost to reward ratio is off!
Building a computer even 10 years ago was a lot different than it is today. Even minute amounts of overclocking could make a huge difference, small differences in ram timings were noticeable. Getting a Cyrix, an Intel or AMD cpu gave very different performance profiles. Individual steppings were sought out by overclockers. Certain soundcards could greatly lighten CPU load,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure there is, because then some people will wait for this new card rather then buying AMD's card, thus providing Nvidia with revenue and profit.
Re:When's it coming out? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
How long before we saturate the PCI-E bus and need something faster?
In a way, it has already been replaced. PCIE V2 is the current standard. It's backwards and forwards compatible, and has twice the bandwidth of V1. V3 will double that bandwidth again.
It'll be quite a long time before it becomes obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
``By that logic wouldn't those same people then wait for AMD's next offering which will be yet faster?''
Well, some people actually do that. I'm waiting for the budget card that comes out with a fully functional open-source driver available. Until then, my fanless GeForce 6600 is chugging along just fine. I don't even remember what I had before that, but it was something fanless with the open-source r300 driver ... a Radeon 9200 or similar.
But then, I don't buy games unless they run on Linux, either. Which u
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You haven't spent much time with Marketing people, have you?
Feh. (Score:5, Informative)
The days of needing the biggest, fastest, most expensive card are pretty much over. You can run just about any game out there at max settings at 1920 X 1080 silky smooth with a 5870, which goes for less than $300. Hell, even the 4870 is still almost overkill.
Unless you plan on maxing out AA and AF while playing on a 30 inch screen, there is no reason to drop $500-$600 on a video card anymore...
Re:Feh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Feh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is pretty much the case with me. I plan on doing a full system upgrade this Cyber Monday, but I haven't bought any new hardware for my computer other than a new DVD drive in about 2 years...and I STILL haven't needed to turn down visual details in any games that are released.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. I paid about 150 for my graphics card, a 9600 GT, I have a nice 1680x1050 monitor I'm not going to upgrade any time soon, and at this point I can't imagine what games would require me to buy a new CPU.
I can run any game whatsoever at full resolution and visual details.
That's always been the joke...if you buy a middling video card, you're buying the same thing that's in a PS3 or whatever the newest console is, because those were created a year ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? I paid $100 for a 9800 GT a while back, and have two 1400x1050 monitors. Your card sounds expensive.
I agree with you though, aside any hardware failures, I won't be upgrading it for a long time either. Heck, I wouldn't have moved up from the old 8800 GS if it weren't for VDPAU requiring a newer card.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the "problem" is those are not really ports anymore; often practically the same engine.
Which kinda sucks, coming from both worlds, enjoying both kinds of games - now that Microsoft made targeting both platforms from the start of development "sensible", most games are hybrids; not exploiting the strengths of either platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Feh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Mostly agreed, however I will take a low-to-mid range CPU if it means I can afford a top of the line GPU...when it comes to gaming, anyway.
The GPU is a much larger bottleneck in terms of gaming, although the line of importance between the GPU and CPU has been blurring a bit lately.
Parent
Well, wait some time. (Score:2)
You can run just about any game out there at max settings at 1920 X 1080 silky smooth with a 5870, which goes for less than $300.
Well, that's until Crysis 2 with Stereo 3D + Multi-Head and Windows 8's compositing + DirectX 13 come out.
Then it'll be again waiting 1 year until the hardware catch up.
Remember the mantra :
What hardware giveth, software taketh...
Also, you assume discreet GPU.
nVidia and ATI have still to do some improvement until the performance you quote happen on a low-power miniature *embed* GPU in a laptop (that doesn't drain the battery flat after 10 minutes).
Thus expect future generation with better performance per wa
Re: (Score:2)
i agree completely but i think that this situation will be a catalyst for the next big step. i think back to when unreal was released. there was almost no hardware that could run the game smoothly, in a way it was a proof of concept of what gaming could become, but as hardware caught up we saw it give rise to a whole new way to make games, FPS, RTS, RPG, all genres really, have adopted the 3d model, even board games. now the market is saturated and the pressure is off the hardware vendors to make components
Eyefinity (Score:2)
The 5870 still seems to cost more than $400, but your point is of course valid. What might become an issue is multi-monitor gaming like ATI's Eyefinity. Running a triple-screen setup demands a bit more. I don't know if multi-monitor will become mainstream, but it's roughly in the same ballpark price-wise as high-end GPUs.
Re: (Score:2)
augh! yes indeed, I meant $400. You can also get the 4870 for cheap even when it was new, and for super cheap now that it has some age on it...an extremely capable card that will likely last at least another generation or two of video cards.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814129113 [newegg.com]
$170, awesome stuff
Re: (Score:2)
Fermi-based? (Score:3, Funny)
I assume they mean the scientist Enrico Fermi. So, did they dig him up, or is this one of those Jesus fingerbone type of thing, where there are more fingerbones than there are chickens? Did they use the whole Fermi, or are there only specific pieces of him that work? Whatever the case, there must be a limited number of cards that can be built, since there is a finite amount of Fermi.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume they mean the scientist Enrico Fermi. So, did they dig him up, or is this one of those Jesus fingerbone type of thing, where there are more fingerbones than there are chickens? Did they use the whole Fermi, or are there only specific pieces of him that work? Whatever the case, there must be a limited number of cards that can be built, since there is a finite amount of Fermi.
They used his skull with the jawbone of an orangutan. [wikipedia.org]
40nm process... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Alongside a wealth of technical information... (Score:2)
Enough to write a Free driver?
Still no "real" benchmarks? (Score:3, Insightful)
While the articles is very interesting on explaining the chip archetecture and technical specifications, I can't believe there sin't a single actual gaming benchmark on these chips yet.
The best they can do is give an estimated calculation on how the chips may or may not actually live up to. They estimate that it will be faster at gaming than ATI's already released 5870.
By the time Nvidia actually releases their Fermi GPU's, ATI's Cypres will have been actively selling for over 3 months. And there's a funny thing about advancements over time: things keep getting faster (aka Moore's Law). Supposing that chips are supposed to double in transistor count every year, the new Fermi chips need to have 20% more transistors than ATI's RV5870 if they release 3 months later... just to keep on the same curve.
And there's still no mention of pricing... but that's expected on a product that doesn't actually run games yet. I don't see a lot of optimism on the gaming front, so I hope for Nvidia's sake that the investment into GPGPU is the branch out they need to trump ATI's sales.