Post your breaking NV30 news links here!

[Typedef Enum]

In other words, this type of color compression will have very limited returns in most non AA siutations.

By the same token, non-AA situations might not need to have more bandwidth.

Remember that one interview several months ago in which the guy from nVidia said that they were now optimizing their paths for AA? IE they were to the point, by and large, where non-AA was no longer a major concern...

I read the ExtremeTech article last night, and Kirk (I believe) said that NV30 was actually designed to be paired with 4x AA from the get-go.

 

[BoddoZerg]

The B-1 also costs a hundred times more.

I just hope the NV30 doesn't cost a billion dollars.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

By the same token, non-AA situations might not need to have more bandwidth.

Yes, that is nVidia's assertion. (That non AA situations are not bandwidth limited, but more fill rate limited or limted by the GPU itself) which is why it's no great loss for R-300 to not have color compression in non AA modes. All it might be doing for the NV30 is contributing more heat for that pump to get rid of.

Also by the same token, most games today on these caliber cards (NV30 and R300) aren't even GPU limited in the first place in any way in non AA situations...they tend to be CPU limited. In the future that will almost certainly change of course.

I read the ExtremeTech article last night, and Kirk (I believe) said that NV30 was actually designed to be paired with 4x AA from the get-go.

I would say the same is true of the R-300.

 

[Althornin]

In other words, this type of color compression will have very limited returns in most non AA siutations.

By the same token, non-AA situations might not need to have more bandwidth.

\I believe that was his point, type - the radeon is not at a disadvantage because it doesnt compress without doing AA - its simply that compression is not needed/worthwhile wihtout AA.

 

[stevem]

The B-1 also costs a hundred times more.

I just hope the NV30 doesn't cost a billion dollars.

The analogy is incorrect. The multiplier acts differently. The B-1 is a Rockwell & B-52 is a Boeing. One sold to monopsony, the other to allied govts. The GFFX has global consumer base with market clearing (competition) as well as having been deflated due to prior earnings (R&D & products ) of Nvidia. If the GFFX was produced 2 years ago - it probably would've cost a $B.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Side note...

I just realized there is one MAJOR indication that everyone seems to have overlooked, that clearly indicates nvidia doesn't believe the NV30 will even be able to compete with the Radeon 9700....

The GeForceFX is still a mere "GPU." Apparently, nVidia doesn't believe it's worthy of the VPU nomenclature! That should settle any further specualtion on which chip is the "best!" Hell, the GeForce FX can't even compete with the 3D Labs P10...


Kidding aside...I'm sure we're all relieved that Nvidia refrained from calling the chip an "FXPU".

 

[jb]

My analysis is that despite the B-1 is smaller than the B-52, the B-1 is in fact better. Hence, bigger is not always better.

Your forgetting the fact that the B52 has over 50 years of flight service and the Air Force is trying to get another 50 years out of her. Last I knew we have more B52 than B1 but that I am not 100% sure anymore. And the B52 is used in more missions. It seems like the people at the Air Force like to use them more often than the B1, hence they are better

BTW I have had a chance to see both in person and watch them both fly in a prior job. Both are very impressive. I still think today that when a B1 flys over you head at a "low" altiude at max trust...it one of the loudest sounds sounds you will hear.

 

[DadUM]

My analysis is that despite the B-1 is smaller than the B-52, the B-1 is in fact better. Hence, bigger is not always better.

Your forgetting the fact that the B52 has over 50 years of flight service and the Air Force is trying to get another 50 years out of her. Last I knew we have more B52 than B1 but that I am not 100% sure anymore. And the B52 is used in more missions. It seems like the people at the Air Force like to use them more often than the B1, hence they are better

BTW I have had a chance to see both in person and watch them both fly in a prior job. Both are very impressive. I still think today that when a B1 flys over you head at a "low" altiude at max trust...it one of the loudest sounds sounds you will hear.

All this is pretty much bull. What it all boils down to is that one thing is not necessarily better than something else given a comparison of x to x. You have to look at the whole picture and determine what you feel is actually better. I just wanted to have some fun spouting off (otherwise) useless facts. And big jets are cool.

 

[BoddoZerg]

I still think today that when a B1 flys over you head at a "low" altiude at max trust...it one of the loudest sounds sounds you will hear.

At least until you get your GeForceFX SLI configuration up and running.

 

[saf1]

The B-1 also costs a hundred times more.

I just hope the NV30 doesn't cost a billion dollars.

Believe it or not, the B-52 costs more. You are taking a aging air frame and forcing it to last longer than it was originally intended. And in that extended service life cycle, you are adding current avionics. The overall cost is not cheaper.

Initial cost. Yes, the B52 would be cheaper. Bigger picture - no, not any cheaper. It does get the "Best bang for the buck" award though.

Hello everyone. First post

 

[Typedef Enum]

I wasn't implying any sort of "win" for NV30, with respect to color compression...Just pointing out the tidbit @ ExtremeTech (which was a very good preview, BTW).

 

[RussSchultz]

BTW I have had a chance to see both in person and watch them both fly in a prior job. Both are very impressive. I still think today that when a B1 flys over you head at a "low" altiude at max trust...it one of the loudest sounds sounds you will hear.

I've seen several shuttle launches from the VIP area outside of launch control at KSC. One was at night and that was the most awesome experience I've had. The night turned to day and the ground shook for a good minute or so. When the shuttle turned toward the west (and pointed its engines toward us), it got even louder.

If you can ever manage a trip to Florida during a launch, I highly recommend it.

 

[Nagorak]

And big jets are cool.

Well the sad truth is the purpose of both of those jets is just to blow people and things up. Let's just stick to graphics cards which at least arguably can make the world a better place.

 

[Evildeus]

www.geforcefx.org

 

[megadrive0088]

[very off-topic]
I'd take the B-1B bomber over the B2 stealth bomber

B2 costs 1-2 Billion - carries 40,000 lbs of ordinance - range: about 5,500
miles. max speed, under mach 1.

B-1B costs about $200 million (1980s dollars) carries 124,000 lbs max
(internal and external payload) range: well over 7,000 miles.
speed: mach 1.2 at sea level (can out run most fighters)

MUCH better bang for the buck.

of course the B2 is much stealthier, but the B-1B is 100x smallar radar
signature than B-52.

 

[demalion]

www.geforcefx.org

OK, who is this Frenchman?


An evil ATI employee? A fanATIc?

A 3D enthusiast cum opportunist who likes playing pranks?

A look at www.3dvf.com (his email is listed @3dvf.com) makes me think the latter.

 

[Bambers]

The B2's coat of stealth paint washes off in the rain though...


Nice link btw

 

[Grall]

www.geforcefx.org

FINALLY someone who uses that rolleyes in a good way! Haha, that link was seriously funny, thanks!

*G*

 

[Aerows]

Obviously you have never stood next to a B52 bomber...then you will realize sometime bigger is better

OK. B-1 to B-52 Comparrison

Size:
B-52 - 505,000 lbs max at take off, 160' long, 185' wingspan
B-1 - 477,000 lbs max takeoff, 147' long, 136' max wingspan
The B-52 is bigger.

Speed:
B-52 - 509 mph
B-1 - 823 mph at high altitude, 600 mph at low altiude
the B-52 is slower

Bomb load:
B-52 - 50,000 lb convential bombs, 12 JDAM (the weapon most used in Afghanistan)
B-1 - 72,000 lb convential bombs, 24 JDAM
Despite being smaller, the B-1 can carry more bombs, up to 100% more.

Crew members: (fewer means fewer people at risk)
B-52 - 6
B-1 - 4
Fewer Airmen are at risk on B-1 missions

My analysis is that despite the B-1 is smaller than the B-52, the B-1 is in fact better. Hence, bigger is not always better.

LOL Make DAMN sure you know what you are talking about on this forum, otherwise it's members will embarass you with facts 8)

 

[MaliciousBraham]

I've seen several shuttle launches from the VIP area outside of launch control at KSC. One was at night and that was the most awesome experience I've had. The night turned to day and the ground shook for a good minute or so. When the shuttle turned toward the west (and pointed its engines toward us), it got even louder.
If you can ever manage a trip to Florida during a launch, I highly recommend it.

Agreed.. Night Launches Rock!