Question: Where does Nvidia go from here?

[Fred]

The rumor I find to be the most credible is

Nv30 mass release in february

Speed ramped (possibly cooler and less expensive to produce Nv30) sometime in the summer (July maybe) that would phase out the older Nv30s.

256bit Nv35 around November.

Nv40 the following year in the spring (or even winter, if they decide to up the speed of the Nv35 and use that as their spring model).

 

[Ailuros]

As a side note, I'm really, really curious as to why the PS 3.0 specs are included with DX9. Hopefully these signify hardware on the drawing board that will be released before long. If this is essentially what the NV35 includes, then I'll be very happy.

NV is not the only IHV that negotiates with Microsoft for what gets included and what not in DX revisions. While there is a very high chance that NV has proposed it, it doesn't have to be that way at any price.

 

[KimB]

NV is not the only IHV that negotiates with Microsoft for what gets included and what not in DX revisions. While there is a very high chance that NV has proposed it, it doesn't have to be that way at any price.

Right. It could very well be some other manufacturer. But, it's highly likely that either nVidia or ATI proposed PS 3.0. The only question, then, is why? This would be the first time we've ever seen sometheing released in DX so long before the hardware is actually available.

 

[Ailuros]

I don't see why any of the two could not include PS/VS 3.0 in their next refresh parts.

Are the differences between 2.0+ in NV30 up to 3.0 really so gigantic?

As far as MS goes, I'd guestimate that they decided to include more extensions in dx9.0 this time around, to avoid the former dx8.0-dx8.1 debacle.

Allowing as much as possible extensions in dx9.0, that will meet all or most next years hardware sounds way better to me.

 

[Mintmaster]

I don't see why any of the two could not include PS/VS 3.0 in their next refresh parts.

Are the differences between 2.0+ in NV30 up to 3.0 really so gigantic?

AFAIK, VS 3.0 has textures in the vertex shader. This is very gigantic, as texture accesses (esp. dependent ones) require a lot of fifo buffering to get the data to the shader, as well as a significant amount of logic (although there are clever ways around it). I believe this is also why NV30 and R300 don't really support displacement mapping properly like Matrox.

As far as MS goes, I'd guestimate that they decided to include more extensions in dx9.0 this time around, to avoid the former dx8.0-dx8.1 debacle.

Allowing as much as possible extensions in dx9.0, that will meet all or most next years hardware sounds way better to me.

This sounds like a good explanation to me. I don't expect R400 to be late (it may even be a bit early), so if DX9 is launched alongside the shipping NV30, there's not much time until R400 will need the VS/PS 3.0 specs.

 

[Ailuros]

AFAIK, VS 3.0 has textures in the vertex shader. This is very gigantic, as texture accesses (esp. dependent ones) require a lot of fifo buffering to get the data to the shader, as well as a significant amount of logic (although there are clever ways around it). I believe this is also why NV30 and R300 don't really support displacement mapping properly like Matrox.

So what would the necessary modifications for a R300/NV30 class architecture be, to allow VS 3.0? (PS: I never really read much into PS/VS 3.0, hence the probably dumb questions).

 

[Kaizer]

It seems to me like Microsoft wants to make things ready for DX9's life to be as long as possible, and thus incorporate features both utilized in the next generation and those to follow (PS/VS 3.0).

If DX10 won't be released before Longhorn ships, there will be some time before we see the advances and possibilities of PS/VS 3.0 if they are not made availible by DX9.

With one of our favourite IHVs having a habit of releasing new technology with intervals shorter than those between Microsofts DX generations, it might have been a wise choice of Microsoft to let (ATi) show expose their technological advances when they're ready..
(and not when Microsoft feels it's ready to upgrade DX)

I always think it's nice when the software part of the computerworld tries to keep up with or surpass the hardware part on their way towards better games.

With Regards
Kjetil