typodupeerror
• #### Re:Athlon Motherboards (Score:1)

Hum, well, AGP is 64 bit and the 4x version runs at an effective equivalent speed of 266 Mhz... (making about 1 Gb/s of bandwidth, about as much as a PC133 SDRAM can churn out). So I don't see what's wrong with this bus.
• #### Re:Tomzilla (Score:1)

Duh, I've been reading his comment about 3dfx and nVidia chipsets, and he is not biased against 3dfx and in favor of nVidia... the nVidia chipsets are way more modern - and better if not much faster. The Voodoo 3 is a faster Voodoo 2 which is basically two Voodoo 1 on the same board. If 3dfx likes to save on R&D by using the same cores again and again that's fine, but when the competition comes up with really new design I find it sad that they cry that reviewers are biased.

We are at the AGP 4x age and 3dfx is still using local texture, limited to a size of 256x256 pixels with no 32 bit rendering... this is not innovation and they don't deserve any compliments.
• #### Re:Who cares? Tom is crazy! (Score:1)

Duh, I like Anandtech, but this site is not much better than the other : it keeps explaining in details the datasheets of products and running the benchmarks. Tom's hardware usually has some pretty technical stuff that you don't find anywhere else (I remember an article about Rambus a year ago that was pretty advanced, and that you won't see anytime soon on Anandtech).
• #### Re:Athlon Motherboards (Score:1)

Yup it is not quite huge, but that is the maximum speed you get out of SDRAM PC133 at peak bandwidth (133 Mhz x 64 bit = 1 Gb/s). The only way to increase this speed is to use Rambus or DDR RAM and/or increase the bus width.

Increasing bandwidth does make sense only if you need it, like if you have several CPU or huge graphic subsystem. A PC graphic chipset will hardly ever need 1 Gb/s of bandwidth right now (most of them don't even max out the 500 Mb/s of AGP 2x...)
• #### Re:why not open source? (Score:1)

Perhaps because it may be possible to divine some of thier hardware voodoo by what the driver itself is doing. So they don't release driver source to at least slow the reverse engineering process.

Or I could be wrong.
• #### Re:Linux Compatibility? (Score:1)

nVidia has a common driver, Detonator, [nvidia.com] for its TNT, TNT2, and GeForce chips. As you can see from the link, there are drivers for Windows, BeOS, Linux, and even OS/2.
• #### Re:Next step (Score:1)

The concept and design are superior. The performance is not.
---
• #### Geoforce Vapor? (Score:1)

from Creatives website

This new accelerator leverages the new GeForce 256[tm] technology from NVIDIA

The 3D Blaster Annihilator will be available through Creative's extensive distribution and retail sales network in October,
• #### Re:Why? (Score:1)

Why not just slap another processor on the motherboard and call it a "GPU" instead?

Well, you have to squeeze a lot of geometry through the AGP bus. If you can store some of the scene there, you can just have the card happily rendering away while the CPU(s) and bus are free to do other important things.

Furthermore, this is a more complicated chip than the P3 (at least in terms of number of transistors), dedicated to the particular maths which make 3d rendering hard. It doesn't matter how fast this runs Office or Photoshop - so they optimize accordingly. Often you can exchange generality for speed.
• #### Re:Why? (Score:1)

Because that's the obvious solution. PHBs don't like obvious solutions. :)

• #### Re:Best place to buy? (Score:1)

should one buy the first generatin of the geforce 256 cards? seeing how more than one manufactorer has a license to use the geforce, will it be more optimized in future versions?

• #### Re:Linux Compatibility? (Score:1)

My guess would be soon now that nVIDIA is making their own X11 servers. Any video card that has enough demand for drivers eventually gets them unless the manufacturer is holding specs.
• #### Re:Why? (Score:1)

because a CPU designed just to do transformations and lighting costs less and does its particular tasks faster
• #### Re:Comparison to Pro Graphics? (Score:1)

Check em out yourself, here are the specs for SGI's Onyx2 with Infinite Reality graphics:

http://www.sgi.com/onyx2/tech_specs.html

And here are the nvidia GeForce DDR specs:

The scarey thing is, according to the paper specs a $300 GeForce has roughly equivalent triangle throughput and pixel fill rate to a$300,000 SGI
Onyx2. Don't you love economies of scale?

Of course the SGI has a whole bunch of features the GeForce doesn't like 48 bit colour, insane amount of framebuffer memory, support for the complete OpenGL pipeline in hardware including 3d textures etc etc.

The GeForce doesn't have hardware opengl overlays so it won't be ideal for professional applications, what do you expect for the price?

But still, I know I'm slapping a GeForce in my system ASAP.
• #### Smoking Crack (Score:1)

you MUST be smoking crack! I rmemeber when nVidia took a lot of heat over the obfuscated source code drivers they released. They had too, and they have been working at getting full source available. (by had to it was other folk's code that they didn't have the legal right to release).

Compare that to 3dfx who is binary only. I couldn't believe that dared to show up to linux expo... even there they were talking soley binary only...

plus they do glide... glide should die... openGL is standard...
• #### Re:Linux Compatibility? (Score:1)

It's not. Myth II uses Glide. 3Dfx is actually unique in being one of the last people to *not* have a complete set of OpenGL drivers; that's why they have their "MiniGL" to run Quake* games.

That's not right; 3dfx has had a complete non beta OpenGL ICD out for months now. The reason they have a MiniGL is the same reason that Matrox has made their TurboGL (aka, MiniGL)--because it's much easier to optimize a opengl subset for particular games than it is to optimize an entire ICD.
• #### Re:i liked... (Score:1)

Nvidia has released the specs to their cards? ALL the registers etc? Where can I find them?

I've also been under the impression that 3dfx cards speedwise are the only choice under linux. I know my banshee runs Q3test, Unreal Tournament (through wine), and Quake2 under linux great. So isn't a really fast 3dfx binary glide better than the others?

• #### Who cares? Tom is crazy! (Score:1)

I have to wonder if the people at /. have ever been to Tom "Buy My Book!" Pabst's site. It has degenerated into a lame attempt to sell his crappy book and more advertisements than even the average gaming site. He fudges his results to get boards earlier than other people to review. It doesn't help that he was going on with paranoid rants about conspiracies against him for a while, although I don'y know if he still does this, as I stopped readinghis site months ago.

If /. is going to post about hardware sites, post about anandtech more often. Anand and his buddies know more about computers than Tom ever could, they write better, are more objective, and although they have a ton of ads, they have less than Tom.

In short, Tom is full of shit, and so is his site, and I'm willing t post it attached to my account without any AC crap! Not that it matters, /. moderators will nail this as "flamebait" (funny that they don't automatically do that to Jon Katz's demented writings, not that he does much on /. anymore anyway.).
• #### Re:Tomzilla (Score:1)

This is the best info we have?
I think not, here's a little roundup of reviews(ripped from The Shugashack [shugashack.com]):

GeForce / TNT2Ultra / Voodoo3 Roundup [
Shugashack [shugashack.com]]
Guillemot GeForce256 3D Prophet Review [Ace's Hardware [aceshardware.com]]
Guillemot GeFroce256 3D Prophet Review [Puissance PC [puissancepc.com]]
Guillemot GeForce256 3D Prophet Review [GA-Source [ga-source.com]]
nVidia GeForce256 DDR Review [3DGPU [3dgpu.com]]
nVidia GeForce256 DDR Review [Riva Extreme [rivaextreme.com]]
nVidia GeForce256 DDR Review [Riva3D [riva3d.com]]
nVidia GeForce256 DDR Review [Planet Riva [planetriva.com]]
nVidia GeForce256 DDR Benchmarks [Bjorn3D [bjorn3d.com]]
Guillemot GeForce256 3D Prophet Review [CGO [cdmag.com]]
Guillemot GeForce256 3D Prophet Review [Fast Graphics [fastgraphics.com]]
Creative GeForce256 Annihilator Benchmarks [3DHardware [3dhardware.net]]
• #### Re:G400 Scores (Score:1)

Hardly surprising, considering Tom's well-known bias towards nVidia. Can't have something that might possibly make it look like less than the best.
• #### Re:G400 (Score:1)

Check out XIG's web site (http://www.xig.com/Pages/AGP-BENCHMARKS.html). The G400 rocks many times. I was considering leaving in my Voodoo1 card for doing OpenGL stuff, but it has since been pulled out and will make way for a PCI ethernet card.
• #### In defense of Tomas Pabst (Score:1)

I know this discussion is long over, but I personally like Tom's reviews, and I think that he does have integrity, as evidenced by his reaction to Intel's *apparent* attempt to censor and intimidate [tomshardware.com] him.

Why do I believe his side of this story in this? Mostly because of all the nasty things I've been reading about Intel's *apparent* strong arming of Taiwanese motherboard manufacturers, and the *apparent* cutting of a deal with Gateway so they'd stop using AMD CPUs in their machines. Not to mention Intel's failed attempt to *apparently* force RDRAM on OEMs and the market, and a number of other Micros1~ esque tactics.

The fact of the matter is, Tom is very thorough. He was the first to publish an overclocking guide [tomshardware.com] for the Athlon for example. Another example of his dedication is his yearly trips to Taiwan to talk directly with manufacturers there. I mean who does this but someone into what he does? The guy doesn't get paid to do this you know, he's a medical doctor, not an employee of some corporation.

Regarding 3dfx. They've really been acting strange lately, and not a little bit cheesy, IMO.

For example, cutting off Creative and Diamond like they did, and making their chipset proprietary. Maybe they have a right to be paranoid, what with Intel in bed with S3 [s3.com] and S3 now owning Diamond... but this was a bad move. Look at the hell that Apple went through as a result of it's decision to go proprietary back in the days before the Return of Jobs(TM). 3dfx will, I suspect, go through similar troubles, as major manufacturers have little choice but to either create their own chipsets (which can be disastrous, look at #9's "Ticket To Ride") or use another company's chipset, like nVidia -- who is making better 3D chipsets right now.

Another thing that 3dfx did which has lost them quite a bit of market share, (as evidenced by contrasting nVidia's 1999 profit and loss statements with 3dfx's) was essentially ship an overclocked banshee card :) What else can you call the Voodoo3 with @ 16 bit? Then there's the glaring lack of a heat sync fan on the voodoo3s (fans come with nVidia based cards), and the vast, power supply crippling, 183 MHz of the Voodoo3 3500, which I've read has *apparently* been problematic for some users with lower wattage power supplies...

These things don't go unnoticed by consumers, or for that matter by honest hardware reviewers. The benchmarks Tomas Pabst used in the GeForce article are valid, and Voodoo3 scored at zero on the 32 bit true color tests, because it is a 16 bit card. Simple as that... if you'd read the whole article, you'd see that he did list GeForce's short commings, specifically the memory bandwidth problems with the SDRAM versions of the Card vs. the upcomming double data rate RAM versions of the card (to say nothing of the *expected* 64 MB GeForce that I'm waiting for).

I have not lost faith in 3dfx, and I hope that their troubles of late will cause some restructuring which will lead to an increased emphasis on design quality, rather than throwing MHz at the problem. I do have to applaud their efforts to support the Apple community with Mac drivers for voodoo cards, although I hear poor Microconversions [microconversions.com] *might* have been forced out of the mac/voodoo card business as a result :(

Despite all this, the 3D wars are far from over, and I suspect the Voodoo4 will be quite a sight to see, but I won't rush out and buy either a GeForce or a Voodoo4 until I know all the facts, and for that I'll probably read a number of reviews. I've also found that forums where actual users relay anecdotal accounts of their experiences with specific products are truly telling. If you don't believe me go check out the forums [intel.com] at Intel :)

• #### Re:Tomzilla (Score:1)

That much is true, but except through sheer incompetance raw numbers don't tend to lie. In any case at the moment this is the best information we have and I think its at east conclusive enough to make the Dual-memory one fairly tempting.
• #### Re:Who cares? Tom is crazy! (Score:1)

It's a big internet. Very helpfully there are links to several other GeForce reviews a few post above here. If you don't like Tom's site avoid it, Or, failing that hire Iraqui gunmen to go round his house and steal all remaining copies of the book.
• #### Re:Boy, does he hate 3dfx o_O (Score:1)

They've gone off in different directions. 3dfx went for speed, the rest went for pretty. The trouble is, 3dfx's speed advantage has vapourised in anything other than Glide. Don't get me wrong, my current card is a Voodoo2 and so far I've had no reason to replace it but unless 3dfx do that mystical "Voodoo TNG" you mentioned when I do it'll be with a GeForce.
• #### Re:Tomzilla (Score:1)

Yeah, saw those later. Sorry about that. They all seem to say pretty much the same thing though.
• #### Re:MPEG 2 support (Score:1)

I agree with you, it's nice to see to nVidia added some hardware MPEG 2 acceleration with the motion compensation but I would've like to see some more support for DVD playback. HDTV support is cool but I don't see myself getting one any time soon. I think that a full MPEG 2 decoder, that would be a little excessive since that would mean adding an audio output to the card. But who knows what the next generation chipset will bring? Or what the some card manufacturer will cook-up?

As for software decoders, the ones for Windows don't seem very optimized. And Linux decoders are still being worked on. For those of you interested in Linux DVD, I recommend that you check out the LiViD Project [openprojects.net] and the Linux TV site. [linuxtv.org]

• #### Re:i liked... (Score:1)

Well, actually.. Nvidia has released the specs for their cards.. All registers, etc etc, so that if they needed to, the community could write their own 2d/3d drivers from the ground up.. But theres no need, as Nvidia have already done this, and will continue to do it. Matrox have done similar things. What do we get from 3dfx? A binary only version of glide.
• #### Re:Tomzilla (Score:2)

True, anybody can put up a web site and review products, but I'll go to bat for Tom to say he is (or was about a year ago when I was frequenting the site) one of the best on the web when it came to technical information - especially on the whole dual Celeron overclocking thing.

Then again, I haven't really seen his site in about a year, since he became more of a video board review site.

"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
• #### Re:Comparison to Pro Graphics? (Score:2)

It's there--competitive with at least the low-end SGI hardware. Basically, there is a hierarchy of computations in 3-D graphics. (Copied from the flightgear hardware requirements page [flightgear.org].)

1. Stuff you do per-frame (like reading the mouse, doing flight dynamics)
2. Stuff you do per-object (like coarse culling, level-of-detail)
3. Stuff you do per-polygon or per-vertex (like rotate/translate/clip/illuminate)
4. Stuff you do per-pixel (shading, texturing, Z-buffering, alpha-blend)

At each level of the hierarhcy the amount of computation goes up an order of magnitude or so. The GeForce256 moves up the hierarchy to the per-polygon level, providing, (eventually, when the software properly supports it) an order-of-magnitude improvement in 3-D rendering, just like an SGI system does. There is apparently going to be Linux OpenGL support, too. Price, I believe, is in the $250 range. • #### Re:Why? (Score:2) Because the Geometry Processor Unit (what GPU stands for) will be optomized for processing geometry, which currently is a task of the CPU. With the GPU, all the processor will be responsible for will be feeding geometry data to the GPU (well, it's the only graphics function it'll be responsible for). In the end, the GPU should be faster at geometry than the CPU, which is the goal. • #### Re:Linux Compatibility? (Score:2) I was wondering the same thing. Me too. My good old Viper550 (TNT) card seems to work with Mesa-3.0 and NVidia's "glx 1.0" driver, but I'm under the impression this is only a "partial" set of drivers. It's a complete OpenGL driver AFAIK, but it doesn't do direct rendering (it goes over the X pipe), and it's not nearly as optimized as the Windows drivers yet. (Myth II supposedly only works with 3dfx brand boards because they're the only ones that have a 'complete' set of OpenGL drivers - though I've been trying to find out if that's really true or not...) It's not. Myth II uses Glide. 3Dfx is actually unique in being one of the last people to *not* have a complete set of OpenGL drivers; that's why they have their "MiniGL" to run Quake* games. Has Nvidia said or done anything on the Linux front since the initial release of their drivers? There was an interview where an Nvidia rep said they'd have GeForce Linux drivers (but X server? Mesa drivers? Who knows?) when the card shipped, but I haven't heard anything since. • #### Re:MPEG 2 support (Score:2) but I would've like to see some more support for DVD playback. HDTV support is cool but Proper HDTV support requires mostly a superset of what is required for DVD support; everything but the subpicture decode. I think that a full MPEG 2 decoder, that would be a little excessive since that would mean adding an audio output to the card. No, adding an MPEG 2 decoder to the card doesn't necessitate adding an audio output. This can be done two ways: 1. Leave the demux of the MPEG transport or program stream to the main CPU, and only hand the video PES (or ES) to the card. Demux is fairly easy and won't suck up but a tiny fraction of the main CPU as compared to doing full decode. 2. Let the card demux the transport or program stream, and hand buffered audio PES (or ES) data back to the main CPU. As for software decoders, the ones for Windows don't seem very optimized. They're not very good, but that's not because they're not very optimized. Just compare any of the Windows players to the NIST code if you want to see the huge difference between majorly optimized and non-optimized decoders. • #### Re:Tomzilla (Score:2) Why should he have to respond? Because some people question the validity of his OPINIONS? Q: How do we evaluate someone elses OPINIONS? A: The same way we evaluate anything else, if you want to, go for it, if you don't like him, don't read him. Apparently, not reading his articles has expanded to the realm of trash-talking him from the comfort and safety of the AC post. If you're going to lay into somebody, please, have the courage to accept personal responsibility, and link to the allegations instead of giving a vague, biased (but presented as unbiased) description of what these allegations were. You're lucky I ran out of moderator points already. • #### Tom should have mentioned... (Score:2) The reason why most of the benchmarks were so close is because none of these games (with the exception of parts of Quake3) are using the OpenGL T&L pipeline because at the time they were made there were no hardware T&L engines and so by 'rolling their own' T&L they could get significant speedups. The nVidia Tree demo should be evidence to anyone what a dramatic difference having hardware T&L can make. That tree demo has far more complexity than your average shoot-em-up game, and these are the kind of things we can expect when developers make games for hardware T&L (most new games will use the hardware). So the real problem with the benchmarks was running a bleeding edge graphics card on yesterday's software. It does well, even better than the competition, but don't expect a 3X increase...you can't get much faster than 100FPS no matter how you try. But the GeForce should be able to do 60FPS with 10X the polygon count of current cards (assuming the developer is handling T&L with OpenGL) • #### Best place to buy? (Score:2) Where is the cheapest place to buy one of these things? (including shipping) • #### Re:pricewatch.com (Score:2) Thanks, I was serching for Ge Force and nothing was turing up. Here is a link to the complete listing at pricewatch. Prices at Pricewatch [pricewatch.com] • #### Why? (Score:2) Why not just slap another processor on the motherboard and call it a "GPU" instead? --Adam • #### Re:Tom's...and every other hardware site too (Score:2) • #### G400 Scores (Score:2) Kinda off subject, but shame shame Tom for not using the new Matrox G400 drivers that were released on Oct 8th that includes the new Turbo GL (mini GL) drivers. Would have liked to see how the G400 Max performed with the newest drivers compared to the GeForce at the higher resolutions. From some of the benchmarking I have seen, it is giving the TNT2 Ultra a run for it's money on OpenGL games at higher resolutions. • #### Re:Why? (Score:2) "Why not just slap another processor on the motherboard and call it a "GPU" instead?" Theoretically, you could do that but you would need a mighty powerful CPU to achieve the level of performance of the GeForce since CPUs aren't optimized for graphics processing (note: GPU stands for Graphics Processing Unit not Geometry Processing Unit as someone earlier posted.) The GeForce is a much more cost effective solution for graphics processing than getting another CPU. According to Nvidia web page about the GPU [nvidia.com], their technical definition of a GPU is: "a single-chip processor with integrated transform, lighting, triangle setup/clipping and rendering engines that is capable of processing a minimum of 10 million polygons per second." The review of the GeForce 256 [aceshardware.com] at Ace's Hardware [aceshardware.com] has good info on comparing CPUs to GPUs. As another poster mentioned, graphics processing exists in a limited form in CPUs (3DNow!,etc.). Possibily in the future CPUs will integrate more advanced graphic processing functions. But, even if you had a CPU with complex graphic processing functions you still need some sort of display adapter. Personally, I think that it makes more sense to have the display adapter and graphics processing integrated on one unit. • #### GPU Acceleration (Score:3) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 11, 1999 @04:41PM (#1622314) A lot of confusion seems to be going around about that whole GPU T&L thing when applied to Quake3, well Shugashack [3dshack.com] amazingly enough has the answer from one of the developers working with Quake3 technology. Here you go, right from the Shack. His benchmarks [3dshack.com] of the card are pretty good too. Quake 3 does indeed use T&L and will take advantage of any hardware supporting it. It uses OpenGL's transformation pipeline for all rendering operations, which is exactly what T&L cards such as the GeForce accelerate. Well what if Q3 used the other stuff besides the transform engine? The other three real features are the per-vertex lighting, the vertex blending, and the cube environment mapping. Since Quake 3 has static world lighting, one of the only places for the lighting to be useful would be for the character lighting, especially for dynamic lights. The current character lighting implementation is pretty quick though, I don't really see *too* much of an improvement there, though it is worth mentioning. The vertex blending may help skeletal animation, but since the current test has no skeletal animation, it would not help it at all in the current benchmarks. And the cube environment mapping won't help the game at all, since the game doesn't use cube environment mapping to begin with. While I'm at it, the use of OpenGL doesn't necessarily mean that all games will be accelerated by the GeForce's T&L. Such examples are Unreal engine (including UT) based games. Its architecture is very different from QuakeX's and cannot benefit from T&L hardware without rearchitecting the renderer, as Tim Sweeney has said before. • #### Tomzilla (Score:3) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 11, 1999 @02:44PM (#1622315) Tom Pabst (of Tom's Hardware) has gotten himself mixed up in a lot of tough questions about his journalistic integrity (or lack thereof). There have been many accusations that he was a little too generous with certain reviews in exchange for getting hardware to review before anyone else on the 'net, and there was a big stink about him rushing to publish Q3Test "benchmarks" without even looking into whether such a thing would have any basis in reality. Tom has responded to some of these allegations, and his responses have not been particularly professional. Anyone on the net can put up a web site and review products. Don't take other people's reviews (which are really opinions) as truth. Question seriously those who are writing. Many online authors have not displayed much professionalism, and those types are probably best avoided. • #### Re:Comparison to Pro Graphics? Here: (Score:3) on Monday October 11, 1999 @04:17PM (#1622316) Riva3D [riva3d.com] ran the GeForce256 through Sense8's Indy32 benchmark. The results are here [riva3d.com]. Far as I can gather, looks pretty promising. (with the right CPU. They used an Athlon.) • #### Next step (Score:3) on Monday October 11, 1999 @04:45PM (#1622317) Seems to me like the next logical step is to have a graphic card that can handle more of the game duties. If a box is built right, the CPU can be slow but everything flies because the work is handed out to chips specialized in different tasks (see: Amiga, mid 1980's, which is still a superior design than any current PC). This chip makes a good first step in that direction, taking over the lighting and such, eliminating the need for faster AGP transfers and such. Ideally, I would like to see a graphics board that actually takes over some of the program itself. Of course it would be even better to have a NUMA motherboard and have chips dedicated to I/O, another to graphics, another to sound (not through the ISA/PCI slot), thus the CPU itself wouldn't have to be the latest greatest to turn out incredible results. These guys are turning out a chip in the ballpark of$100/piece wholesale that runs circles around any CPU. The whole computer needs to get that way. The only time you should ever need a fast CPU is for science/math, not for a normal desktop machine.
***Of course Transmeta might change the whole scenario, because if their chip can be reprogrammed on the fly to do things like graphics then there's no need for so much hardware.

• #### random, possibly baseless points and conjecture (Score:3)

on Monday October 11, 1999 @05:54PM (#1622318) Homepage Journal
At first, I thought the moderators were all smoking crack again, but I see that they probably ran out of moderation points... Why is it that the subject of 3D graphics cards seems to bring out such obnoxious folk?

Frankly, I'm just not interested in these new components. Is an extra $100 enough to justify a 5% increase in performance, and if so, how many generations should be skipped after that before upgrading? Nvidia is talking about a 6 month schedule (though nine months to a year seems more realistic). At the rate things are going, graphics cards will soon be the most expensive component in every system, even with RAM at its current prices. I'm also willing to bet that NetBSD will be ported to exclusively use the GPU, bypassing most components altogether, before the product is even released... For me at least, I can't justify the costs of upgrading my system every six months just so I can play the newest rehash of a ten year old game. It doesn't impress me that the *new* version gives you more control, gore, levels, and/or 3D graphics -- I liked the *old* game just fine. The CPU or component speed haven't been the bottleneck in games for a long, long time. The imagination of game developers has been occupied with utilizing the hardware acceleration buzzword of the moment, not with developing new groundbreaking ideas... My US$0.01 (lousy Canadian pennies :)
• #### Re:Linux Compatibility? (Score:4)

on Monday October 11, 1999 @03:05PM (#1622319) Homepage
Doing a search for geforce on www.linuxgames.com revealed this snippet from an irc log:
-----------
([Jar]2) (orlock) WIll they still be supporting Xfree86/Mesa3D/glx/linux/etc like they have in the past?
(nvdaNick) Yes.

(MicroDooD) (LaRz17) Will drivers for multiple operating systems be released at the same time?
(nvdaNick) As for driver releases, I think NVIDIA is planning to release all drivers at once.

([Jar]) (MfA) Will the non windows drivers be open source? (ie not run through the pre-processor)
(nvdaNick) What would you want with open source drivers, by the way?
(nvdaNick) I'm not sure what our plans will be regarding that.
-----------------

\begin{speculation}
Anyway, if this is correct and nVidia is going to be have official support for Linux they are probably going to use SGI sample implementation and thus cannot release their driver as open source.
\end{speculation}
• #### Boy, does he hate 3dfx o_O (Score:4)

on Monday October 11, 1999 @05:15PM (#1622320) Homepage Journal
What happened with that, did they make fun of him or not give him cards to test or something? Like anybody, I have pet vaporware that I'd like to see succeed and become real, and for me that's the next generation 3dfx stuff with the antialiasing and motion blurs (in which the former would work with old games too). It's OK with me if it doesn't fly, I'll still wait and see what happens with it, but it's pretty boggling to see this guy kicking at 3dfx so bad. He was coming up with these big benchmarks for a GeForce card that people can't even get yet, and making nasty remarks about how poorly the Voodoo3 measured up (when actually Glide ran competitively when available), and how old is the V3 by now? Compared with a GeForce that people can't even get ATM?
• #### MPEG 2 support (Score:4)

on Monday October 11, 1999 @03:13PM (#1622321) Homepage Journal
It's nice to see that they've apparently added some of the MPEG 2 motion compensation support that ATI has had for a while. But I really wish they would bite the bullet and add a full MPEG 2 decoder. It would only take about a half million transistors; no one would even notice the extra die area.

Software MPEG 2 decoders for Windows basically suck, and there aren't (yet) any real-time decoders for Linux anyhow. Hardware decode is the way to go.

I keep hoping that someone will ship an inexpensive VIP-compatible MPEG 2 decoder daughterboard that I could use with my Asus V3800 TNT2 card, and it hasn't happened yet, but simply building it into the next generation nVidia chip would be even better.

Eric

• #### Tom's...and every other hardware site too (Score:5)

on Monday October 11, 1999 @02:54PM (#1622322)
Did an NDA expire today or something?

Anandtech GeForce 256 Review [anandtech.com]
Ace's Hardware GEForce 256 Review [aceshardware.com]
RivaExtreme GeForce 256 DDR Review [rivaextreme.com]
GA Source Guillemot 3D Prophet Review [ga-source.com]
3DGPU Geforce 256 DDR Review [3dgpu.com]
Fast Graphics Guillemot 3D Prophet Review [fastgraphics.com]
CGO GeForce 256 Preview [cdmag.com]
Shugashack GeForce, V3 and TNT2 benchmark roundup [shugashack.com]
Riva3D Full GeForce 256 DDR Review [geforceddr...argetblank]
GeForce 256 DDR Review at Planet Riva [planetriva.com]

Any others?

#### Related LinksTop of the: day, week, month.

No skis take rocks like rental skis!

Working...