Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NV40 will be PCI Express based

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 22, 2003 3:32:40 PM

Probably a bit of old news for a lot of you but <A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10601" target="_new">The Inquirer</A> finally realized this and made an article about it. To summarize, here are main parts:

- There will be some kind of bridge to make it work with current AGP boards.
- Built using 0.13 micron and IBM will play with this chip to make it work for nVidia.
- Most likely won't have 8x2 pipelines, 16 pipelines is impossible at this time; so its speculated that it'll have 12 pipelines.
- Impracticle to use more than 256-bit memory interface, expected to use DDR II as its still too early for GDDR2.

Any thoughts?

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=24106" target="_new">My System Rig</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=535386" target="_new">3DMark03</A>

More about : nv40 pci express based

Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 22, 2003 3:46:17 PM

This is probably right since NV40 is more like and evolution of the FX family(just like the GF4 was for the GF3 and the GF2 for the GF1). SO it all make sense, starting to move towards PCi-X to match the future chipset. No GDDR yet and no smaller Process like 90nm should also be right...The NV40 should still be a beast, take a 5900 tweak it some, crank the frequency maybe add pixel/vertex shader 3.0 and you should get 50%-100% performance gain over the current FX family.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 22, 2003 5:32:41 PM

Totaly agree, anyting b4 the release is speculation. Like the DDr2 at 1ghz in the 5800, everyone was like whoa. Now the 5900 use DDR...But nvidia showed a demo with NV40 with 3 dawn rendered at the same time. That why i think the speculation is close.ALmost the same technology just faster...
July 22, 2003 7:26:51 PM

PCI Express is coming this soon? within the timeframe of the next generation of video cards.

I thought it was still a couple of years off.


<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>
July 22, 2003 11:55:21 PM

2004 is the year of pci-express, all intel boards for prescott based cpu's.. or so..

i for myself can't wait for it, as it will solve most of todays problems for me.. happy..


not that i believe in the nv40, though.. but in the pci-express.. will be great to finally make real video-cards again, for the screen output, and rendering cards.. for rendering onto some screenbuffer.. and they can get "stackable".. .... dreaming..

but finally, coprocessors could get doable again.. rocks! raytracing all the way! [-peep-] off nvidia rastericers, [-peep-] off ati rastericers.. we want real graphics, not some artistic paintings!

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com
a b U Graphics card
July 23, 2003 3:28:10 AM

And PCI express supports mutliple high speed cards! Too bad boards will only come with 1 of the "good" slots!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
July 23, 2003 4:27:08 AM

I assume you are talking about high speed 64bit/66Mhz Raid cards and the like?

<b><i>"Why don't you try practicing random acts of intelligence and senseless acts of self-control?"</b></i> :eek: 
a b U Graphics card
July 23, 2003 5:32:27 AM

Actually, I'm refering to high end video cards. The short slots (x1) will probably be fast enough for almost anything except video, and you'll probably only find one of the long slots (x16) on most boards.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b U Graphics card
July 23, 2003 5:37:26 AM

I should also note that even the lowely PCI-Express x1 slot is nearly 2.5x as fast as PCI, so it could be an OK slot for low end video cards.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
July 23, 2003 5:40:49 AM

So what do you want? dual video cards?
hmmm...

<b><i>"Why don't you try practicing random acts of intelligence and senseless acts of self-control?"</b></i> :eek: 
July 23, 2003 5:52:01 AM

now that's something to think about......... remember dual Voodoo 2s?? Dual FX6000Ultra~~ (drools)

Proud Owner the Block Heater
120% nVidia Fanboy
PROUD OWNER OF THE GEFORCE FX 5900ULTRA <-- I wish this was me
I'd get a nVidia GeForce FX 5900Ultra... if THEY WOULD CHANGE THAT #()#@ HSF
July 23, 2003 5:55:01 AM

well thats nice.
I dont know much about PCI express.
Do the devices share bandwidth, or are they all independent?

If thats the case then 2.5x of PCI should be enough bandwidth for all but the highest levels of SCSI raid.

<b><i>"Why don't you try practicing random acts of intelligence and senseless acts of self-control?"</b></i> :eek: 
July 23, 2003 6:06:14 AM

oh yes... i remember SLI :smile:

One could use 3d glasses at a full 120Hz or so.
yummo.

<b><i>"Why don't you try practicing random acts of intelligence and senseless acts of self-control?"</b></i> :eek: 
a b U Graphics card
July 23, 2003 6:29:04 AM

LOL, sure if you can find a board with 2 x16 slots! Good luck! Do we REALLY want to put such an advanced card in a 1x slot, that's not even as fast as AGP2x?

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b U Graphics card
July 23, 2003 6:32:33 AM

Sorry, I answered that the wrong way! YES I want 2 top notch video cards, with 4 displays (3 surround, 1 overhead), to enhance my 3D gaming experience!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b U Graphics card
July 23, 2003 6:39:23 AM

I really can't remember, and the articles I've read are so technical it would take me a while to find it (too long for my liking), but IIRC all those x1 slots and the x16 slot will be routed back to an x32 hub independantly.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b U Graphics card
July 23, 2003 6:47:49 AM

Quote:
If thats the case then 2.5x of PCI should be enough bandwidth for all but the highest levels of SCSI raid.

Actually a PCI-Express x1 slot is about the same speed as...Ultra320 SCSI, so a single "crappy" slot should still be good enough for most cards, except video cards.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b U Graphics card
July 23, 2003 8:02:04 AM

Quote:
So what do you want? dual video cards?
hmmm...

Yep, and I even said it back in <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam..." target="_new">THIS</A> post when we first talked about this kinda stuff.


MMMMmm can't wait. Triple video cards. One center (R420?) and 2 'surround' (rv380?) now that's how it's supposed to be done! :cool:

Can't wait, can't wait!



- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
July 23, 2003 1:54:13 PM

Cool! Realtime, hi-res rendering!

Are we talking animation with photo realism?


<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>
July 23, 2003 9:53:10 PM

nope, about real realism.. photos aren't animated, ya know:D 


i really do hope they split graphic cards and 3daccelerators again.. so you can have cards with good quality screen connectors, or tv-outs, or what ever you require, and, independend from it, 3d accelerators, as much as you want for it.

and hopefully there will be a SaarCOR release for pci-express.. at best combinable:D  several of them..

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com
July 24, 2003 1:59:47 AM

Photo-realism - def. appears as realistic as a photograph. Does not appear generated, renderered, etc. Lifelike.

<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>
July 24, 2003 4:19:29 AM

I must admit that idea appeals.
3 or 4 large LCD's with low ms response times all running 1600x1200 with full AA and ansio.
*drool-diddly-ool*

<b><i>"Why don't you try practicing random acts of intelligence and senseless acts of self-control?"</b></i> :eek: 
July 24, 2003 8:37:33 AM

i know. but there's more than just a photo that mathers. we have to simulate time as well, namely effects like motionblur and similar time-based effects. rendering photo-realistic _is_ doable today. problem is, a lot of effects don't behave mathematically correct at 100%, so while one photo looks good, once you move, you can determine irregularities..

and yes, once you added realistic reaction on moved scenes, it looks much more natural.

and i know what you mean with photorealism. but you agree in the end you don't want to watch photos.. you want to watch movies.. well.. you want to play them actually:D 

both will be doable..

here: http://graphics.ucsd.edu/~henrik/animations/jensen-the_... on http://graphics.ucsd.edu/~henrik/

thats about what we want realtime.. photorealism? definitely..

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com
July 24, 2003 12:46:57 PM

sorry to be blunt everyone... but woopty-f****ng-doo, photo realism.

Is it just me, or does everyone just wanna play interactive real-time rendered moveies?

remember when they first managed to fill up CD's with FMV's we had the interactive movie "game"... methinks we'll get something similiar when they finally put out real time radiosity lit scenes etc... :) 

<b>I'll say here and now: games are nothing without gameplay</b>, sorry to appear the cranky spoil-sport, but really... the games you're gonna remember is the one that was a good game, not necessarily the one with photo realistic graphics.

*fin*
(feel free to flame me now!)

Jack
July 24, 2003 1:32:33 PM

of course..

but once hw is simply capable of doing it right right from the start, there is no need to release hw with "ps2.0 support, dx9 and these and that features!". a game will not be a seller because its based on doom3 => has superb graphics.

thats why i want a full general solution to our todays problem: realistic graphics.

once we're there, and we will in some years, there is no need to hype a games graphic technology. you can say then "woah, thats great artistic work", or "woah, thats creative designed" but not "boah, great graphics engine!".

so to be good, a game then has to be, again, designed well, done well, playable well..

same for physics.. but there, havoc (havoc2) does a great job, as you can see in hl2.. quite fully general working yet today. so no hyping like in red faction "you can blow things" but the game is [-peep-]. in hl2 "you can blow things" as well.. but so what? you can do tons of other stuff, like GAMING, as well:D 

today good graphics are a lot of work and something special, both for software, and for hardware, so it gets hyped, marketized a lot.

once that changed, graphics don't mather that much anymore. design will..

and i think thats what we all want, not?

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com
July 24, 2003 2:09:14 PM

Ah. I didn't know what you were getting at before. So drop the "photo" and think realism.

I just want games to look, rather, feel more realistic. Maybe they don't have to be picture perfect to do this but I don't know how to qualify what I'm trying to say.


<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>
July 24, 2003 2:28:54 PM

no problem. have you liked the video?

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com
July 24, 2003 2:37:18 PM

Quote:
no problem. have you liked the video?

Don't know yet (56K connection).

<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>
July 24, 2003 3:11:04 PM

hm.. but the divx version is small.. does it take THAT long? i don't remember anymore...:D 

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com
July 24, 2003 3:32:17 PM

Got it. I liked it. That's what I am talking about. It's realistic. I know the original contained over a million polygons but was compressed to a small format divx (320 x 240) and then blew it up to full screen. With all that loss of detail it still looked "realistic".

What level of quality would it take to give that same impression of realism in real-time games? How far off is the hardware to do it (in your opinion)?

<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>
July 24, 2003 3:35:07 PM

I agree, I personally prefer very colorful games.. 2D still kicks ass and is way overlooked.
Needs to be more mixing of 2D (such as HOMM4) and 3D (who the hell isnt obsessed with this anymore).

I'm more excited about the 3D getting so detailed (instead of the ugly empty polys we've been handed for YEARS now, whilst killing off our precious adventure games genre in favor of run 'n gun games).
Prime example of damn ugly (IMHO) 3D would be Virtua Fighter series (*cough*), and FX Fighter (although FX was kinda nice..)
damn good gfx= Age of Mythology, Rise of Nations (colorful yet realistic)

I'm like you Im all about a good story and besides Half Life I dont find myself attracted to many FPS...
But what the hell do I know, I still in rare instances play Zork at my parents.
(thats a text based game for you gaming newcomers)

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
July 24, 2003 4:59:36 PM

Quote:
I'm more excited about the 3D getting so detailed

yeah, I once tried to make a fairly simple game where I took some Q3 models (got a .md3 loader from some website) and made a very very trivial "world" (a few cubes) and tried to see how many I could get moving around... to be honest, it didn't work to well (and I got bored and gave up!)...

But, say I could invest some more time and get it right.. we could have games where we have 2 or 3 'Nvidia Dawn' characters on screen, or we could have 10-20 Quake-3 level models on screen.

<i>I'm not necessarily saying this is better, but it would be interesting to see if we could spread out current detail over many many more objects/bits of the world, rather than just extend 1 or 2 parts of the world to be stupidly high detail...</i>

Quote:
once we're there, and we will in some years

yeah, I agree to a certain point... but its an inevitable fact that whilst we pack more power/features into ANY part of our computers there will be people who will sell products on the basis of it just using the latest features. Do you really expect Carmack/Sweeney to slow down/stop?

Quote:
good graphics are a lot of work

this i think touches on a thread I was involved in once on GDNet... The bottom line was that the engines (graphics+others) take a disproportionate amount of development time. Hence why middleware physics (havoc for example) has been so successful.

It was suggested that in 3-4yrs most engine components could be middleware, a new game would be about picking one of 3-4 specialised (or generalised) 3D engines (like ID does with Quake/Doom engines), licencing said engine(s) and then spending a year or two working on the core gameplay.

Very few games make much profit now, partly because the development costs are so high (pay an entire team for 4yrs, only to get a game that sells for a few months), that the financial side of the industry will push/force people down different roads.

Jack
a b U Graphics card
July 24, 2003 5:01:33 PM

I agree it will be one of those things, 'NOW that we have the techonology let's make GOOD use of it, not just use it for the sake of using it.
I'm looking forward to XIII (13 for those Roman challenged), it's not going to be anywhere near photorealistic, but it's supposed to have great game play with good enemy AI. We'll just have to see if I care that it looks like a cartoon. I doubt it will matter.
I will say this though good game AND good visuals kick but. I love Morrowind (especially when TrueForm works well), and to this day can't think of a game that makes me feel like it's almost a real living/breathing place.

Good Physics, GOOD AI, Good Gameplay, and then add (like sprinkles) GOOD Visuals, there, you have the perfect game. Also add good Psychics (good predictive AI) with good Physiques (hot chicks) and then it's TRUELY the perfect game. :wink:


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
!