well, what now?

phial · Sep 26, 2003

i geuss in light of recent news, all we have to do is wait for XGI to release their cards eh?

if they flop like they probably will, then i guess we will have quite a monopoly wont we... i love ATI but a monopoly benifits no one.. its not like ATI isnt a huge a company with accountants etc.. they will sway like Nvidia eventually if they get in that position. its just the way things work.

-------

................

TKS · Sep 26, 2003

currently...Nvidia owns 64% of the desktop market and 60% of the mobility desktop market. ATI is far from a monopoly.

Nvidia, the way it's meant to be benchmarked.

ufo_warviper · Sep 26, 2003

The future really looks grim. Maybe Volari can pull this off. I was reading that THG says that the Volari cards appear to be impressive from what they've noticed. The Duo V8 is "supposed" to be faster than anything else out there. The Duo V5 is supposed to compete with the Radeon 9800 Pro & the FX5800. Only time will tell if XGI can live up to their claims. Fortunately, we don't have to wait too long. THey said they will test these cards in a couple of weeks. So everybody, in the meantime cross your fingers and lets hope for the best.

More Info can be found here:
<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/business/200309251/computex_2003_3-11.html" target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/business/200309251/computex_2003_3-11.html</A>

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!

TheGreatGrapeApe · Sep 26, 2003

TKS, those figure are definitely off. Intel OWNZ the desktop market with figures in that region 60%. nV onws the AD-in, err add-in market but the figures are closer to 50%, and ATI Ownz the Mobile market with figures closer to 60%. WIth ATI likely to get Intel's business, we shall see what happens.

I don't like a monopoly either, and I don't think we'll have it either, but the perception that we can sell more cards than we can make (basiclally the poisition ATI finds itself in) then it's almost as bad. There is no drive to bring out bigger and better stuff. Without a strong opposing product (not legacy) then there's no motivating force for improvement/change.

That's just my 2 frames worth.

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

phial · Sep 27, 2003

uhhh

no

-------

................

phial · Sep 27, 2003

yes but 2 gpus on one cards? man thats gonna be EXPENSIVE

who the hell is going to buy that thing...

-------

................

Bahumut · Sep 27, 2003

ATI and 3DFX came out with similar dual GPU technology a long time ago. I beleive ATI's version was called MAXX technology.
They both dropped it because it increased production costs more than it helped performance.

If XGI actually developed a chip that is on par with the current top-of-the-line chips, then XGI's dual chip implementation will beat them no question.

However, because the second chip is a very large distance from the first chip (compared to internal transistors), synchronization time and latency will be huge. It's like comparing the speed of system memory to the L1 cache on a processor.

Performance will increase a bit, but at a rediculous cost

erformance ratio. The money would be better spent researching other ways to increase performance. If you're going to pay for twice the transistors, why not put it in a single chip.

Then again, ATI and nVidia have severely overpriced their chips. XGI might be able to put their dual chip cards in the same price category with a lower profit margin.

53 69 67 6E 61 74 75 72 65 20 69 6E 20 48 65 78 21

Crashman · Sep 27, 2003

ATI could maintain their lead for another 6 months and nVidia would still have the sales advantagein retail cards. People are that brand loyal.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

eden · Sep 27, 2003

Two things that tell me you don't make a right point:

1) The Itanium scales at an almost 100% perfect state with extra processors. Yet they are all seperate chips on the board itself. It does not necessarily mean destroyed latency. It's all about the software knowing how to assign threads to each CPU, in sync. They don't just do it on their own.

2)Following point 1, my guess is the chips will render in turns of frame. Thus latency is moot, because each is timing itself.

I am not 100% sure how their chips work, nor does anyone really, but if Intel can make Itanium scale this well, or AMD can make K8s scale well in Opteron x processor configs, it is possible if not even easier on graphics boards, because, just like the higher clocked DDR memory on GFX cards, the layout is MUCH shorter and simpler.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

phial · Sep 27, 2003

However, because the second chip is a very large distance from the first chip (compared to internal transistors), synchronization time and latency will be huge. It's like comparing the speed of system memory to the L1 cache on a processor.

Performance will increase a bit, but at a rediculous costerformance ratio. The money would be better spent researching other ways to increase performance. If you're going to pay for twice the transistors, why not put it in a single chip.

yeah tats true, tho ive never thought of it like that

i actually have a voodoo5 6000 sitting over on my desk... useless POS really, no faster than my GF2 MX400

-------

................

eden · Sep 27, 2003

Phial did you also jump over my post again?

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

phial · Sep 27, 2003

no why would i? you just posted about stuff i dont really know much about (itanium etc)

-------

................

ufo_warviper · Sep 27, 2003

Really? I thought the Voodoo5 was supposed to be a little faster than that. Oh well, it couldn't have beaten a GTS by any stretch of the imagination. People actually used to argue how good the Image Quality was on Voodoo cards and really overhyped the Full Scene Anti Aliasing Feature. In fact, if I had a choice between FSAA & AF only, I would take max Ansiotropic filtering any day over FSAA. FSAA is nice though. It's just a shame that Ansio didn't get the hype that FSAA did back then.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!

eden · Sep 27, 2003

I posted stuff to discredit his argument, which was in relation to the distance of chips!

The whole point was that GPUs are WAY WAY faster and have WAY WAY less latency compared to CPUs, yet the recent CPUs in dual configs scale excellently, so why should Dual GPU setups be any worse? They should be in fact near perfect!

Think of why DDR can scale so high on GFX cards yet the very same is used on mainboards but can't go higher than 250MHZ!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

phial · Sep 27, 2003

yea thats a good example.. i just didnt know what you meant. but yeah, makes sense

-------

................

coolsquirtle · Sep 27, 2003

think of it this way

CPU process data and multimedia
GPU does ALOT OF multimedia

of course GPU is more complex Picture is always more complex than text

RIP Block Heater....HELLO P4~~~~~
120% nVidia Fanboy
PROUD OWNER OF THE GEFORCE FX 5950ULTRA <-- I wish this was me
waiting for aBox~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TKS · Sep 28, 2003

uhh...perhaps so. Check the link in the next post

Nvidia, the way it's meant to be benchmarked.

TKS · Sep 28, 2003

<A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20030731084600.html" target="_new">http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20030731084600.html</A>

I wasn't talking about chipset integrated graphics. I was talking about standalone and laptop graphics. Looks like I may have read the article wrong on the mobility section where ATI gets around 59% according to the article. And of course I should have included DX9 in my qualifications....but I think Nvidia has a pretty firm hold on the DX8 and DX7 vid card market as well.

Nvidia, the way it's meant to be benchmarked.

Parhelia · Sep 28, 2003

hehe, i think that xgi's cards will be powerfull enough, and for a new company, surely the prices will be low, cos they need to sell to get money, so thats not theire point of releasing a toooooo expensive board. and if u noticed that gigabit and powercolor will produce cards for it, than gigabit is not too expensive, but powercolor is cheaper. So i think that they will disturb a lot ATI and NVIDIA with these new chips.
But the sales will not be big, cos almost all the users upgraded theire graphic boards, it will take some time, to make other upgrades and buy. And with the time XGI introduces these garaphics boards, ATI and NVIDIA will introduce newer ones with it, so perhaps we will have the same performance among all, so that the difference will be only the price among them.
XGI didn't do like 3dfx cos the chip of 3dfx was not that powerfull, thats why they put two chip together or more. but in this case the v8 and the v5 is already powerfull enough, but the duo is for TOP performance.
I think that XGI will sell a lot more single chips that duo's. and perhaps XGI cards will not be so powerfull enough, like the xabre, they told a lot of thing and of its spec before the release, and it looked powerfull, but in test they was awfull.

ONE LAST QUESTION WHERE IS KYRO?????? THEY STOPED LIKE THIS AND NO ONE EVER HEARD OF IT, IT WAS A POWERFULL CHIP FOR ITS MONEY REALY

well, what now?

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Polypheme

Champion

Splendid

Champion

Splendid

Distinguished

Champion

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Share this page