NV40 to have 222 million transistors

  • Thread starter Thread starter NV55
  • Start date Start date
Did they say whether or not the cards would be overpriced pieces of shit
that create a 120 decibel swirling force-ten wind vortex just like the last
generation of nVidia cards did?
Click to expand...

Or the Ati ones that overheat and fail after 6 months. RMA ( if you
are lucky ) and get another one -- then repeat cycle.

John Lewis
 
Did they say whether or not the cards would be overpriced pieces of shit
that create a 120 decibel swirling force-ten wind vortex just like the last
generation of nVidia cards did?
Click to expand...

I've heard rumors that testing was halted at one stage due to several
tornados being spawned inside the NVIDIA complex.

The bureau of meteorology has expressed interest in obtaining some of
these cards for their super computer powered weather simulations. :-)

Ricardo Delazy
 
Darkfalz said:
Wow, only took them 4 years to catch up to the Voodoo5 in terms of AA
quality.

Of course, the Voodoo5 wasn't exactly playable in most games using 4xFSAA -
but it sure did look nice.
Click to expand...

You didn't ever have a V5 did you? Games were perfectly playable - and
beautiful - at 4xFSAA.

Of course, you could get away with playing them at 640x480 (made it look
like 1024x768 I kid you not!)

Those were the days...

Neil
(Hated Nvidia for what they did to 3dfx, then "upgraded" to a GF2 then
finally was able to jump from evil Nvidia when Radeon's became a recognised
force!)
 
You didn't ever have a V5 did you? Games were perfectly playable - and
beautiful - at 4xFSAA.
Click to expand...

I have one now... and still use that system on a daily basis.

I don't consider 20-30 fps in a FPS "playable", and it also made the
controls rather laggy. 2xFSAA was rather playable for Quake 3 and UT, but I
still prefer framerate in FPS.

That being said, 4xFSAA was great for slower moving games like Ultima IX and
is still superb for PSX and N64 emulators.
Of course, you could get away with playing them at 640x480 (made it look
like 1024x768 I kid you not!)
Click to expand...

Nah it didn't, mostly because of the mip mapping is so much blurrier at
lower resolutions. But it did look good.
I will take 1024x768 noAA over 640x480 4xFSAA any day.
Those were the days...

Neil
(Hated Nvidia for what they did to 3dfx, then "upgraded" to a GF2 then
finally was able to jump from evil Nvidia when Radeon's became a recognised
force!)
Click to expand...

I got a 5200 and quickly swapped it for a 5700. Quite happy to be on the
NVIDIA bandwagon now. I consider them the "standard", much like Intel.
 
Tony DiMarzio said:
Thank you for that. Was unaware of R3xx's AA implementation type. However,
I'd argue that RGSS, while much more demanding of the GPU, still produces
better edge and texture quality than RGMS. Then again you can always combine
AF with AA on current hardware to achieve similar effects.
Click to expand...

I agree, but even 3dfx was moving away from super-sampling; Rampage was
going to support only multi-sampling for its AA modes.

If you read nVidia's developer pdf on AA, super-sampling is the only way to
consistently AA DX9 games (depending on how the scene is being rendered).

John
 
Darkfalz said:
I have one now... and still use that system on a daily basis.

I don't consider 20-30 fps in a FPS "playable", and it also made the
controls rather laggy. 2xFSAA was rather playable for Quake 3 and UT, but I
still prefer framerate in FPS.

That being said, 4xFSAA was great for slower moving games like Ultima IX and
is still superb for PSX and N64 emulators.




Nah it didn't, mostly because of the mip mapping is so much blurrier at
lower resolutions. But it did look good.
I will take 1024x768 noAA over 640x480 4xFSAA any day.




I got a 5200 and quickly swapped it for a 5700. Quite happy to be on the
NVIDIA bandwagon now. I consider them the "standard", much like Intel.
Click to expand...
the 5700 Ultra is the shit, the same cannot be said for intel. (AMD FOR
LIFE)AND YES I AM AN nVidia and AMD fanboy. all i can say is that my
friend has had more trouble with his ati 9600 xt than me, ive had mine
longer, play mine more, and have a higher 3dmark01se scores. 5700 ultra
looks like a winner to me...u?
 
Ryan said:
the 5700 Ultra is the shit, the same cannot be said for intel. (AMD FOR
LIFE)AND YES I AM AN nVidia and AMD fanboy. all i can say is that my
friend has had more trouble with his ati 9600 xt than me, ive had mine
longer, play mine more, and have a higher 3dmark01se scores. 5700 ultra
looks like a winner to me...u?
Click to expand...

I have the non ultra, but I got a decent overclock out of it. I'm happy with
the card, one thing I like about it is that it doesn't require a molex
connector. The other card I was considering was the more expensive 9600 XT
but I've heard of lots of problems with this card and ASUS/Intel boards.

I'm not an Intel fanboy, I just stick with them for their performance and
reliability. In my opinion they make better CPUs.
 
Nvidia killed off 3dFX? How? 3dFX used to be the leader in the field. I had
thought 3dFX killed itself when it decided no one needed 32-bit color (3dFX
cards could only do 16-bit color). I remember my 3dFX Voodoo 3/2000 PCI. Quake
2 and Half Life came alive w/that card (I'd been playing in software mode up
'til then).
Neil
(Hated Nvidia for what they did to 3dfx, then "upgraded" to a GF2 then
finally was able to jump from evil Nvidia when Radeon's became a recognised
force!)
Click to expand...


-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
 
But your theory that they make better CPUs can't be right. An AMD Athlon Barton
at the SAME clock speed as ANY Pentium IV beats the Intel hands down, in EVERY
benchmark.
I'm not an Intel fanboy, I just stick with them for their performance and
reliability. In my opinion they make better CPUs.
Click to expand...


-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
 
Darkfalz said:
but I



I have the non ultra, but I got a decent overclock out of it. I'm happy with
the card, one thing I like about it is that it doesn't require a molex
connector. The other card I was considering was the more expensive 9600 XT
but I've heard of lots of problems with this card and ASUS/Intel boards.

I'm not an Intel fanboy, I just stick with them for their performance and
reliability. In my opinion they make better CPUs.
Click to expand...
hell no if you want a good gaming box get an amd. they are much better
when it comes to gaming on a budget.
 
Ryan said:
hell no if you want a good gaming box get an amd. they are much better
when it comes to gaming on a budget.
Click to expand...

My P4 didn't cost that much. In fact it was cheaper than the P3 I bought 4
years ago.
AMD make inferior processors.
 
My P4 didn't cost that much. In fact it was cheaper than the P3 I bought 4
years ago.
AMD make inferior processors.
Click to expand...

Where the hell are you pulling this garbage from? Now I've heard that
ignorance can bring you bliss, but in your case it's made you look like a
retard. Would you, perhaps, care to... say.... explain just HOW AMD
processors are "inferior" to Intel processors? And please, be specific and
use technical examples.

Your response (and yes I'm puting words in your mouth): "Well, uh, my friend
had an AMD processor, I think it was a duron 700, and my P3 blew it away!!
In fact, his even overheated when he took a poop on it. So there!!"

case in point - Your statement is a generalization, and an incorrect one.
Further, you have absolutely no grounds to substantiate it except that your
friend, who is stupid enough to take a shit on a cpu and use it as thermal
paste, bought a duron frikkin 700 and it wasnt as fast as your P3.

Tony
 
Tony DiMarzio said:
Where the hell are you pulling this garbage from? Now I've heard that
ignorance can bring you bliss, but in your case it's made you look like a
retard. Would you, perhaps, care to... say.... explain just HOW AMD
processors are "inferior" to Intel processors? And please, be specific and
use technical examples.

Your response (and yes I'm puting words in your mouth): "Well, uh, my friend
had an AMD processor, I think it was a duron 700, and my P3 blew it away!!
In fact, his even overheated when he took a poop on it. So there!!"

case in point - Your statement is a generalization, and an incorrect one.
Further, you have absolutely no grounds to substantiate it except that your
friend, who is stupid enough to take a shit on a cpu and use it as thermal
paste, bought a duron frikkin 700 and it wasnt as fast as your P3.
Click to expand...

Typical AMD fanboy "ashamed of my inferior CPU" denial.

Look, AMD is fine if it's all you can afford. But people who realise that
you get what you pay for and want quality choose Intel.
 
Darkfalz said:
Typical AMD fanboy "ashamed of my inferior CPU" denial.

Look, AMD is fine if it's all you can afford. But people who realise
that you get what you pay for and want quality choose Intel.
Click to expand...

It's ignorance like this about technology that put Microsoft in the position
it's in. While I could post link to shootouts between Intel's latest and
AMD's latest, I won't even bother, since you can't be bothered to be
educated about this subject before you speak about it.
 
I have both Intel and AMD and I can say I have been greatly impressed my AMD. I used to be Intel all
the way. But you definitely get more for your dollar with AMD than Intel. No problems of any kind
and I have had 4 generations of AMDs by now. This person simply cant accept that he may be wrong by
being a slave to Intel. Not saying Intel processors are bad. Because all AMD is doing is offering
greater value to get you to switch. If they ever become the dominate the same could happen to them
as is happening to Intel.

You get what you payed for - screwed~

Only fools believe you ALWAYS get what you pay for.
 
Wblane said:
But your theory that they make better CPUs can't be right. An AMD Athlon Barton
at the SAME clock speed as ANY Pentium IV beats the Intel hands down, in EVERY
benchmark.
Click to expand...

Clock for clock is meaningless if one architecture scales significantly higher.
 
Back
Top