Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
They have nothing to do with each other.
T&L is what basically the Pixel shader / vertex shader portion of a 'modern' gfx card does. Before hand those calculation would have had to be done on the CPU, with the GFX 'accelerator' outputting the result to the screen.
So in essence, it hasnt been replaced, but its just a very basic, archaic term for what the shader engines do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transform_and_Lighting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfo...g_and_Lighting
from what I understand, "T&L" is essential, and not yet replaced by any shaders in any GPU. Regardless of the programmable manipulation of pixel values and vertex values, there has to be a mechanism to transform the object 3D world coordiantes into the view frustrum, and onto the 2D screen. Furthermore, all polygon on the boundary of the view frustrum need to be clipped (those not in view ignored). So, like triangle setup, TCL is and for forseeable future will continue to exist.
Now, not sure about the lighting part. In GF/GF2 series they were fixed function DOT3, gloss, specular, etc
that's pretty much all pixel shaders now.
please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_pipeline
wtf is the view frustrum? the edge of what can be seen?Quote:
Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
Peanuts anyone? http://aboutpeanuts.com/
I hope this card has enough power to fight the gfx violence from Supreme commander and Crysis.
be careful using wikipedia as a source for your knowledge. you wouldn't be the first person to own himself due to wrong articles on wikipedia.Quote:
Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
oops.. my post about view frustrum was lost (stupid wireless).
view frustrum:
it is the projected area being rendered. From the pinhole camera imagine 4 lines being projected out into the distance in a shape of a rectange.
At some close distance you have the front plane. In some games you might notice that you can go into objects.. and they look cutoff. This is the effect of clipping at the front plane. Things behind the front plane are not drawn onto the viewing plane.
At some large distance, typically where you have fog or obsucrity is the back plane. In some games thats not far, but others like Far Cry its really really far. But nevertheless, there is a distance at which enemies and objects magically disappear.. this is the effect of the back plane.
The area within is the viewing frustrum. Only polygons within the viewing frustrum are transformed (in 4D to allow both translation and rotation), lit per vertex, and clipped. There is additional Z buffer that can be used to help speed up the ordering of the objects within this space from front to back and render pixel only for the object on top. Otherwise, like back in the Riva/Rage days, ALL the objects were rendered on top of each other (back then memory was scarce with 2-4MB cards).
In addition ATI/nVidia have hierarchal early Z rejection, to quickly eliminate whole objects and areas from consideration for rendering (in early days the drivers had some quirks and sometimes there were holes in surfaces because of this). A variant of this is "ultrashadow" where large portions of shadow volume are skipped from rendering because not in view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occlusion_culling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperZ
What do you guys make of all the hyper-active folks getting overly excited that R600 wont have just 64 shaders but 64 pipelines!!
Am I the only one who no longer "cares" about melodramatic jumps in Mhz, or brute force approach with more execution units.
Have we learned nothing from P4 vs Athlon64 (and now vs Core 2 Duo)?
What about R300( 9700pro) agressive use of caching and compression as well as hyperZ to dramatically reduce workload?
I personally much prefer the "work smarter" vs the "work harder" approach. Both X1800 and 6800 have 16 pipelines yet look at the dramatic difference in efficiency. For all I care, R600 could have 16 pipelines too.
Sorry if it's old info but do you guys think these new cards will be bottlenecked in a 2*8X sli setup?
Or have we already seen this happen? I havn't used sli since 7800gt so I haven't been keeping myself updated really...
Are these specs confirmed?
Judging by the pictures of the card, with it's hybrid water/air cooler, and 12 memory chips(384-bit memory bus)... They look to be real
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/d...929090635.html
and what do you think about this:
full length dense fin heatsink with water plugs
two PCIE power connectors
very long PCB.
I just hope in all this is that GT models will be "normal" This is just getting stupid... e-penis and geek-penis enlargements GPU companies have gone made this time around!!
________
Ipad guide
It has been said once and I'll repeat it. "It's not worth it to buy the 1st gen DX10 video cards..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
So shud i buy a X1950XTX or X1900xt CF now. n Wait for 2 yrs before Upgrading to 2nd or 3rd Gen Cards, Will i be good enuf to play at High settings uptill 2yrs ??. I m not rich, i cant afford to upgrade every year.
That's totally up to you at this point. There are no games intensive enough to warrant a next gen video card upgrade unless you plan on buying Vista ie. DX10.Quote:
Originally Posted by ANP !!!
Untill DX10 games are more mainstream then vaporware, save your money and keep what you have. I haven't notice gaming developers flocking to DX10 just yet.
many game developers have been actively using DX10 for game development for long time.. there will be many DX10 games in 2007.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
next gen DX10 hardware will be feature superior and much faster than existing hardware.
Games like Oblivion in some areas with all the features turned to maximum strain the most powerful single video cards today 7900GTX/X1900XTX.
BUT
It will take many months, well into summer for nVidia/ATI to get mature Vista DX10 drivers.. likewise, a while for chipset drivers as well as Windows updates to make stable platform. Likewise, games will see their share of patches and updates as they work the bugs out. And as for the performance, well it wouldn't kill you to run wiht 2xAA instead of 8xAA, or turn down the resultion a notch from 1600x1200 to 1280x1024.. I mean... are you really willing to go through all the headaches of being a virtual beta tester for months when you can stick with existing hardware?
Yep G80 will be faster no matter how fast the current cards are. So i think i ll have to wait for G80 Since i want something that can power my 2407, untill then i ll run my 6600 card as a Standby. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
IMHO
Its very well possible its the real thing.
But questions:
* 12 memomory chips... so 384/768MB, and 192/384bit memory interface.
* where are all the capacitors?
* 2 PCIE connectors.. lots of power being used.. but sensible to increase stability.
* Looks like multiple redundant voltage regulators for GPU and/or memory.
* Plenty of big inductors on the front and some on the back.. but where are the big power transistors that make up part of buck converter?
* SLI bridge! OMG putting two in a case together!
FYI IMHO they are using multiple-phase power circuitry like on recent motherboards.. smaller (but multiple) capactiors, inductors, and power transistors needed.
http://www.hardocp.com/images/news/1...hCAw_1_3_l.jpg
notice 12 memory chips, and multiple voltage regulators and additional power transistors on back
http://www.hardocp.com/images/news/1...hCAw_1_5_l.jpg
only 2 big inductors, and 2 big capacitors. Many many transistors all silk screened Qxxx. Notice the bank of smaller ceramic capacitors to the right...
I just that this is not the retail version and that you are not forced to have to use both PEG jacks.
I note that while they've possibly enabled water cooling they didn't use a copper cored air heatsink. That seems a bit out of place, to have a use for water as a top end option, but not enough need that a good copper air cooler was used. Maybe this will be the GT GTX difference, or perhaps the water will be some kind of ultra type of card, with both GT and GTX being air based. I'm not going to start on the whole gtx vs ultra issue. I'm getting at the heart of what I'm seeing doesn't seem to speak of being super hot in all formats.
I can say I'm glad if they are blowing the hot air out the back again. That's better than letting it collect inside the case. But there are no heatpipes? Yet we have a water version? This all seems odd in a way, not wrong, but just odd.
Eastcoast touches on a good point however. The 2nd refresh could easily come with a process shrinkage 7800 vs 7900 springs to mind, and that might make the first edition very hot and the second one cooler. So there is that to think about.
Lastly, some folks are running 1920 and 2560 resolutions and while not needed AA necessarily, driving that many pixels with a lot of modern eye candy can really drag down a single card. So I'm thinking we aren't quite out of the "need" range in powerful gpu's yet. There are still ways to bring the most powerful gpu's directly to their knees.
:)
using up to 250W full load for GTX
the water cooling G80 is going to cost around 900$ (not sure but it is what they are talking about today)
for GT is about 180W
short supply for G80
using GDDR3
I think you're completely wrong... I'm so sure, that I'm willing to bet that if I lose I'll post photo of me in panties.Quote:
Originally Posted by guess2098