Thoughts on ATI/NVidia, 5850/5870....

[flexy]

*) early benchmarks look impressive, but tell me the number of people who run 2560x 8AA 16AF....respective the nr. of people who own displays who can even take such a resolution...

*) $399 is actually surprisingly cheap....wonder how much NV wants for their DX11 cards

*) DX11 is not getting interesting for a few months ----> expect even more price drops. Dont tell me graphics cards get more expensive....usually they DONT

*) You will laugh, but i really started to <3 CUDA on my 275, and together with lack of "3d Vision" i think the lack of CUDA seriously sucks for the ATI cards.

I just encoded a few videos to H264 with 60-70 FPS, about 20x speed of normal CPU based encoding..it just fricking rocks. There is still potential since CUDA development/support is still in early stages...would just hate to get a new DX11 ATI card and not have CUDA ;(

(I know there is an ATI equivalent...but i dont know how many codecs/apps support this)

F.

 

[tommo123]

why would CUDA matter now? can't you run openCL on any DX11 GPU? physics is also a part of DX11 right?

 

[Kakkoii]

Originally posted by: tommo123
why would CUDA matter now? can't you run openCL on any DX11 GPU? physics is also a part of DX11 right?

Lol, "physics" is not a part of DX11. DX11 introduces a new DirectCompute API, that allows you to use DX11 to do general computing on a GPU's shaders. So through this, you could port a physics engine to DirectCompute, and have it run on the GPU, like PhysX does.

Here's to hoping nvidia ports PhysX to DirectCompute or OpenCL. Although I highly doubt it.


And CUDA has gained a lot of ground in other industries apart from gaming. So it still matters for many others who aren't just gamers:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_home.html

 

[dguy6789]

"*) early benchmarks look impressive, but tell me the number of people who run 2560x 8AA 16AF....respective the nr. of people who own displays who can even take such a resolution... "

You know, there was a time when people would ask that same kind of question about 640x480. The reason many people don't run at those settings is because a monitor that can do that is expensive and a card that can do that is expensive. Eventually they will both be more affordable due to progress and competition.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: tommo123
why would CUDA matter now? can't you run openCL on any DX11 GPU? physics is also a part of DX11 right?

Again, as stated in numerous other threads. CUDA is an "architecture", not an API.
The programming language is C with extensions for CUDA, which happens to be very closely related to OpenCL. The "CUDA architecture" isn't going to end because OpenCL arrives.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
"*) early benchmarks look impressive, but tell me the number of people who run 2560x 8AA 16AF....respective the nr. of people who own displays who can even take such a resolution... "

You know, there was a time when people would ask that same kind of question about 640x480. The reason many people don't run at those settings is because a monitor that can do that is expensive and a card that can do that is expensive. Eventually they will both be more affordable due to progress and competition.

Cheaper to buy 3x24" monitors and do a triple monitor setup than it is to buy a single 30" monitor that does 2560x1600.
But then the new ATI cards can do either/both.

 

[Compddd]

I used a 24" for years and then last year upgraded to a 30"

I'll never use anything smaller again. 2560 x 1600 is fantastic

 

[Dribble]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: tommo123
why would CUDA matter now? can't you run openCL on any DX11 GPU? physics is also a part of DX11 right?

Again, as stated in numerous other threads. CUDA is an "architecture", not an API.
The programming language is C with extensions for CUDA, which happens to be very closely related to OpenCL. The "CUDA architecture" isn't going to end because OpenCL arrives.

It's more then that as I understand it.

Cuda provides a application api (C with extensions) and a driver api. Open CL only provides the driver api, and because it's a one size fits all that driver api is missing some cuda functionality - these extra features are available via extensions but that defeats the purpose as those extensions will be different for nvidia/ati.

Hence to really catch up with cuda we need:
a) An opencl 1.1 which has all the important opencl extensions provided by cuda as standard.
b) an application api very similar to the one in cuda - the opencl group won't provide this, some 3rd party is going to have to write it.

Then opencl can truly compete with cuda. Until then you can use it but it will be slower and harder to programme for.

Chances are this is going to take years as opencl is developed via committee which is slow, in which case I very much expect direct x compute to overtake opencl and become the standard as:
a) they are really only writing it for graphics cards and it's microsofts baby so they can fairly quickly add the driver level extensions to put it on an equal basis to cuda.
b) microsoft can write the application api - and being a software company with tons of experience they will be good at that.

Eventually chances are direct x compute will surpass cuda (due to microsoft providing better development tools), and cuda will die. opencl will hang around for those who don't like microsoft (a bit like opengl vs direct x in graphics). Physx will get ported to both and have a number of competitors. However this might take a year or two.

 

[AzN]

You do know that GPU video encoding is available on ATI cards too right?

Still I'm not impressed with the new cards until more demanding PC games are on the market with good game play or story line.

Immersion is what I want with the right combination of eye candy, sound, story, gameplay. not just faster cards so we can post 3dmark scores for e-penis.

 

[jimhsu]

I think it's time that we significantly start increasing PPI on standard LCD displays. Current monitors out there are at most 100 PPI (1920x1200 on a 24") .. we really need resolution independent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_independence) user interfaces.

Perhaps the 5xxx series is a step in that direction.

PS a good article: www.veritasetvisus.com/VVHR-2, Walker.pdf

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: jimhsu
I think it's time that we significantly start increasing PPI on standard LCD displays. Current monitors out there are at most 100 PPI (1920x1200 on a 24") .. we really need resolution independent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_independence) user interfaces.

Perhaps the 5xxx series is a step in that direction.

PS a good article: www.veritasetvisus.com/VVHR-2,%20Walker.pdf

agreed, it would be awesome if we could match the print world standard of 300 ppi

 

[coreyb]

My 285 does the job nicely. Going to wait until DX11 games are the norm before upgrading.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: dguy6789
"*) early benchmarks look impressive, but tell me the number of people who run 2560x 8AA 16AF....respective the nr. of people who own displays who can even take such a resolution... "

You know, there was a time when people would ask that same kind of question about 640x480. The reason many people don't run at those settings is because a monitor that can do that is expensive and a card that can do that is expensive. Eventually they will both be more affordable due to progress and competition.

Cheaper to buy 3x24" monitors and do a triple monitor setup than it is to buy a single 30" monitor that does 2560x1600.
But then the new ATI cards can do either/both.

and have 2 lines running down my screen. If I bought a monitor that had a black line running down at the 1/3 and 2/3rds mark I'd return it and maybe never buy from that company again. I'll stick with my 32" tv and hopefully eventually get a 19" for webbrowsing (used to have a 17" that I liked having a lot for secondary tasks)

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: coreyb
My 285 does the job nicely. Going to wait until DX11 games are the norm before upgrading.

I think you will be waiting a long time because DX10 games are still not the norm lol

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: dguy6789
"*) early benchmarks look impressive, but tell me the number of people who run 2560x 8AA 16AF....respective the nr. of people who own displays who can even take such a resolution... "

You know, there was a time when people would ask that same kind of question about 640x480. The reason many people don't run at those settings is because a monitor that can do that is expensive and a card that can do that is expensive. Eventually they will both be more affordable due to progress and competition.

Cheaper to buy 3x24" monitors and do a triple monitor setup than it is to buy a single 30" monitor that does 2560x1600.
But then the new ATI cards can do either/both.

and have 2 lines running down my screen. If I bought a monitor that had a black line running down at the 1/3 and 2/3rds mark I'd return it and maybe never buy from that company again. I'll stick with my 32" tv and hopefully eventually get a 19" for webbrowsing (used to have a 17" that I liked having a lot for secondary tasks)

If you had read any reviews, most people say the lines are hardly noticeable, because most of the action happens on the center screen. Also, have fun with your 1080p TV, i'll take a 5760 x 1200 screen, tyvm.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: coreyb
My 285 does the job nicely. Going to wait until DX11 games are the norm before upgrading.

I think you will be waiting a long time because DX10 games are still not the norm lol

Actually, this suggests DX10 is being skipped, and DX11 will be the new norm. While DX10 was essentially a flop.

 

[Golgatha]

Here's a thought. I'd love to upgrade to the HD 5870, but I just realized that at 11 inches long, it probably won't fit in my case.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Golgatha
Here's a thought. I'd love to upgrade to the HD 5870, but I just realized that at 11 inches long, it probably won't fit in my case.

I have that problem too so might go with the 5850 instead if it's shorter.

 

[Valis]

I run my games on an EIZO 17" CRT with 1280x1024 Res. Have a HD 38xx series card X2.

 

[Dribble]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: dguy6789
"*) early benchmarks look impressive, but tell me the number of people who run 2560x 8AA 16AF....respective the nr. of people who own displays who can even take such a resolution... "

You know, there was a time when people would ask that same kind of question about 640x480. The reason many people don't run at those settings is because a monitor that can do that is expensive and a card that can do that is expensive. Eventually they will both be more affordable due to progress and competition.

Cheaper to buy 3x24" monitors and do a triple monitor setup than it is to buy a single 30" monitor that does 2560x1600.
But then the new ATI cards can do either/both.

and have 2 lines running down my screen. If I bought a monitor that had a black line running down at the 1/3 and 2/3rds mark I'd return it and maybe never buy from that company again. I'll stick with my 32" tv and hopefully eventually get a 19" for webbrowsing (used to have a 17" that I liked having a lot for secondary tasks)

If you had read any reviews, most people say the lines are hardly noticeable, because most of the action happens on the center screen. Also, have fun with your 1080p TV, i'll take a 5760 x 1200 screen, tyvm.

It's easy to simulate:
1) cut some strips of black card and tape them to your current screen for the bezels.
2) game windowed using only the top third of the screen to simulate the aspect ratio.
3) move the screen closer too you to simulate the size.

Other then resolution the effect will be identical. See how you get on, if you don't like it then you can thank me later for saving you the cost of 2 screens and a very expensive graphics card

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Dribble

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: dguy6789
"*) early benchmarks look impressive, but tell me the number of people who run 2560x 8AA 16AF....respective the nr. of people who own displays who can even take such a resolution... "

You know, there was a time when people would ask that same kind of question about 640x480. The reason many people don't run at those settings is because a monitor that can do that is expensive and a card that can do that is expensive. Eventually they will both be more affordable due to progress and competition.

Cheaper to buy 3x24" monitors and do a triple monitor setup than it is to buy a single 30" monitor that does 2560x1600.
But then the new ATI cards can do either/both.

and have 2 lines running down my screen. If I bought a monitor that had a black line running down at the 1/3 and 2/3rds mark I'd return it and maybe never buy from that company again. I'll stick with my 32" tv and hopefully eventually get a 19" for webbrowsing (used to have a 17" that I liked having a lot for secondary tasks)

If you had read any reviews, most people say the lines are hardly noticeable, because most of the action happens on the center screen. Also, have fun with your 1080p TV, i'll take a 5760 x 1200 screen, tyvm.

It's easy to simulate:
1) cut some strips of black card and tape them to your current screen for the bezels.
2) game windowed using only the top third of the screen to simulate the aspect ratio.
3) move the screen closer too you to simulate the size.

Other then resolution the effect will be identical. See how you get on, if you don't like it then you can thank me later for saving you the cost of 2 screens and a very expensive graphics card

Do you have any idea how big of a single monitor you'd have to try that on for each "section" to not be insanely small? Your idea will make people not like it exclusively because of how small each section will be. Not to mention everything would be displayer wrong proportionally across the three sections.

With the Eyefinity, people will be using 3 22" monitors, 3 24", or 3 30" most likely. Your game view isn't hindered in any way when you do this either. Your center screen will display the exact same thing that you see already when playing a game with a single monitor, the side screens will just display extra peripheral view. Human peripheral view is already much less focused as well, you won't be bothered by the sections between the monitors much at all. You're never supposed to look directly at any screen but the center one.

 

[IlllI]

Originally posted by: Golgatha
Here's a thought. I'd love to upgrade to the HD 5870, but I just realized that at 11 inches long, it probably won't fit in my case.

thats what she said!

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: IlllI

Originally posted by: Golgatha
Here's a thought. I'd love to upgrade to the HD 5870, but I just realized that at 11 inches long, it probably won't fit in my case.

thats what she said!

I like it when people avoid buying 400$ videocards, just because they don't fit into 40$ cases. Very smart indeed.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Dribble

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: dguy6789
"*) early benchmarks look impressive, but tell me the number of people who run 2560x 8AA 16AF....respective the nr. of people who own displays who can even take such a resolution... "

You know, there was a time when people would ask that same kind of question about 640x480. The reason many people don't run at those settings is because a monitor that can do that is expensive and a card that can do that is expensive. Eventually they will both be more affordable due to progress and competition.

Cheaper to buy 3x24" monitors and do a triple monitor setup than it is to buy a single 30" monitor that does 2560x1600.
But then the new ATI cards can do either/both.

and have 2 lines running down my screen. If I bought a monitor that had a black line running down at the 1/3 and 2/3rds mark I'd return it and maybe never buy from that company again. I'll stick with my 32" tv and hopefully eventually get a 19" for webbrowsing (used to have a 17" that I liked having a lot for secondary tasks)

If you had read any reviews, most people say the lines are hardly noticeable, because most of the action happens on the center screen. Also, have fun with your 1080p TV, i'll take a 5760 x 1200 screen, tyvm.

It's easy to simulate:
1) cut some strips of black card and tape them to your current screen for the bezels.
2) game windowed using only the top third of the screen to simulate the aspect ratio.
3) move the screen closer too you to simulate the size.

Other then resolution the effect will be identical. See how you get on, if you don't like it then you can thank me later for saving you the cost of 2 screens and a very expensive graphics card

Do you have any idea how big of a single monitor you'd have to try that on for each "section" to not be insanely small? Your idea will make people not like it exclusively because of how small each section will be. Not to mention everything would be displayer wrong proportionally across the three sections.

With the Eyefinity, people will be using 3 22" monitors, 3 24", or 3 30" most likely. Your game view isn't hindered in any way when you do this either. Your center screen will display the exact same thing that you see already when playing a game with a single monitor, the side screens will just display extra peripheral view. Human peripheral view is already much less focused as well, you won't be bothered by the sections between the monitors much at all. You're never supposed to look directly at any screen but the center one.

placing black strips over a screen is also flawed logic because it will cover up pixels, whereas with Eyefinity you won't be missing any pixels, so nothing is obstructing your view of the game world, its just separated.

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: IlllI

Originally posted by: Golgatha
Here's a thought. I'd love to upgrade to the HD 5870, but I just realized that at 11 inches long, it probably won't fit in my case.

thats what she said!

I like it when people avoid buying 400$ videocards, just because they don't fit into 40$ cases. Very smart indeed.

you have a point, but...

replacing a video card is infinitely easier than replacing a case...some people might not want to/be able to move all their components into a new case...its a major operation, so to speak.

In my case (excuse the wordplay)...i have one of those "everything barely fits" cases...my current GTX275 just fit with some tricks with literally 1mm room.

I dont mind spending an afternoon replacing a case...but for other people it might be a turn-off.