Where ATI has failed ...

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: flexy
That's why i rather want a 24"+ 120hz LCD for my desk.

I don't think this exists. 22" 1680x1050 is the largest 120MHz LCD IIRC.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: Arkaign
I like Nvidia (have one of their cards now), as well as ATI, but I looked at an Nvidia 3d Vision display at Fry's (running Warcraft rpg thing), and it looked like a bag of smashed arseholes. I don't mean the circa-2003 graphics, which wasn't the fault of anyone but Blizzard, but rather the horrible flickering. Maybe their display was just borked, but it looked horrendously bad.

There cannot be any flourescent lighting. It interferes with the IR signal. At least that is what I have found. Others have mentioned that to. Otherwise, you get hellacious flickering.

Ah, interesting, and it makes sense really. Perhaps they should have put a shroud / umbrella setup over the display area. Fry's has tons of nasty lighting Luckily that's not too common in any home room playing games.

I see a immediate problem with that. As my light bulbs die in my house, I am slowly switching to the low wattage compact fluorescent bulbs (the 13w or so squiggly ones you use to replace the lightbulb shaped incandescent ones) and with the way most households are heading, if the tech doesn't work with florescents, then it's basically useless.

Just about everyone I know is moving towards to the low wattage CFLs and there is a real push in the industry to adoption of those. In the EU & Canada, your normal 40-150w incandescent will be phased out by 2012 and in the US, by 2014.

If the 3D displays not working in florescent lighting is true, then ATi was smart to not spend money on that 3D gaming idea. It's a dead end, worthless technology before it even matures and it would be stupid to invest in the current idea.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: mwmorph
I see a immediate problem with that. As my light bulbs die in my house, I am slowly switching to the low wattage compact fluorescent bulbs (the 13w or so squiggly ones you use to replace the lightbulb shaped incandescent ones) and with the way most households are heading, if the tech doesn't work with florescents, then it's basically useless.

Just about everyone I know is moving towards to the low wattage CFLs and there is a real push in the industry to adoption of those. In the EU & Canada, your normal 40-150w incandescent will be phased out by 2012 and in the US, by 2014.

If the 3D displays not working in florescent lighting is true, then ATi was smart to not spend money on that 3D gaming idea. It's a dead end, worthless technology before it even matures and it would be stupid to invest in the current idea.

I didn't even think of that, pretty much every bulb in my house is florescent. We bought a 24 pack of these bulbs at Costco when we first moved and replaced most of the bulbs.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: mwmorph
I see a immediate problem with that. As my light bulbs die in my house, I am slowly switching to the low wattage compact fluorescent bulbs (the 13w or so squiggly ones you use to replace the lightbulb shaped incandescent ones) and with the way most households are heading, if the tech doesn't work with florescents, then it's basically useless.

Just about everyone I know is moving towards to the low wattage CFLs and there is a real push in the industry to adoption of those. In the EU & Canada, your normal 40-150w incandescent will be phased out by 2012 and in the US, by 2014.

If the 3D displays not working in florescent lighting is true, then ATi was smart to not spend money on that 3D gaming idea. It's a dead end, worthless technology before it even matures and it would be stupid to invest in the current idea.

I didn't even think of that, pretty much every bulb in my house is florescent. We bought a 24 pack of these bulbs at Costco when we first moved and replaced most of the bulbs.

Fluorescent lamps using a magnetic mains frequency ballast do not give out a steady light; instead, they flicker at twice the supply frequency.

However I have noticed that LED based lights are the next wave of incandescent replacement, coming in at about 1/3 the power consumption per lumen of the CFL's, so I'm not sure how long of a market life CFL's really have given the plethora of disadvantages that CFL's have (warmup time that increases over lifespan, lumens decline over lifespan, mercury hazards if broken, etc) which LED based bulbs do not.

I steadily replaced all my incandescent with CFL's over the past 2 years, and now as my 10yr lifetime CFL's start dying off barely a year into their lifespan I am replacing them with LED equivalents. Sams club even stocks them, they are becoming more an more prevalent every day.

 

[SirPauly]

The entertainment industry seems to be moving in this direction in my mind-set and would be wise to build momentum.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: mwmorph
I see a immediate problem with that. As my light bulbs die in my house, I am slowly switching to the low wattage compact fluorescent bulbs (the 13w or so squiggly ones you use to replace the lightbulb shaped incandescent ones) and with the way most households are heading, if the tech doesn't work with florescents, then it's basically useless.

Just about everyone I know is moving towards to the low wattage CFLs and there is a real push in the industry to adoption of those. In the EU & Canada, your normal 40-150w incandescent will be phased out by 2012 and in the US, by 2014.

If the 3D displays not working in florescent lighting is true, then ATi was smart to not spend money on that 3D gaming idea. It's a dead end, worthless technology before it even matures and it would be stupid to invest in the current idea.

I didn't even think of that, pretty much every bulb in my house is florescent. We bought a 24 pack of these bulbs at Costco when we first moved and replaced most of the bulbs.

Fluorescent lamps using a magnetic mains frequency ballast do not give out a steady light; instead, they flicker at twice the supply frequency.

However I have noticed that LED based lights are the next wave of incandescent replacement, coming in at about 1/3 the power consumption per lumen of the CFL's, so I'm not sure how long of a market life CFL's really have given the plethora of disadvantages that CFL's have (warmup time that increases over lifespan, lumens decline over lifespan, mercury hazards if broken, etc) which LED based bulbs do not.

I steadily replaced all my incandescent with CFL's over the past 2 years, and now as my 10yr lifetime CFL's start dying off barely a year into their lifespan I am replacing them with LED equivalents. Sams club even stocks them, they are becoming more an more prevalent every day.

LED lighting is the way to go, perhaps Nvidia will provide a couple of bulbs with their next release, as a hotfix.

 

[reallyscrued]

Originally posted by: flexy
ATI's 3D support was ALWAYS lacking.

That's not true.

Originally posted by: flexy

There's also no question that this is no criteria if someone is not interested in this.

So like...95% of the population of gamers? How many of these people can afford these cards + these TVs?

Yeah, ATI reeeeeeeeeally dropped the ball this time. :roll:

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: mwmorph
I see a immediate problem with that. As my light bulbs die in my house, I am slowly switching to the low wattage compact fluorescent bulbs (the 13w or so squiggly ones you use to replace the lightbulb shaped incandescent ones) and with the way most households are heading, if the tech doesn't work with florescents, then it's basically useless.

Just about everyone I know is moving towards to the low wattage CFLs and there is a real push in the industry to adoption of those. In the EU & Canada, your normal 40-150w incandescent will be phased out by 2012 and in the US, by 2014.

If the 3D displays not working in florescent lighting is true, then ATi was smart to not spend money on that 3D gaming idea. It's a dead end, worthless technology before it even matures and it would be stupid to invest in the current idea.

I didn't even think of that, pretty much every bulb in my house is florescent. We bought a 24 pack of these bulbs at Costco when we first moved and replaced most of the bulbs.

No guys. The long white "traditional" flourescent lights. I have the incandescent replacements bulbs "squiggly bulbs" in every light bulb socket in my house, including right over my head where I have 3DVision setup. There is no flickering of any kind whatsoever with this type of lighting.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: mwmorph
I see a immediate problem with that. As my light bulbs die in my house, I am slowly switching to the low wattage compact fluorescent bulbs (the 13w or so squiggly ones you use to replace the lightbulb shaped incandescent ones) and with the way most households are heading, if the tech doesn't work with florescents, then it's basically useless.

Just about everyone I know is moving towards to the low wattage CFLs and there is a real push in the industry to adoption of those. In the EU & Canada, your normal 40-150w incandescent will be phased out by 2012 and in the US, by 2014.

If the 3D displays not working in florescent lighting is true, then ATi was smart to not spend money on that 3D gaming idea. It's a dead end, worthless technology before it even matures and it would be stupid to invest in the current idea.

I didn't even think of that, pretty much every bulb in my house is florescent. We bought a 24 pack of these bulbs at Costco when we first moved and replaced most of the bulbs.

Fluorescent lamps using a magnetic mains frequency ballast do not give out a steady light; instead, they flicker at twice the supply frequency.

However I have noticed that LED based lights are the next wave of incandescent replacement, coming in at about 1/3 the power consumption per lumen of the CFL's, so I'm not sure how long of a market life CFL's really have given the plethora of disadvantages that CFL's have (warmup time that increases over lifespan, lumens decline over lifespan, mercury hazards if broken, etc) which LED based bulbs do not.

I steadily replaced all my incandescent with CFL's over the past 2 years, and now as my 10yr lifetime CFL's start dying off barely a year into their lifespan I am replacing them with LED equivalents. Sams club even stocks them, they are becoming more an more prevalent every day.

All fluorescent lights do that with the exception of a few special applications of high frequency ballasts (like in tanning bed). Flickering at 120hz (US) or 100hz(most of the world) is normal, just like 60/120hz and 50/100hz is the normal frequency of tvs and monitors in the world.

The LED lighting is a viable replacement, but the expense too high right now for the money saved. ALso LEDS do have issues with high lumen lighting. Most LEDs available are low light, medium cost bulbs while the medium light bulbs have high costs an heat issues (converting high v ac to low v dc). You can't just stack more leds to increase brightness, LED efficiency goes down a heat increases, so we've hit a brightness wall right now.

Also LEDS tend to be directional, which is great for taillights and stoplight but bad for general room lighting.

Then there's the problem of production yields, it requires semiconductor production to make a LED bulb and the phosphors for true high quality, white light are still too expensive to use for widespread adoption of home lighting.

Overall, LED is a great idea but still has technical hurdles that CFLs don't have to worry about. It's too young a tech to be declared as the replacement yet.

To get more life out of CFLs, turn then on and off less frequently. Each power cycle degrades the bulb more and more. In home situations, the fastest killer of CFLs is frequent power cycles since the process of witching a light on degrades the cathode surface.

 

[bamacre]

I think where AMD has failed is in their belief that they can make money by selling products at a price which is lower than their cost to make.

 

[Kakkoii]

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: mwmorph
I see a immediate problem with that. As my light bulbs die in my house, I am slowly switching to the low wattage compact fluorescent bulbs (the 13w or so squiggly ones you use to replace the lightbulb shaped incandescent ones) and with the way most households are heading, if the tech doesn't work with florescents, then it's basically useless.

Just about everyone I know is moving towards to the low wattage CFLs and there is a real push in the industry to adoption of those. In the EU & Canada, your normal 40-150w incandescent will be phased out by 2012 and in the US, by 2014.

If the 3D displays not working in florescent lighting is true, then ATi was smart to not spend money on that 3D gaming idea. It's a dead end, worthless technology before it even matures and it would be stupid to invest in the current idea.

I didn't even think of that, pretty much every bulb in my house is florescent. We bought a 24 pack of these bulbs at Costco when we first moved and replaced most of the bulbs.

Fluorescent lamps using a magnetic mains frequency ballast do not give out a steady light; instead, they flicker at twice the supply frequency.

However I have noticed that LED based lights are the next wave of incandescent replacement, coming in at about 1/3 the power consumption per lumen of the CFL's, so I'm not sure how long of a market life CFL's really have given the plethora of disadvantages that CFL's have (warmup time that increases over lifespan, lumens decline over lifespan, mercury hazards if broken, etc) which LED based bulbs do not.

I steadily replaced all my incandescent with CFL's over the past 2 years, and now as my 10yr lifetime CFL's start dying off barely a year into their lifespan I am replacing them with LED equivalents. Sams club even stocks them, they are becoming more an more prevalent every day.

All fluorescent lights do that with the exception of a few special applications of high frequency ballasts (like in tanning bed). Flickering at 120hz (US) or 100hz(most of the world) is normal, just like 60/120hz and 50/100hz is the normal frequency of tvs and monitors in the world.

The LED lighting is a viable replacement, but the expense too high right now for the money saved. ALso LEDS do have issues with high lumen lighting. Most LEDs available are low light, medium cost bulbs while the medium light bulbs have high costs an heat issues (converting high v ac to low v dc). You can't just stack more leds to increase brightness, LED efficiency goes down a heat increases, so we've hit a brightness wall right now.

Also LEDS tend to be directional, which is great for taillights and stoplight but bad for general room lighting.

Then there's the problem of production yields, it requires semiconductor production to make a LED bulb and the phosphors for true high quality, white light are still too expensive to use for widespread adoption of home lighting.

Overall, LED is a great idea but still has technical hurdles that CFLs don't have to worry about. It's too young a tech to be declared as the replacement yet.

To get more life out of CFLs, turn then on and off less frequently. Each power cycle degrades the bulb more and more. In home situations, the fastest killer of CFLs is frequent power cycles since the process of witching a light on degrades the cathode surface.

Pfft, you silly people and your LED lights. OLED lights are the future!

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

No guys. The long white "traditional" flourescent lights. I have the incandescent replacements bulbs "squiggly bulbs" in every light bulb socket in my house, including right over my head where I have 3DVision setup. There is no flickering of any kind whatsoever with this type of lighting.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. think of it like analog audio (incandescent) vs. digital audio (CFL). You can't hear the gaps between samples, but you're not hearing every single piece of the sound wave with digital audio. Like others have said they turn on / off like 120 times per second.

 

[Stumps]

 

[Modelworks]

I don't think ATI has failed at graphics cards. I just think they lack the marketing power that nvida has.


The thing about 120hz displays is that you need a 120 fps capable card or the display is going to interpolate to display at 120hz. Remember LCD is not like CRT, it only updates the display when something changes. If you display a picture on a LCD display with no pixels changing the refresh rate is 0hz . 60hz or 120hz just means the display can update at a rate of 120 times a second not that it does that for everything you display. Think of it as the speed that the cpu inside the monitor can process data.

Film is shot at 24fps and displayed in theaters at 72hz so people wanting a theater like experience should shoot for that

The big issue I see with LCD is that it needs a cleaner light source. Most LCD are using fluorescent based lights that do flicker. If you set a display to pure white then use something like a digital camera it will pick up the flicker.

The IR interference is mainly caused by the color of the light not the flickering. Ever notice how things like the sensor on a tv are behind a dark almost black plastic ? The reason is to block all the stray light except the range that the sensor can see. I'm working with a project I built that is an IR receiver for the pc. If I have the window shades open, letting sunlight in, the thing sends data constantly because it sees the IR in the sunlight.

The bad part about choosing 120hz for a 3d display is that in the USA 60Hz is the power frequency . So if you are sending a ir signal to each side of a set of glasses at 60hz per side and the light being in the same spectrum they are going to interfere. Remote controls use 35hz - 50hz. A quick demo of the issue is to grab two remote controls. Press a button on one and hold it down, now try to use the other remote in the same room. It is also a fun trick to play on people. Get a remote that transmits as long as you hold down the button. Sit in the room holding down the button while you watch people wander WTF is wrong with the tv remote

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

I really like my nVidia control panel, but nVidia based mobo's don't cut it right now, so that pretty much dictates that I stay with AMD and ATI.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ChaiBabbaChai
I really like my nVidia control panel, but nVidia based mobo's don't cut it right now, so that pretty much dictates that I stay with AMD and ATI.

That makes no sense. You can use an Nvidia card on an AMD-based board.

 

[Obsoleet]

Where Nvidia has failed is on their drivers. The new NV is the old ATI.

Nvidia needs to work on that instead of on wonky technologies that will never take off. A few kids and Nvidia's puppets might be circle jerking around tHrEe dEe vIsIoN but most of us are wanting more of what ATI's been doing.

 

[Kakkoii]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
Where Nvidia has failed is on their drivers. The new NV is the old ATI.

Nvidia needs to work on that instead of on wonky technologies that will never take off. A few kids and Nvidia's puppets might be circle jerking around tHrEe dEe vIsIoN but most of us are wanting more of what ATI's been doing.

And what exactly has ATI been doing?

 

[imported_Scoop]

Does this 3D gaming thing require you to wear some glasses while gaming and looking like a retard? Better close the curtains..

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
Where Nvidia has failed is on their drivers. The new NV is the old ATI.

Nvidia needs to work on that instead of on wonky technologies that will never take off. A few kids and Nvidia's puppets might be circle jerking around tHrEe dEe vIsIoN but most of us are wanting more of what ATI's been doing.

And what exactly has ATI been doing?

Brought performance to the mass. Made Nvidia drop prices.

If it wasn't for ATI, Nvidia would still be milking you for $600 video cards.

 

[Kakkoii]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
Where Nvidia has failed is on their drivers. The new NV is the old ATI.

Nvidia needs to work on that instead of on wonky technologies that will never take off. A few kids and Nvidia's puppets might be circle jerking around tHrEe dEe vIsIoN but most of us are wanting more of what ATI's been doing.

And what exactly has ATI been doing?

Brought performance to the mass. Made Nvidia drop prices.

If it wasn't for ATI, Nvidia would still be milking you for $600 video cards.

Competitive pricing, that's it. And it not really because of ATI, but because ATI couldn't compete with Nvidia at the same price.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
Where Nvidia has failed is on their drivers. The new NV is the old ATI.

Nvidia needs to work on that instead of on wonky technologies that will never take off. A few kids and Nvidia's puppets might be circle jerking around tHrEe dEe vIsIoN but most of us are wanting more of what ATI's been doing.

And what exactly has ATI been doing?

Brought performance to the mass. Made Nvidia drop prices.

If it wasn't for ATI, Nvidia would still be milking you for $600 video cards.

Competitive pricing, that's it. And it not really because of ATI, but because ATI couldn't compete with Nvidia at the same price.

One could look at it just as easily the other way. Nvidia couldn't compete with ATi so they had to lower the price. Don't be so mayo.

 

[Kakkoii]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
Where Nvidia has failed is on their drivers. The new NV is the old ATI.

Nvidia needs to work on that instead of on wonky technologies that will never take off. A few kids and Nvidia's puppets might be circle jerking around tHrEe dEe vIsIoN but most of us are wanting more of what ATI's been doing.

And what exactly has ATI been doing?

Brought performance to the mass. Made Nvidia drop prices.

If it wasn't for ATI, Nvidia would still be milking you for $600 video cards.

Competitive pricing, that's it. And it not really because of ATI, but because ATI couldn't compete with Nvidia at the same price.

One could look at it just as easily the other way. Nvidia couldn't compete with ATi so they had to lower the price. Don't be so mayo.

That way of looking is already taken into account. As it is a result of ATI not being able to compete at the same price in the first place. After lowering the prices so much, it turns the tables, and thus Nvidia is on the short end and has to compromise. It's not what either company chose to do, but what the market made them do.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
Where Nvidia has failed is on their drivers. The new NV is the old ATI.

Nvidia needs to work on that instead of on wonky technologies that will never take off. A few kids and Nvidia's puppets might be circle jerking around tHrEe dEe vIsIoN but most of us are wanting more of what ATI's been doing.

And what exactly has ATI been doing?

Brought performance to the mass. Made Nvidia drop prices.

If it wasn't for ATI, Nvidia would still be milking you for $600 video cards.

Competitive pricing, that's it. And it not really because of ATI, but because ATI couldn't compete with Nvidia at the same price.

One could look at it just as easily the other way. Nvidia couldn't compete with ATi so they had to lower the price. Don't be so mayo.

That way of looking is already taken into account. As it is a result of ATI not being able to compete at the same price in the first place. After lowering the prices so much, it turns the tables, and thus Nvidia is on the short end and has to compromise.

The only card ATi wasn't able to compete with was the GTX 280. ATi had something faster and cheaper at pretty much every other price point. The 4870x2 shortly came out and soundly took the high end crown from the GTX 280 so it's not like ATi sat still the whole time. Later the GTX 295 came out and was faster than the 4870x2, but not by much. The GTX 285 has from day one been defeated by the 4850x2 2GB in both performance and price.

This has really been ATi's strategy from the beginning with the RV770 and descending chips though. Have a smaller, cheaper to make chip that is very competitive with the mid range, and couple two of them together to deal with the high end.

 

[SirPauly]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
Where Nvidia has failed is on their drivers. The new NV is the old ATI.

Nvidia needs to work on that instead of on wonky technologies that will never take off. A few kids and Nvidia's puppets might be circle jerking around tHrEe dEe vIsIoN but most of us are wanting more of what ATI's been doing.

Mocking, sweeping blanket views and taking as fact with opinion, cheap shots, and of course, "more of us." Based on? Your perception?

All it is, well, is a choice - a choice to try to raise the bar of immersion for some -- not the end-all-be-all for every end-user or gamer at this time. Just a choice for the gamer that may demand improved gaming and may be wise to build momentum considering the entertainment industry seems to be moving in the Stereo3d direction.

If an end-user desires this and likes it -- that seems to be a great thing to have flexibility to have this feature. The owner of GeForce 3d Vision has the choice to play with a 2d plane or a 3d plane.

Personally don't think ATI has failed or has failed because of the lack of Stereo 3d but doesn't mean that the Stereo3d choice isn't compelling for some. Personally believe that maturity with a more mainstream approach -- with more end-users seeing and understanding what Stereo3d may do -- may slowly help bring awareness. It is sort of a belief system -- if one believes that Stereo3d is not a big deal and may suck -- well, it's pretty tough to change that view based on wording without seeing.

Owning GeForce 3d Vision doesn't translate into a few kids or nVidia puppets circle jerking and personally witnessed enthusiast gamers for years at popular web-sites really excitied about how their games look like. Not perfect -- not ideal -- in all -- just a different way to play that may raise the bar. Some gamers are "experience" driven and have the desire to feel like they're inside the game and feel like they're part of the experience -- this is what Stereo3d really may offer in my mind-set.