Widescreen Gaming Forum

If those were truly reports (eg: substantiated vs rumor), they'd have been backed up with some kind of proof vs sounding like more mere speculation. Let's be realistic here, you can't say the demo was run on a GT200 unless you know it was without sounding just as deceitful as you're accusing them of being.

No idea. I find it fascinating that you're getting so defensive over a passing comment. :) I don't know what was in that system, I don't think anyone aside from that person who built it really knows... or the bosses, at any rate. We're in no position to be guessing. Given that this is the discussion thread for GT300, I bought it up as it's been mentioned in other places. :)

In all of this what is perhaps most absurd though is despite it now being rather obvious Fermi and Tesla are aimed at HPC vs gaming, many including some of the more knowledgeable here are still clinging to the idea of using Fermi for gaming. Do you really think after what you've heard that any card with a Fermi is going to be anywhere near consumer grade affordable or well driver supported for games?

They're going to be based on the same silicon? Which would imply that at least to some level, a Fermi card could be used for gaming.

The drivers would be optimised for CAD/CAM/3D/GPGPU, rather than gaming, but I've seen people cross-flash workstation card BIOSes onto equivalent consumer cards for years because it's a cheap way of getting the more stable workstation-class drivers (and featureset). I'm sure it could be done in reverse, but there is no reason to (and plenty of reasons not to)...

How many times does it have to be said, JUNIPER is going to be the consumer level chip. Regardless of how long it actiually takes Fermi to hit the market, we may see a scaled down GPU with all the gaming power and none of the HPC power before that happens at a much lower price.

Juniper is the codename for ATi's baby Cypress chip, or the Radeon 5700 series cards. I'm a bit lost as to the relevance of that bit?

I tell ya man, I'm really getting sick of the angst here over nothing more than what is mostly speculation. I thought people on this forum were more intelligent than that. It just goes to show that even some of the smarter consumers lose their heads when they don't look at things from a business perspective. :roll:

What angst? I thought this was a discussion. Since what little information is in the public domain is mostly FUD (and the little that has been stated as 'true' by nVidia has a fair amount of healthy scepticism served with it) then this sort of "Oh, what if..." is normal.

What I am most impressed about is the way that here has been discussing it rationally, rather than the rabid fanboyism that I've seen in a lot of other places. Or, at least, I thought we were discussing it rationally until that last bit. As I said, it's an absolute joke seeing otherwise intelligent individuals getting so het up about this. We saw it on G80's release, and GT200's, and R600's, and RV770's... Core 2's, Prescotts, Phenoms', Phenom II's... etc etc etc... 'twill never end. And it's all the funnier because of that. ;)

I know a couple of chaps who would probably kill for that real-time ray-tracing, though. I think I know what a couple of grant applications in the new year will contain... 8)

...

...

whismerhill - thanks for that hareware.fr translation. I don't really remember enough about how nVidia clocks it's shaders to be able to comment on whether that 1.6GHz is conservative or not. The comparison against Cypress (Radeon 5870) is interesting, though - it's been seen before in both nVidia and ATi architectures that numerical advantages don't always equal actual performance advantages.

...

Unless something amazing crops up about GT300, I'm gonna sit back and watch how it develops. :)

Yes, you've more than once implied it was a GT200 used based on what you'd read, none of which was actual proof. I call that speculation with an underlying accusation of fraud. I expect it from clever journalists whom like to use the public's naivety to make a name for themselves, but not you.

True, I was wrong on Juniper, it is in fact an ATI chip codename, not an Nvidia consumer version of Fermi. My misstating it was a result of misreading this article:

http://vr-zone.com/articles/nvidia-fermi--arriving-in-q1-2010/7786.html?doc=7786

It appears there is no clear code name for a consumer version of Fermi yet, but I seriously doubt with all the design features shown so far, most would consider the current architecture of it a cost effective or even practical gaming chip. Just the ECC alone could seriously mess with game rendering and as you and I have borth stated, there's an imbalance in ROPs and memory bandwidth regarding gaming needs. You're also talking of complex scenarios regarding cross flashing BIOS that even driver experts on forums such as Driver Heaven don't advocate doing. None of this sounds even remotely practical from the average consumer's standpoint.

What we have here is more than just intelligent tech discussion, it borders on flames aimed at Nvidia over no more than mere speculation, much of which concerns end user scenarios that don't even make sense. Had Nvidia said they are going to address gamers at this conference and promise a market ready gaming card, I could see the sense in these comments, but in reality it's largely wanting more than you can have sooner than you can get it.

I get the feeling many here are caught between oohing and awing at what Nvidia's engineers are proposing, but at the same time blaming them for not making it possible to have under their Chrsitmas trees this holiday season. So many people jump ship to ATI over such trivial reasons. It's not unlike boycotting certain games over what the publishers do. It's not fair to the devs and all the hard work they put into it.

So yes, I feel many of these comments are made in the same kind of angst most ATI fanboys spew at Nvidia. It's all too common these days and does nothing for the advancement of gaming tech. It might surprise you to know that I don't even particularly like Jen-Sun Huang. I find him to be a lot like Steve Jobs. Nvidia however is far more than Huang, and I feel it's unfair to talk down to their entire corporation based on poor marketing practices by their public relations employees.

I get the feeling many here are caught between oohing and awing at what Nvidia's engineers are proposing, but at the same time blaming them for not making it possible to have under their Chrsitmas trees this holiday season. So many people jump ship to ATI over such trivial reasons. It's not unlike boycotting certain games over what the publishers do. It's not fair to the devs and all the hard work they put into it.

So yes, I feel many of these comments are made in the same kind of angst most ATI fanboys spew at Nvidia. It's all too common these days and does nothing for the advancement of gaming tech. It might surprise you to know that I don't even particularly like Jen-Sun Huang. I find him to be a lot like Steve Jobs. Nvidia however is far more than Huang, and I feel it's unfair to talk down to their entire corporation based on poor marketing practices by their public relations employees.

I can understand your feelings, since I have become extremely tired of some people around different forums marketeering the companies instead of discussing the products. I don't think this is the case here though.

We are focusing about the GT300 and its only speculations of what it can do. I mentioned in page two of this thread:

This is only the beginning. We've seen little of what Fermi can do yet, so I wouldn't jump to any conclusions as for now. This conference had mostly to do with GPGPU and not so much for gaming in general. I bet Nvidia will focus more about what it can do for gamers later

I think people are jumping ship for several reasons. One of them is that there is no launch date of GT300 and several sources (OEM's, [H], Anantech etc) claims Q1 2010. General availability has been speculated to be in february. People are fustrated that Nvidia haven't even given a launch month for the cards. Some are expecting the launch prices to be generally high in the beginning, so it would mean a month or two extra in waiting for prices to fall. In addition, this is a new direction, so some might not want to buy before they see that the drivers are mature and that there are some programs/games that can benifit more from the cGPU. Usually, Tesla has been based on the current GPU's and Fermi can give an indicaton of what a consumer version can do. Therefore, some are seeing if its worth a wait, or if they should just buy an ATI DX11 card now and perhaps grab a GT300 later (summer or autum 2010).

Gamers feel a bit left out here. We haven't been given a date, we haven't been given real specs (only marketing talk) and no demonstrations of what we can expect at least when the cards come. We don't even know if Larrabee will be out around the time the GT300 comes out, and then there will be more choices. Intel is a very capable company and shouldn't be underestimated when they enter the discreet GPU market.

All we are left with, is speculations and some info about Fermi. You know me by now, Frag. :) I find it interesting and exiting with new tech and I love reading up on the GT300, since it brings new stuff to the market. But, even I am a bit fustrated about the lack of information and though I would be one of those that could buy the GT300 just to try out the new tech, I don't consider it a possible option before next year.

And, next year, we'll see advertisments of what Larrabee can bring and possibly also about what RV9870/HD6000 will bring. That would mean more "waiting game". Can you understand the fustration of people when Nvidia, which is a leading actor in GPU business comes late and us consumers gets less choice by it? If the general availability was before christmas, it wouldn't feel so long (in GPU refresh cycles). :)

Edit: Fermi might come this year:

“The first Fermi GPUs are expected to launch by year’s end,” stressed Mr. Alibrandi.

link

It appears there is no clear code name for a consumer version of Fermi yet, but I seriously doubt with all the design features shown so far, most would consider the current architecture of it a cost effective or even practical gaming chip. Just the ECC alone could seriously mess with game rendering and as you and I have borth stated, there's an imbalance in ROPs and memory bandwidth regarding gaming needs. You're also talking of complex scenarios regarding cross flashing BIOS that even driver experts on forums such as Driver Heaven don't advocate doing. None of this sounds even remotely practical from the average consumer's standpoint.

Bear in mind this was a presentation aimed at the mass computing market, as such they mentioned that ECC was supported BUT of course gaming cards won't chip with ECC ...
Historically ECC RAM tend to be both very expensive and slower
so I would think ECC GRAM should be very very expensive, more so if the speeds are not lowered

Think of it like a hardware feature to stop people flashing BIOSes to get Workstation class cards which left very few incentive to buy a real workstation class card apart from warranty & service... (clever move from nvidia !!)

All in all, I really think that the fact that fermi memory controller supports ECC doesn't mean it's forced to use ECC.

For some time the rumor has been no sooner than Jan '10 for the new Nvidia cards. I was already because of that alone counting on waiting until spring 2010 for prices and drivers to be better as you said, so I am not miffed or even slightly shaken by this.

Overall I think gamers have over-reacted to this conference. Instead of realizing that with tech the way it's getting and the recession still being a reality, corporations need to broaden their horizons to keep themselves competitive. Instead they bad mouth Nvidia because they're thought of as a bunch of GPU market bullies. In reality, they need to be careful just like ATI.

I think this move to embrace the HPC market will only strengthen Nvidia's ability to produce high end gaming GPUs. It's just too bad in their anxiety and frustration more gamers don't see it that way. Instead they're quick to speculate about Nvidia not giving a damn about them. How could you validate that assessment via what you've said and still insist you're merely talking tech?

People need to get over their selfishness and realize the tech industry changes constantly, and that means sometimes not having a holiday season just as you wish it to be, esp in times of recession. I really think some of the toddlers out their from poor families that are happy to get a free used toy for Christmas are often more humble and realistic than those whom are spoiled by a myriad of over-choice in tech gear they've been used to.

I mean I'm not really religious and sorry if I sound biased toward Christians by bringing up that holiday, but seems to me most people anymore have that "What are you going to do for me" reaction every holiday season, and well before Black Friday even comes.

On ECC Whis, I think you misread what I said, or misinterpreted it. I was referring to PS desperately wanting the Fermi to be a gaming card and saying that it's HPC features including ECC make it far from that. So largely you just repeated what I already said. In fact I don't know why you didn't respond by quoting some of PS comments vs mine.

I think this move to embrace the HPC market will only strengthen Nvidia's ability to produce high end gaming GPUs. It's just too bad in their anxiety and frustration more gamers don't see it that way. Instead they're quick to speculate about Nvidia not giving a damn about them. How could you validate that assessment via what you've said and still insist you're merely talking tech?

Neither Nvidia or ATI gives a damn about gamers. They are companies where the primary resposibilities are to the shareholders. Even ATI's "open standard" philosophy isn't any idealism behind and though I fully support that philosophy as a consumer, I would consider myself foolish if I were to believe it was because "they care" about gamers. There are people in both companies that cares, but the company philosophies and directions are whatever gives $$$ to the shareholders.

Likewise, I care about what benifits me as a consumer and the community of consumers. WSGF is a community of consumers. :)

We are here talking about a product that is to come. Gamers are used to compare the same generations and if one player is not there, we miss the other player. Why? Because it limits our choices.

If Nvidia's stuff was some piece of crap not worth considering, I would understand it if people didn't react when there is no launch date or information of Nvidia's products. But, we don't think its crap and therefore we want to know what Nvidia's new generation would bring us. Thats how we consumers are.

I am talking about the tech. I am interested in the PRODUCT that Nvidia will bring in their next generation of GPU's. Couldn't care less about Nvidia itself. Thats just another company and perhaps if I were a stockholder or something, it would matter to me.

Neither Nvidia or ATI gives a damn about gamers. They are companies where the primary resposibilities are to the shareholders. Even ATI's "open standard" philosophy isn't any idealism behind and though I fully support that philosophy as a consumer, I would consider myself foolish if I were to believe it was because "they care" about gamers. There are people in both companies that cares, but the company philosophies and directions are whatever gives $$$ to the shareholders.

Well that is a common but in my opinion, shallow and unfair assessment of Nvidia. While it's true they protect their shareholders first, any corporation has to do that to stay strong in order to serve their consumer base. It's not like they're abandoning us by it as these knee jerk reactions tend to make it sound.

As I already said above, clearly Nvidia is being blamed as a whole for marketing decisions (and blunders) made by their marketing division, and that Nvidia are far more than Jen-Sun Huang. So you merely touched on what I already said by saying there are people in both companies that care.

What you fail to point out though in that extreme viewpoint of them not caring about gamers as a corporation, are all the R&D and continued software support they've sunk into gaming specific advances like SLI, 3D, PhysX, and more recently OpenCL, etc, etc, etc. Would they really be taking the time and money in investing in all that if they didn't care about gamers as a corporation, I don't think so.

Whenever Nvidia and their marketing/manufacturing decisions comes up as a topic, you invariably get people whom love to tout ATI as the heros of the gaming GPU world merely for their low prices, quickly tossing muck at their rivals. Much of this talk is merely a tired old rehashing of what I see on all too many forums these days, painting Nvidia as the Nazis of the GPU industry.

What you fail to point out though in that extreme viewpoint of them not caring about gamers as a corporation, are all the R&D and continued software support they've sunk into gaming specific advances like SLI, 3D, PhysX, CUDA, and more recently OpenCL, etc, etc, etc. Would they really be taking the time and money in investing in all that if they didn't care about gamers as a corporation, I don't think so.

Yes, they would take the time and money into this for the same reason as all the other companies do this: there is a market for this. You don't really believe they do this because they care? If they make a bad investment, they stay responsible towards their shareholders.

Money is why they:
Keep PhysX under CUDA instead of porting it to opencl or DX11 compute shaders.
Block physX for Nvidia cards where their cards isn't the main renderer (I'm not talking about not supporting it actively, but actually actively blocking it for users).
Block other stereoscopic 3d vendors from using their products on Nvidia cards.
Didn't license SLI to Intels mainboard (thats changed now).
etc. etc. etc.
I don't think they are doing this to be evil and punish consumers (even though I don't consider it consumer friendly), but they are doing this because they think it will lead them to more $$$.

ATI is actively bring GPU accelerated physics into OpenCL and DX11:
link

But, I have no illusions that they are doing it for other reasons then money. I do like it though, since its good for us consumers.

They are companies and as all other companies (excluding non-profit companies), their primary concern are money.

I might sound cynical, but I have no illusions about ATI and Nvidia. Both have their skeletons when it comes to tricking people for $$$.

What you fail to point out though in that extreme viewpoint of them not caring about gamers as a corporation, are all the R&D and continued software support they've sunk into gaming specific advances like SLI, 3D, PhysX, and more recently OpenCL, etc, etc, etc. Would they really be taking the time and money in investing in all that if they didn't care about gamers as a corporation, I don't think so.

SLI is there to get the "king of the hill" palm which is important for nvidia, consumers need to think of nvidia as the best... so that their next purchase is an nvidia product ....

Investment in PhysX is there to jump on the "game physics effects bandwagon" (which was popular at some point and again allows to improve nvidia's fame). If they really cared about the consumers/gamers, they wouldn't have locked down access to PhysX technology in windows 7 with 2 brands of gfx cards ...
it was locked down because they wanted to protect their investment in PhysX....

All in all, Nvidia (and ATI by the way) care about the consumer only up to the point where they will ensure continued investment from the consumer into their products ... and that's not really what I call "caring about the consumer", it's rather "caring about their income".

So my answer to your question : Yes they would really be taking the time & money in investing in all that even though they don't really care about the end user ...

PS: for the previous post, it's entirely possible I did not get exactly what you meant, tried rereading but didn't see where I failed... sorry about that.

Yes, they would take the time and money into this for the same reason as all the other companies do this: there is a market for this. You don't really believe they do this because they care?

I'll stop right there without reading any further into what you said because obviously you see any business as not caring about customers merely because they're profiting. What a shallow mindset. You may as well say every person on the planet doesn't care about anyone but themselves because they all work for money and the world is nothing but a big sleazy pit of materialists.

I fail to see why anyone with that kind of mindset would single out Nvidia or any corporation because unchecked it can get as extreme as the above scenario I painted, where all humans basically become inhuman. How cold shouldered and unemotional that sounds. Corporations believe it or not are not entirely filled with nothing but dog eat dog money worshipers. They all have a certain interest and skill set and I don't think it's a sin to parlay that into profits. It often takes strong commitment to those you're providing product for and risky investments.

After reading your words I can see why lot of corporations don't take calls from consumers, and I don't think I'm being gullible at all by what I've said. You in fact are being extremely judgmental, and without having even met any of the people you're targeting with your harsh words. For once you need to put yourselves in their shoes. Have you ever even run a small business of your own or had a high ranking position in a large business? I suspect the pressure would make you realize what responsibilities they have and just how difficult it can be.