CGTalk - Nvidia Geforce FX announced

phatgroovn

11-18-2002, 05:42 PM

All I can say is.....

Quadro5.

:drool:

Sieb

11-18-2002, 06:04 PM

How could you forget the [H]...
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Mzkw

January is too long for me to wait... :(

beaker

11-18-2002, 06:45 PM

Looks nice, but for the cinemafx stuff, the antialiasing is still not good enough for even television. Still a good step in the right direction. Will definatly make the games look better.

Hexodam

11-18-2002, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Sieb
How could you forget the [H]...
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Mzkw

January is too long for me to wait... :(
its february :P

srich23

11-18-2002, 07:19 PM

they said limited production numbers around christmas, while mainstream production starting in jan and feb

Array

11-18-2002, 07:34 PM

even if you do get this card by February, games which actually take advantage of the card's features wont be available until this time next year (by which time we will hopefully have maya 5.0 and XSI 4.0 .:beer: )

RockinAkin

11-18-2002, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Array
even if you do get this card by February, games which actually take advantage of the card's features wont be available until this time next year (by which time we will hopefully have maya 5.0 and XSI 4.0 .:beer: )
Yep, I still dont know why they're moving to 8x AGP, when 4x Agp still hasn't been fully taken advantage of.

Anyways, that card does look pretty badass.
Looks like the time to upgrade from my GeForce2 GTS is approaching!

Now, just gotta wait for AMD to release the Claw/Sledge Hammers, to replace my T-Bird.
...and lets not forget DC-DDR Ram!!

-DivideByZero-

DeathCarrot

11-18-2002, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by DivideByZero
Looks like the time to upgrade from my GeForce2 GTS is approaching!

Now, just gotta wait for AMD to release the Claw/Sledge Hammers, to replace my T-Bird.

Ha, my throughs exactly (im on athlon tbird 1.2, with the original 32mb GF2 GTS)....

Bradf0rd010

11-18-2002, 09:45 PM

Hope this isn't too shame faced :D

http://forums.blagged-hardware.net/viewtopic.php?p=6435#6435

I've kept it brief since I have to devote much of my time atm to getting the main site back up (and getting rid of that God aweful forum style). Hence, no official news post from us.

Don't expect Quadro FX to be a simultaneous launch. A viewperf bench was shown VERY briefly and that's about all they would say on the matter.

I also asked directly about softQuadro/hacking (and was quite surprised to not get a smack in the face :D) and was told it will not work for the same reason as GF4.
Judging from the softQuadro details coming to light we'll have to wait on that (just don't hold your breath ;) )

puu

11-18-2002, 09:56 PM

wicked looking specs, doom 3 is worth getting this card for :bounce:

Matt

11-18-2002, 10:16 PM

Doom 3 no.

Quake 4 yes. Unreal 2 Yes.

Doom 3 will run awesome on this card, but it will also do well on every other card out there past the GeForce 3 Ti500.

I think the games of later 2003 will be the ones to look out for which will show off the tech on the GFFX... (formerly named the Eclipse.) Unreal 2 looks pretty shitty as a game so far, but there are some screenshots of a techdemo using the Unreal Engine on a GeForceFX card, and it looks really nice.

Can't wait to see the actual performance in real life. By the time it's out, we'll have clawhammers shipping as well. Everything just in time for Doom 3.

Oh, and about the stupid thing Beaker said about AntiAliasing not being good enough for television, that's a pretty thick thing to say.

TV is 640x480 interlaced, and I don't notice jaggies at 320x240 with 4 to 8xAA... How ridiculous of a comment from Beaker.

Matt

11-18-2002, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by phatgroovn
All I can say is.....

Quadro5.

:drool:

More like QuadroFX

Jhonus

11-18-2002, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Matt
Oh, and about the stupid thing Beaker said about AntiAliasing not being good enough for television, that's a pretty thick thing to say.

TV is 640x480 interlaced, and I don't notice jaggies at 320x240 with 4 to 8xAA... How ridiculous of a comment from Beaker.

:rolleyes:

wgreenlee1

11-18-2002, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by Array
even if you do get this card by February, games which actually take advantage of the card's features wont be available until this time next year (by which time we will hopefully have maya 5.0 and XSI 4.0 .:beer: )

...and Lightwave 8.0

:cool:

ambient-whisper

11-18-2002, 10:28 PM

depends. dont high definition tvs go all the way up to 1900 x some number??

MaDSheeP

11-18-2002, 10:56 PM

actually... high def TV's on the high end, run at 1080 lines of resolution...

1900 would be insane! heh

ambient-whisper

11-18-2002, 11:17 PM

ya but im sure i read about some high def tv that supports 1900x something. doesnt mean itll get used as a standard. much like a PC monitor. i can go as high as 2k. but i dont use anywhere near that amount.

facial

11-18-2002, 11:46 PM

Cool, :beer:

Carnifex

11-19-2002, 12:02 AM

You guys are confusing two different ways of measuring resolution.
A high definition tv that can do true 1080i HD usually has a pixel resolution of 1980X1200 pixels. The 1080 is in lines of resolution, which by the way is about double the 500 or so lines of DVD.

Xilica

11-19-2002, 12:30 AM

NICE!! :thumbsup:

Array

11-19-2002, 12:30 AM

Actually Quake 4 is being developed simultaniously with Doom 3 by a third party, both use the same engine. Quake 4 actually takes off where Quake 2 ended, so I'm quite excited (quake 2 being my favorite of the series). Also, Unreal 2 doesnt look that impressive IMO, especially next to Doom 3. Anyways, if past trends remain true, the Doom 3 engine will be around for another 2-3 years via lucrative liscencing deals.

EDIT:

Come on man, give Beaker a break :) Out of his 300 or so posts, this is the only time he's really been "wrong" about something

Originally posted by Matt
Doom 3 no.

Quake 4 yes. Unreal 2 Yes.

Doom 3 will run awesome on this card, but it will also do well on every other card out there past the GeForce 3 Ti500.

I think the games of later 2003 will be the ones to look out for which will show off the tech on the GFFX... (formerly named the Eclipse.) Unreal 2 looks pretty shitty as a game so far, but there are some screenshots of a techdemo using the Unreal Engine on a GeForceFX card, and it looks really nice.

Can't wait to see the actual performance in real life. By the time it's out, we'll have clawhammers shipping as well. Everything just in time for Doom 3.

Oh, and about the stupid thing Beaker said about AntiAliasing not being good enough for television, that's a pretty thick thing to say.

TV is 640x480 interlaced, and I don't notice jaggies at 320x240 with 4 to 8xAA... How ridiculous of a comment from Beaker.

Array

11-19-2002, 12:36 AM

here are some benchmarks provided by Nvidia. They are simply amazing if you ask me.

http://www.ukgamer.com/article.php4?id=208&page=3

phatgroovn

11-19-2002, 01:04 AM

Ok that settles it...was set on a Fire GLX-1, now gonna wait and see what the NV30GL's got comin...

Sieb

11-19-2002, 01:12 AM

Ok that settles it...was set on a Fire GLX-1, now gonna wait and see what the NV30GL's got comin...

Yup.. just like the rest of us.. hehe.. Luckily, I will have money by then, or at least have something to shoot for if bills don't kill me next month. Given that I can find a replacement job.. oy..

Tad

11-19-2002, 02:01 AM

great my gf3 just fried

hopefully this'll bring down the cost of vidcards in general
so I can get something that runs 3d
(got a temp. pci card now :()

i dont see myself shelling out 3-400 bux for one
of these fx things tho

dark_lotus

11-19-2002, 02:23 AM

All I can say is...
SANTA!!!!:scream:

jsh3d

11-19-2002, 02:38 AM

Sweet :D! And I'm in the market for a card right now too :D. I guess I'll be waiting until February :). Any news on the price?

-Jsh3d

MaDSheeP

11-19-2002, 02:43 AM

sites are reporting around 350 or 400 for the high end cards, that usually the standard...

Ewan Lee

11-19-2002, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by Array
here are some benchmarks provided by Nvidia. They are simply amazing if you ask me.

http://www.ukgamer.com/article.php4?id=208&page=3

It seems that the geforcefx is over 3 times faster than a quadro 900... it's all good but it really makes me think... I bought a quadro 4 few months ago (I had a geforce DDR) at lower resolutions (1024X768 and around) It runs pretty much the same (up to 2 times faster)... wait! Let me finish! At higher res (1600X1200) the geforce slows down miserably while the quadro manages to keep a decent frame rate... but who cares on my 19 inch monitor you can hardly read the text at such resolution!
Personally I would suggest to stick with your card... unless you really need more power... and between a geforce and a quadro go for the geforce unless you use maya and paintfx...
I own a quadro 550 and I had in mind to exchange it for a 900 (it's suppose to run twice as fast) but right now in Maya viewport I am doing comfortably 24 fps with 250K polygons & textures... sure I could run 500K but I really never work on scenes that are so complex, and even if I had to I just had to plan things out and work in layers...

I am writing this because one night I was drooling on the idea of getting a quadro 4 900... to preview my animation at 50 fps in maya viewport... and render a final movie at 24 fps! Man I felt soo stupid...

:annoyed:

awnold

11-19-2002, 04:57 AM

Hey post one of these on top banner

http://www.nvidia.com/docs/IO/3648/SUPP/large01.jpg
http://www.nvidia.com/docs/IO/3648/SUPP/large02.jpg
http://www.nvidia.com/docs/IO/3648/SUPP/large03.jpg

amazing...

FLOw

11-19-2002, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by awnold
Hey post one of these on top banner

http://www.nvidia.com/docs/IO/3648/SUPP/large01.jpg
http://www.nvidia.com/docs/IO/3648/SUPP/large02.jpg
http://www.nvidia.com/docs/IO/3648/SUPP/large03.jpg

amazing...

I don't get it. Why is that so frikkin great?...It's just a rather good model with a nice skin texture? Or am I missing something here? Maybe its time for me to go back to bed :D

awnold

11-19-2002, 05:41 AM

your missing the fact that it is being rendered in real time on the hardware, not pre-rendered... that you are missing it is what makes it amazing =)

Matt

11-19-2002, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Array
Actually Quake 4 is being developed simultaniously with Doom 3 by a third party, both use the same engine.

Yeah, Raven, (too bad... Quake has been idsoft's moneytrain for 7 years, and they tossed it aside.) but the engine has been said to be a more mature version of the D3 engine... I think that's pretty much all they've said (QuakeCon2001.)... It'll probably be the doom 3 engine with more DX9 goodies, some new shaderscripts and all the patches and fixes for whatever doom 3 gets wrong.

I look forward to it though... The Stroggos vs. Earth thing never really worked out in Quake 2. I hope they perfect it in Q4.

Matt

11-19-2002, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by awnold
your missing the fact that it is being rendered in real time on the hardware, not pre-rendered... that you are missing it is what makes it amazing =)

Well the real amazing thing is: nVidia demos are ALWAYS subpar compared to what the chip can actually do. Look at the stuff that came with the GF3 chips... Come on, floating silver globs with bump maps?

GeForceFX will take you to 2005 with great graphics.
CineFX will take you well into 2006.

Bradf0rd010

11-19-2002, 09:24 AM

The final production card will run at 500/1000 whereas those models were rendered realtime on a card running about 196MHz clock speeds.

You guys know we'll be waiting around 6 months (as opposed to 2) for a quadro version, right?

mr3dguy

11-19-2002, 10:55 AM

And to think that its all silicon tin,gold,copper, plastic and other such materials....:bounce:

and we'll all be drooling over the next piece of hardware in 1 or 2 years time. Its really a lot of fun though.:thumbsup: :bounce: :shrug:

red_oddity

11-19-2002, 11:34 AM

Soooooo, what's so great about this card (besides the amount of polys it pushes..)?
I mean, i own a GF4 Ti 4600 and so far, not one game has vertex and pixel shaders and the rest of the fancy techno bollocks fully implemented (not even UT2k3, Morrowind or that pathetic waste of money title NOLF 2). Why would i ever need a DX9 card for the next...mmmm..2 years or so (and don't say Doom 3, i still can't get why people look so forward to some dumb realtime Resident Evil (god do i hate that title))?

Besides, what most game developers should start focusing on is actual content rather than uninspired highres 3d designs.

As for 3d modeling, i really need to push Lightwave to ridiculous levels before it goes al choppy and unmanagable on my current card.

Anyway, maybe i'll buy it in 2 years time or so.

Jaspar

11-19-2002, 12:31 PM

Has anyone got any idea how much performance difference we'd see in FX over the GF4s, in apps like LW modeller? Are we looking for the vertices/sec stats, or is there more to it? :shrug:

MCronin

11-19-2002, 12:52 PM

In raw performance, the GeForce FX is supposed to crunch 350 million triangles a second versus the GeForce 4's 100 million or so a second, but there's a lot more to it than that. You probably won't see a 250 percent performance increase in any pro 3D app.

Bradf0rd010

11-19-2002, 01:12 PM

Also, at the press event, amongst all the marketing flannel was the mention of '20 x the programability of any other card'.
They showed us some examples of renders associated with maya and Cg.

Array

11-19-2002, 01:52 PM

The biggest jump forwards with this card is the level of programability. Nvidia is trying to merge cinematic style renderings and realtime gameplay. This is the first big step.

Your comments about games not supporting the features of this card right at launch are pretty irrelivent too. This product is targetted towards HARDCORE gamers. Nvidia knows that these features wont be supported right away, but it also sure as hell knows that by the time Geforce FX cards become standard OEM (Nvidia makes most of it's $ from lowend sales in HIGH volume) offerings, lots of games will begin supporting these features, as these cards become standard fair inside of everyone's computer.

Originally posted by red_oddity
Soooooo, what's so great about this card (besides the amount of polys it pushes..)?
I mean, i own a GF4 Ti 4600 and so far, not one game has vertex and pixel shaders and the rest of the fancy techno bollocks fully implemented (not even UT2k3, Morrowind or that pathetic waste of money title NOLF 2). Why would i ever need a DX9 card for the next...mmmm..2 years or so (and don't say Doom 3, i still can't get why people look so forward to some dumb realtime Resident Evil (god do i hate that title))?

Besides, what most game developers should start focusing on is actual content rather than uninspired highres 3d designs.

As for 3d modeling, i really need to push Lightwave to ridiculous levels before it goes al choppy and unmanagable on my current card.

Anyway, maybe i'll buy it in 2 years time or so.

Lee3dee

11-19-2002, 02:16 PM

I can finally upgrade my Geforce2:bounce:

NightFox

11-19-2002, 02:40 PM

Lol you and me both, brother! :applause:

But I'm cash poor, so I'm getting a Nforce2 mobo. Sure, Gf4 MX built in, but hey, better than a GF2 GTS. Not to mention, upgrading my P2 to a Athlon 2400+ or 2800+.

Probably the amount of buying a spankin new GF-FX. But I'm going to wait a while to upgrade to that. Which will probably have GF-FX Ultra and GF-FX Superfragalisticexpialadocious (Or however that was spelled..)

:bounce:

phatgroovn

11-19-2002, 02:52 PM

I think it's going to be called the GeForce FX GTS Ultra GT Mega Z28 RS TYPE R PRO

red_oddity

11-19-2002, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Array
The biggest jump forwards with this card is the level of programability. Nvidia is trying to merge cinematic style renderings and realtime gameplay. This is the first big step.

Your comments about games not supporting the features of this card right at launch are pretty irrelivent too. This product is targetted towards HARDCORE gamers. Nvidia knows that these features wont be supported right away, but it also sure as hell knows that by the time Geforce FX cards become standard OEM (Nvidia makes most of it's $ from lowend sales in HIGH volume) offerings, lots of games will begin supporting these features, as these cards become standard fair inside of everyone's computer.

Sorry to mention this, but i do consider myself a bit of hardcore gamer, as for cinematic style in games...well... most of these guys i wouldn't trust in directing a wedding video (just look at the amount of patheticly written dialogs and scenes in most games, not to mention the horribly bad directing of most cinematics)
So, even though a game may look good, it's still stomach wrenching-ly bad.

My comments are somewhat relevant by now don't you think, i have this GF4 for half a year now and still no games or patches in modern games that actually utilise the shear rendering power of this card or DX 8 (except for 'now you can play your game at a 1600x1200 resolution', well woopty f-ing doo, now i can see horribly bad games in high-res, that's what i've always wanted.)
(Quake Tenebrea is looking sweet though:p)

Anyway, i don't think much games will use these features anytime soon since most people just buy this GF4 mx, which is a buggy piece of junk in my opinion (making people think they buy a GF4 and what do they get, a GF2 with a somewhat faster memory architecture)
I just hope they won't do this with the GF FX. (GF FX MX?:surprised )

Don't get me wrong though, i do like to see games going in a more cinematic style, but i wonder if the game scene is realy ready for this as we see more and more good looking bad games out there.

beaker

11-19-2002, 03:20 PM

>>TV is 640x480 interlaced, and I don't notice jaggies at 320x240 with 4 to 8xAA... How ridiculous of a comment from Beaker.

Nope, not ridiculous. My opinion, thats all, take it or leave it. The antialiasing looks good, but still not software renderer quality for tv or hdtv. It doesn't matter that tv is 640x480, the aliased edges that I am still seeing will cause annoying flickering in NTSC or PAL.

DotPainter

11-19-2002, 03:58 PM

Well, for the current games the card is being sold on it's 4X-8X AA with no detriment on performance. Also, it has been widely reported that many game developers still build toward the lowest common denominator in video cards, the low end cards. Because of this, they don't really push their games too far to support the newer technologies. I remember reading somewhere that in Unreal 2k3 there is an even HIGHER setting for textures and details that has been disabled until more powerful cards came out. One game they have been touting as representing the future, however, is STALKER..... I sure can't wait for that one.

On a related note, I just uprgraded my OS from WinME to WinXP with the latest Nvidia drivers for my GF2 Pro 64 and it runs much smoother but the texture resolution/color balance sucks compared to what I had on WinME. Now, even though I have the highest detail textures enabled, they still look low-res. In WinME, it was just the opposite. The highest settings were sweeeeet! Maybe I have to tweak it more.

Bradf0rd010

11-19-2002, 04:10 PM

They were running a stalker demo and it does indeed look the muttz nutz. Sprawling outdoor environments rendred beautifully.

Sieb

11-19-2002, 04:58 PM

You guys have to keep in mind that its the game programmers that are pushing the market of CG. If it wasn't for game cards and games like Q2 or D3, we would still have 8meg 2D cards while wildcats would still be a few grand. If technology doesn't keep contiuily evolving, it stagnates and then everyone forgets what they were doing. (same thing when the germans killed off the romans, we ended up in the dark ages and everything had to be reinvinted) The 4600 will still be champion since once the FX cards come out, the 4600 will be alot cheaper but still only a quarter of its lifespan. It's all part of it. Newer games mean newer hardware. It's all Billys fault.

Faster video cards has brought the AGP slot, faster memory, faster FSB, faster drive accesses to keep up with the processor demand, and faster processors to keep pushing data to the card.

Darwinism for the computer age.. :)

ambient-whisper

11-19-2002, 06:31 PM

i too think thisll be a nice upgrade to my gf2 :) i dunno about others saying they dont need the power to push for more. but i like working with lots detail and having high fps. dont like having to hide 90% of my model to keep the fps nice and smooth.( then again. thats got a lot to do with the fact that im still on a p3 800. ( but thatll get upgraded at the same time as the videocard.) wee

l_farley13_l

11-19-2002, 07:52 PM

ha I'll say. But certainly I think I'll upgrading to play games with it rather than 3d, my GF3 is good enough for that now, no real problems. Very impressive to say the least of course!!

With all the talk of game developers buying into the new programability, I wonder if any 3d prog's are going to :)

Farley13

puu

11-19-2002, 08:18 PM

kind of off topic, but seeing what happened with geforce3ti being wickedly upgraded to 4ti, AND the huge delay for Nvidia with this card (nv30) I would imagine that around JuneJuly you will see the geforceFX 6000 series, basically the same card clocked even higher, and by this time 64 bit cpu's will be available!:bounce: woot!

Array

11-20-2002, 06:44 PM

here's a direct link to the launch presentation (thx to Bentllama for the link):

http://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?playerheight=533&playerwidth=785&sourcepage=null&eventid=1179&sessionid=1&username=&partnerref=&contenttype=&format=&key=8818A278CD4B677B742470856670B9CB

CGTalk Moderation

01-13-2006, 08:00 AM

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.