leaked NV20 specs! impressive!

[Guest]

aceman10c:

Most modern PC video cards offer 640x480 or 800x600 TV out depending on your format and TV capabilities. Now, uh, I hate to point out the obvious, but these are computer resolutions because they are coming from a computer. The context of my previous message was in regards to the Xbox, specifically in regards to your post:

"the xbox nv20 will be crippled, just like the geforce2mx is. TVs only run 640x480 anyways so it wont matter"

Stating that the Xbox will be "crippled" to a resolution of 640x480 is disregarding the facts. Despite its PC origins, the Xbox is a console, and as such will speak to TV's in their native language, not through a "TV-out" port on a PC graphics card. Now 640x480 may be ONE of the resolutions used by the Xbox, and considering how close this is to 700x525 you probably wouldn't notice the difference. But 640x80 certainly won't be the ONLY one used by the Xbox. Also, it is still not a TV resolution (as defined in this country by the NTSC), much less, as you said, the "only" TV resolution, which was my original point.

Now I'm not trying to slam you, but next time you make an ignorant post (as we all do from time to time) try just saying "oops" instead attempting to cover it up by nit-picking at peoples replies.

Regards,
Warden

 

[rcf84]

Hmmm, i see that the ATi radeon 32mb DDR is $150.00 Lets see it plays Quake3 over 30fps. I remember TOM saying in a guide that 30fps is the standard. So why would you need a Card to play Quake3 in 150+ fps. Wait you could play DOOM in 300+ fps. Hmmm another waste of Money. $800.00 the overprice P4 is cheaper then that now.

Cel 533 - 256mb sdram
15gb HD - ati radeon 32mb ddr (200/200)
SB live! mp3+ - win98 Beos

 

[Guest]

"But is NV20 going to have AGP 8X?"

we have yet to see a difference from agp 2x to 4x. the tnt2 had agp 4x several months before motherboards started supporting agp 4x!

 

[Grizely1]

If you don't need to play games over 30FPS get a PEntium 233 and a TNT2 Ultra.

 

[Guest]

Oh yeah... feel the power........

 

[noko]

If your monitor refresh rate is 85hz meaning it is updating 85 times/sec then having a frame rate greater than your refresh rate would be meaningless. I hope the NV-20 pushes more on quality than just FPS. Quality as in 2d, 32bit color sharpness etc. Plus who would need the NV20? What game out now plays really slow at 1024x768x32 on the GTSII or Radeon? GTSII as well as the Radeon can be had for less than $200. I guess it is preference on what FPS someone needs, 30 FPS seems smooth to me in any game I play but I do notice a difference between 30 and 60 FPS just like I can notice a difference between 60hz refresh and 85hz refresh rate on a monitor.

 

[Guest]

"If your monitor refresh rate is 85hz meaning it is updating 85 times/sec then having a frame rate greater than your refresh rate would be meaningless."

dude, ever heard of disabling V-sync off? in quake3 when i set the monitor 60Hz i still get 87fps

 

[Guest]

noko,
It's not about running current titles at current levels. If QIII at 1024x768x32 is the best you think graphics need to get then stick with a Radeon or GSTII. If you would like to run it at 1600x1200x32 and/or run next gen titles (which are closer than you might think) with millions of polygons and bump-mapping... you will need something like an NV20. I just said this in another post, but game companies won't write games for hardware that doesn't already exist, so in a sense all brand new video hardware isn't strictly necessary, but with out it the game graphics never improve. Your remark about quality vs. FPS is right on the money IMO. The NV20 and similar cards should allow tons of polygons, real-time shadows, bump-mapping, reflections, all together and at much higher quality than currently available, while keeping good frame rates. *I hope.* 2D quality doesn't mean as much to me but hopefully they are spending some of these vast research hours improving that too.

aceman10c:
I hate to point this out 2 times in a row now, but once again your post doesn't make much sense. Your monitor can only show things as fast as its refresh rate, say 85hz. You can disable v-sync and let your graphics card pump out 150 fps, but you will still only SEE 85 fps. The rest won't even be displayed. Disabling V-sync is only useful for benchmark comparison, and even causes nasty visual defects on some systems I've dealt with.

Regards,
Warden

 

[Guest]

having the most powerful hardware in the world doesn't mean sh*t unless you have software to use it with. That's the biggest problem with macs. Halflife(and it's mods) has 4x the average number of players online than UT and Q3 combined, and it was never released for the mac.

I wouldn't really buy one when it comes out, the card is going to cost like 500+ dollars when it comes, and no one is going to go the trouble to write games that take specific advantage of it. Sure, a lot of games will look better with it, but not enough to justify spending so much cash on it. Game developers will spend most of their time making it look as good as possible in the 100-200 dollar range, and not so much in adding goodies that a card that can handle 100million triangles would like.

 

[tfbww]

I don't know if I completely agree with the statement that software isn't coded for a level of component that isn't available. I think that it is currently true but more so due to the extremely quick ramp-up and continuing innovation in video chip technology rather than coders awaiting the technology. I recall in "the good ole days" when Origin released Strike Force (wasn't it?) how even the cutting edge computers struggled with it. (My puny 286/12 laughed when I tried to run it.) Origin in fact garnered quite a name for itself in continually pushing the envelope of hardware, almost to the point of being extreme. I do think there are games starting to push the envelope again: Sacrifice does, Halo will (I dwell on this pipe dream, I know), Giants is pretty demanding from the sound of things.

Just a thought.

 

[Guest]

Hey you might be right there, but I wonder if the current situation is due to other things as well. By this I mean that the face of gaming has changed a lot in the last few years. What was once a niche "nerd entertainment" market (Man, I'll buy a new video card and make this game screem!) has turned into a mutli-billion dollar mainstream media that people are beginning to compare to Holywood. Now days games are written to work on the "average" person's computer (Buy a new video card? What's a video card?). Can you say Gateway Celleron with a Voodoo 3? If you write something that really pushes the limits, either in gameplay or hadrware, you run the risk of being burried under a pile of QuakeII clones and going bankrupt. Ok maybe I'm being a little melodramatic, and things seem to be a little better just lately.... but I still think that modern publishers are less willing to push any limits.

As I see it, new technologies like the NV20 are good for me because they drive down the price of the older technologies they are replacing. This allows more powerfull cards to drop into the mainstream, which in turn get's publishers to back games with better graphics. Well, that's what this arm-chair analyst sees anyway.

Cheers,
Warden

*Joins in the Halo pipe dream*
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by warden on 01/25/01 06:28 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Guest]

$800 american, $1200 canadian and probably £700 in the UK($1000 US) up to 6 months after it's released in the states

 

[Guest]

Sorry but i dont agree with all this $800 speculations. No videocard manufacturer would put out cards that pricy. 90% of the consumers wont even pay $500 for a Geforce2 Ultra. Even if the NV20 is as good as they say its probably going to run about as much as the Ultra did when it was released.

<i>"C Windows; C Windows Run; Run Windows Run; Run Damn it Run!"</i>

 

[Guest]

I agree. I don't think it will cost more than $500.

 

[Guest]

"C Windows; C Windows Run; Run Windows Run; Run Damn it Run!"
LOL I love it!!!!
Warden, thank you for your knowledgeable posts, I learn more and more everyday through this site and this forum. I wonder if you and other readers here could clear something up for me, I had a friend recently tell me that having any more than 256 megs of ram is overkill, even if you multitask a lot and play video games. I play Q3, usually listen to MP3s in the background, have napster open, and various other windows. Where does ram really reach its peak of desired effects on the modern PC system? I told him that the faster the CPU, the more that an increased amount of ram takes advantage of it. What do you think? BTW I am running with 256 Megs pc133 with a 650 Athlon.
As for the price of the NV20, $800 does seem extremely high, I wonder if in the end they will release it cheaper than that, or perhaps make a crippled version of it sorta like the GF2 MX for the mainstream price point. You better believe that Nvidia hasn’t forgotten about its primary competitor, ATI who has been known to offer very good products at an excellent price point. I do wonder also what is to become of the merger with 3dfx? Any comments on this?

 

[Guest]

"Your monitor can only show things as fast as its refresh rate, say 85hz."

and your eyes can only see 30fps so its a moot point. extra fps is just insurance so the minimum wont dip below 30

 

[Guest]

"dude, ever heard of disabling V-sync off? in quake3 when i set the monitor 60Hz i still get 87fps "

This was your point in the first place and now you say that anything over 30 fps is moot. Ok, have it your way.... Now, open poll everybody: Set your monitor to a 30hz refresh rate or as low as it will go. Look at it for a while and go back to your comfortable 85hz. Then inform Mr. Aceman that you can indeed tell the difference between 30 times a second and 85.

meshiaia,
Hey thanks for the flattery... I'll try to live up to it I just read an article on this and can't find the URL. (I've been saying that a lot lately on this forum... must be time to sort my bookmarks.) Well, if I rmemeber it all correctly... the article found increased performance up to 128MB, and up to 196 if you like to multi-task. Going from 196MB to 256MB gave little or no performance boost and anything over 256MB was just a waste of money. This was in Windows 98/ME. Win2k can use more memory more effectively but I think it still stopped speeding up after 256MB. Certain uses, of course, like setting up a server, can make use of more memory.

As for a faster proc making use of more RAM... well, I don't think so, not directly anyway. But it depends on how you look at it. All programs running in the background consume some CPU cycles. Most people I know shut down all their background tasks when running games because they want their game to run its fastest. Now with a really fast proc, you could get away with more background programs, which would mean you could make use of more memory... so in that sense a faster proc could use more memory as it's better at multi-tasking.

Am I talking in circles again? *looks dizzy*

Bottom line: With 256MB of memory already installed, your next upgrade dollar should be spent on another part of the system, where you will actually see speed benifits from your purchase.

Cheers,
Warden

 

[Grizely1]

I sure can. My old monitor was running at such a crappy refresh rate that I had to buy a new one. THere is no flicker WHATSOEVER and my eyes feel way better.

 

[Guest]

good point, althought forget 30hz most people can tell the difference between 60-70hz and 85+, i sure can.

 

[sparks219]

I admit that its an awesome card. Just a little too rich for a 17 year old. I spent most of my hard earned $$ on my recent upgrade (p3 800 + 256 MB ram) and my car. It'll be a while before I'll even consider buying something that expensive

sparks

 

[sparks219]

i don't think so. I can tell there is a big difference between 30 fps and 60 fps. 60 average is the minimum i will go these days

sparks

 

[Guest]

im getting 35fps in 640x480x16 medium texture details on an 8mb riva128ZX agp in Quake3 and its smoooooooth!

 

[Grizely1]

Yeah I used to say that when I had my old 8MB video card, then I got my GF2 GTS and was amazed. (Trust me, once you switch to this thing, what you're running seems uncivilized.)

 

[Guest]

Well 120 fps on 1600x1200x32 looks very impressive....

BUT!,

there is one little problem there:

The human eye can't see more than 35~40 fps, so spending huge amounts of money on higher rates is bullshit.

 

[lagger]

Or instead of Fdisk and losing all your settings and data you could do what us old DOS hands do .. open a dos window or boot to dos, use atrrib -h -s -r and rename io.sys msdos.sys and command.com , reboot from a startup disk and install yer new OS ... works for me