Why did Nvidia....

[eagle1]

I'm really tired with this I am Omega guy!
Every post he goes to or makes is rude or doesn't make sense.!
I Have never done this but I should report this guy to a mod or something!!!

I would like to see banned instead of the member line!! (just my 2 cents! ).

[ocit]

"LMAO OCIT!!hey now i have a real question here.. why the hell would you put a video card in a computer anyways, i mean u can just listen to the beeps to see what's wrong right?"

Thats assuming something is wrong, if nothings is you could always play Quake without a mon. A blind man with a gun oh my!

[I am the Omega]

yaya! Hehe, i was wondering if anyone would know what would be a much better alternative!!! Looks like no one did -.-

Ok here it is: PCI-Express!! Duh... its currently running@16GB/s (2.5GHz). No, im not making this up. It's the next-gen I/O slot. here- even check http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/pciexpress And all they need to do is provide a do-it-yourself kit to solder a PCI-X slot to your MoBo

Btw- PCI-X is backwards compatable with PCI slots (33/66MHz)

As for all you people who think AGP 8x is enough for now:
Yes, for the tecnique the low-bandwidth that AGP currently delivers, it is enough right now- because the low-bandwidth forces them to use different methods of getting info to and from the video card than what they'd like. Mostly less things can go I/O. With PCI-X they could take off even more load off the CPU and put it onto the GPU- and Nvidia's 500MHz 256bit GPU would be perfect for that. And another thing. Think of the full potential of the cards memory bandwidth unleashed. Just think! You could crank friggin. .. 2048x2048x32 and it would hardly take a hit! well thats an exaggeration. But you get the idea. 1280x1024x32 would no longer see a more noticable hit than the move from 640 to 800 to 1024.

So yes, AGP is slow, and (it's official) will not be developed beyond AGP 8x. Period.

Now, who's up for a game of Doom III@1920x1200 on a Quad 1.8GHz PPC970 Mac with 900MHz DDR-bus, 2GB DDR-2 PC7200 RAM, ATi Radeon 9800 Pro Turbo 512MB DDR-2 0.09µ Dual 675/2100MHz via PCI-X, RAIDed Quad ATA/100 160GB Jumbo Maxtor HDD's, Apple 23" 1920x1200 Cinema HD display, OS X v10.2.5, and Soundblaster LIVE! Gamer Edition with 5.1 soundsystem? My guess is I'd hit 250FPS, as the PPC970's when they come out will have Alti-Vec (128-bit capability-- and sometimes 256-bit, the technology used in G4's, manufactored by IBM), along with 4MB L3 cache, 512K L2, and 128K L1, and a 900MHz apple bus is insane (as they are twice as wide as PC buses- you see 167MHz mac Bus, its 333MHz PC-equivalent), and because a Radeon of that caliber equipped with two cpu's- well... you get the picture. And yes i meant 250fps. You know youd take that mac over your PC if it existed today!!! Oh btw Radeon 9700 Pro and GF FX is going to mac.

Ok, so i got a bit carried away . . .

[eweruk]

Ok, so your ATi Radeon 9800 Pro is AGP right???

[I am the Omega]

First, the 9800 doesnt exist i was making that up of course. And no, i said via PCI-X. I can do that since it dont exist yet, so i can configure any way i want

[J-Excel]

To answer your original question then, because 90+% of the mobos in use at the time the card will be released will support AGP. If a new standard comes out I'm sure Nvidia will have a card ready for it when the mobos hit the shelves. I'm sure their engineers and marketing people know a little more about this stuff than you.

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

Ok here it is: PCI-Express!! Duh... its currently running@16GB/s (2.5GHz). No, im not making this up. It's the next-gen I/O slot. here- even check http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/pciexpress And all they need to do is provide a do-it-yourself kit to solder a PCI-X slot to your MoBo

Btw- PCI-X is backwards compatable with PCI slots (33/66MHz)

This is old news, they've been considering this for years

3GIO slated for release in 2003, mind you that was back in 2001 when it was approved as the new PCI standard. Intel's Arapahoe (which it was known then) was competing with hypertransport by AMD. Arapahoe won the rights to the new PCI bus.

http://www.intel.com/technology/pciexpress/index.htm

So you go ahead and buy a brandnew card and put it in a system in 2003, the rest of us will just have to suffer with 2.1Gbytes/sec from AGP 8x. Which BTW is not a bottleneck as of yet.

Don't feed the trolls.

[samwichse]

16 gb/s bus?!?!

Wow, that's great, except for the 133 mhz DDR my system runs and the 166 mhz DDR a lot of people run!

That's piddling bandwidth for graphics card memory. The bus might be quick as anything, but it don't make a darned bit of difference till you increase the sytem bandwidth.

And if you just mean for faster communication between the CPU and the video card, that will mean an even smaller difference.

There's a reason AGP 8X doesn't give any noticeable difference in speed already and that's the same reason no one's seen fit to change the current standard for anything but marketing "8X."

Sam

[I am the Omega]

Ummm..... Don't you think by 2003 they'll have faster RAM than DDR 166MHz? (They do already, but hell. . .) like, oh l dunno, DDR-2 266MHz? So it runs@1033GHz? Hmm? :P Btw i know 8x isnt a real bottleneck as of now. I'm talking about in the future. That card has a LOT of room to grow. Put it in a system 3 years from now with a huge bus and memory and BOOM you got DOOM III running at 2kx2k res at 200FPS.

Also, with such a bus, who needs texture compression? Wouldn't it be easier to saturate a video card if you could actually put more data concurrently I/O than the GPU could chew and spit out without having to wait a few ns? Or (i have no idea if this is possible, or if it'd work) but, couldnt it allow data to be sent to address each part of the card simultaneously? Like the GPU, RAM, RAMDAC, etc?? Maybe i duno? Also, (i'm also not sure if THIS would work, or be impractical)- wouldnt it be possible to put L2 and L1 cache on a video card? Like super super super fast 4MB 0.9ns 9GHz DDR-II SRAM, which could be simultaneously addressed and red from?