- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,353
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
NV Roadmap Rumors
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
I have not heard anything
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,353
That will likely not happen till next-gen. it is impossible for the current GF100 series GPU to support more than 2 monitors from a single GPU.
Lol, Green turd! Great way to describe a chip that is too hot and loud and under performs compared to a 5830. The GTX 465 is stuck somewhere ebtween an ATI 5770 and a 5830 and costs mroe thab the 5830. its just a green turd. Spend the extra money for the 5850 as its a damn good card. Lets see is the dual 470 card is any good. i think nvidia needs to shrink their die or redsign their chips to be less hot.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Messages
- 6,408
Great nothing on higher end parts to the 470 and or a refresh of the 480.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,353
Currently nothing on the roadmap for higher performing parts out to 2012 beyond a die shrink and that is not confirmed as to when.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,353
That Galaxy dual 470 that seems to be the "big news" of Computex is a DEMO ONLY product. There are not current plans for production. Still we are very likely to see something of that nature seeing that dual GPU is required for NV Surround gaming configurations.
Sikkyu
I Question Reality
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,878
I would seriously like to see nvidia inovate again. Seems like they are not even trying.
Cannon_Fodder
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 249
We are going into the dark age of video cards again, back to times where you paid $500+ for video cards that only brought modest increases. I lean towards AMD but understand that without NVidia or some other factor pusing inovation the consumer is screwed
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2001
- Messages
- 15,994
If NV starts to sell lots of Tesla boxes then things should brighten up. If GPGPU stuff goes down the tubes for them then we probably won't see much for the next year or so.
With that said I'm very happy with my SLI 480s.
With that said I'm very happy with my SLI 480s.
Poor nVidia. It seems lately any new products are a waste of time and are only being brought to the market because of the money spent on them, and nothing else to bring out. They need to scrap the current line and work triple time on a new card. ATI has built their cards correctly. Even though this seems to be the way of the video card makers, one is awsome for about 2 product launches while other plays catchup, then the other is good for 2 and so forth. Market share gets lost, then made up then lost. So annoying. Just make good cards at good prices at reasonable power levels.
Ever since Nvidia announced the Fermi chip last year and we had a look at the first white-paper, I've pretty much held no hope for the chips. It basically looked like they were taking the already hot and expensive GT200 chip, taking on DirectX 11 shaders, adding in some stuff applicable to GPGPU... thus making it even more hot and expensive.
Really, I'm actually failing to see how any GF1xx or GT2xx derived chip or card is possibly going to be an effective gaming solution, and I don't think I'm the only one. BFG had to know about Nvidia's roadmap, and yet they still left the graphics market. Seems to indicate that they weren't expecting anything good to come of Nvidia's short term releases.
Then there is also Intel dropping Larrabee discrete GPU's from their plans. Granted, I don't think anybody actually expected Larrabee to compete with AMD's RadeonHD 5800 series cards, but Larrabee probably could have kept up in the lower segments of the 56xx / 57xx series cards, and would have put some pressure on AMD to drop prices and raise performance.
Right now though, AMD has the market room to spare. They know that only people who Will Not buy AMD for any reason will be looking at the overly hot, and not actually any faster, GTX 470 / 480 cards.
AMD's vendors are also raking in the profits. We know from the launch of the 5x00 series that the cards were supposed to be much cheaper. The 5850 was what... supposed to be the $200-$230 card at launch?
So if Nvidia actually was able to put out a chip that at the current pricepoints would be cost effective compared to a Radeon, AMD could just go back to their original price-schemes. Which would be an effective kick in the nads to Nvidia.
I think the next two months though will show us how AMD really behaves. If they go through with the product refresh on the 5x00 series cards, that could see more vendors leave the increasingly un-profitable Nvidia market segment.
ATi is going to hammer nVidia hard in 2011 if they don't step up their game.
Budget and midrange cards are where the money is, look at the state of the 465, what has Fermi got to offer at the lower price point? It's a joke of a card in this respect.
Budget and midrange cards are where the money is, look at the state of the 465, what has Fermi got to offer at the lower price point? It's a joke of a card in this respect.
I'm sure part of Nvidia's thinking is:
1) three screens is a lot of pixels. Probably want the power of two cards. (especially since they don't have a dual-GPU card.)
2) if you can afford a new gen video card and three monitors, you can afford two new gen video cards and three monitors.
If I was doing multi-screen gaming, I'd pick up two or more cards, regardless of manuf.
The problem with that line of thinking is that there are plenty of games out right now that can be played perfectly fine across three screens with just ONE of ATI's 5000 series cards. I can probably swing a new system with ONE card and a few budget/value monitors and be perfectly happy today. Then at some point when new games are coming out that require more horse power I can pickup another GPU for a fraction of what it would cost me right now.
Unfortunately nVidia is forcing consumers to pay for TWO hot and expensive cards just to play across 3 monitors. That's a pretty unappealing prospect for a lot of people such as myself right now.
Right or wrong, I think it played a part in their thinking. I certainly wasn't implying they're right.
I'd still have a multi-card system myself. I don't game much, but the games I have chosen to play barely play acceptably on one screen with one card.
They're also probably just trying to sell cards.
Based on everything I've read about Fermi and what Kyle just stated about this current generation not even having the possibility of supporting more than 2 monitors per card, I find it very hard to believe that nVidia was thinking all along, something like "yeah, let's just force everyone into buying two cards if they want to experience surround gaming because only people that can afford multiple cards will care to do that anyway!" I mean there are plenty of people that really only play older, less demanding games and can totally get away with a single lower-midrange Radeon and still enjoy surround gaming. That simply isn't an option at all with nVidia products currently and I think it was just a huge design blunder on their part as opposed to some sort of an even semi-thought-out strategy on any level.
Six months late to the game, I'd imagine their response is "then buy a Radeon."
"Nvidia is about the future, not old, undemanding gaming..."
I'll tell you what Nvidia was thinking when they saw Eyefinity:
"Oh fuck, that is awesome. Someone get some engineers to figure out how to hack that together with our cards. We've got to do something similar."
There was no planning. There was no justification for SLI. It was simply a case of the only way they could do it period. They can't do single card surround vision because the GPU doesn't support 3 outputs. They couldn't change the GPU so late in the game to add a 3rd output, it would have delayed Fermi even longer. They will probably add it to their next generation of GPU, and then advertise the shit out of it.
Nvidia got blindsided, and had to work with what they had to try and at least get something somewhat competitive.
Fermi is very innovative, just in weird ways that are expensive and difficult to manufacture and provide very little benefit to most users over a more conventional architecture.
It'll be interesting to see if Nvidia leverage fermi beyond this generation in the regular consumer space.
I wouldn't be too suprised if, after the die shrinks, the next gen of nvidia consumer cards were based on a whole other technology.
I'd say 480 tri-SLI is quite competitive.
Way to quote mine. My post was obviously about Nvidia's counter to Eyefinity - and in that case tri-SLI is getting its ass kicked since it still can't do surround gaming, just like SLI still can't do surround gaming (and I mean with an official driver, not some leaked beta from some random site). The point was Nvidia requires SLI for surround gaming because it has no other option. They have to require SLI if they want to counter Eyefinity. And letting Eyefinity go unchallenged would be a kick in the balls at the enthusiast level.
RumpleForeSkin
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 228
.. is this the ghosts of 3dFX coming back to haunt them? LOVING my 5770,I haven't been this impresses with a video card since the jump to the 9700pro from the GF3
Falling Anvil
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,570
Well if Anandtech's article on the 5000 series development is true then Eyefinity/"Sunspot" was the kind of thing that you could get only with the kind of inhouse development that you can do between generations, which is probably why an NV response has not been forthcoming.
In any case, if the Nvidia roadmap is really as barren as Kyle suggests, and with the knowledge that it takes a full 3 years or so in order to develop a modern day GPU architecture, then I think I can safely say that G80/G92 has been the best and worst thing to happen to the company in recent memory, because it implies that there has hasn't been a whole lot of progress past expansions of G92 and Fermi since then, while Northern Islands has likely been in development since before the release of the 4800 series.
But still...nothing besides a refresh before 2012 is pretty shocking if true.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2004
- Messages
- 4,614
This just seems to confirm that I should bite the bullet and grab a 5870 and pray I can adjust to ATI driver/visual settings after using NV for the last 5 years or so.
Very disappointed right now in NV. My last good ATI card was a 9700 and I loved that thing but the drivers gave me so much grief.
Very disappointed right now in NV. My last good ATI card was a 9700 and I loved that thing but the drivers gave me so much grief.
BababooeyHTJ
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 6,951
But they aren't pushing prices. What ever happened to not selling a card for more than $599?
This is really bad for the consumer. Looks like I'll be holding on to my GTX280 for a while longer. It's going to be a while before 5870 hits the price that I paid for my 280 well over a year and a half ago now.
It's practically game over for nvidia anyway as Intel and amd are moving the gpu to the cpu package. Nvidia can't do that. They're already obsolete.
All they can hope for is to make fermi a must needed graphics processing accelerator addin solution, and that depends on if developers will go ray traced gaming. Otherwise their only clients will be graphics studios. Let's see if they fuck it up like they did with making physix "closed" (for the literalists with no adding ability, meaning it only works when just an nvidia gpu is in the system).
Spare-Flair
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,471
They don't even have surround working yet. We are @ over 3 months after launch where it was an advertised feature on marketing and even the boxes.
Surround is still not in the drivers.
That has a lot to do with TSMC continually slipping on its schedule. 32nm got scrapped entirely and they are going straight to 28nm, but then that got delayed as well. Hence Southern Islands on 40nm. A mix of current and next gen to fit within manufacturing constraints. ATI can afford the extra transistors and space on 40nm. Nvidia doesn't have much room to work with in that regard.
But I think next gen for both is due in 2011, not 2012.
Falling Anvil
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,570
I would think so too, and I would think that should it go well, we'll hopefully see Globalfoundries do 28nm GPU production.
That's the real big variable that's going to change in the coming years, since for the first time you'll see two major potential GPU chip manufacturers on the block. If it doesn't go well, it'll buy TSMC some breathing room, but if it does, then Nvidia can choose to either swallow Huang's pride and jump ship or flounder even more than they already are for even longer.
That's the real big variable that's going to change in the coming years, since for the first time you'll see two major potential GPU chip manufacturers on the block. If it doesn't go well, it'll buy TSMC some breathing room, but if it does, then Nvidia can choose to either swallow Huang's pride and jump ship or flounder even more than they already are for even longer.
As a owner of 2 GTX480's SLI I cann't complain. Although I only game on one 30" monitor, I don't think I'd want to go with three right now with any of the cards that are out. Even though a 5970 would probably be the best bet for more then one monitor resolution, I'm sure you still can't max out all settings on most newer games with extreme AA? I could be wrong here but that was always my dream when I first started pc gaming.
Anyways I think NVIDIA were trying other innovating things that just haven't worked out or aren't working yet.
Physix I know is a gimmick, but could always be improved.
3D Vision will be marketable to a small group, still a gimmick, but needs to be improved.
Tessaltion- Not much games utilize this yet and from the games I saw, it's nothing to brag about yet...
I think they're going for to much at once and ATI took the right path this time with just eyefinity. NVIDIA will turn it around if they can get everything working right and games start utilyzing these features. Basically Fermi is a first generation for this type of chip, but if the game market takes a turn they can get smoked.
Overall though If you're into 3 monitor set ups, ATI is for you. If you just want to max out all settings and have a few gimmicks thrown in NVIDIA is for you.
I personally love the fact that I can play all games now at 2560X1600 stutter free 60 fps per second all max on all games (except metro 2033 and crysis and Age of Conan).
Drivers between the two, ATI wins hands down. I have my Projection TV hooked up to my pc as well as my 30" and ATI allowed profiles with hotkeys. NVIDIA ditched this a long time ago, now I have to purchase a 3 party program just to hotkey profiles? That's ridiculous, I'm not paying extra for something that used to be there in the first place.
Anyways I think NVIDIA were trying other innovating things that just haven't worked out or aren't working yet.
Physix I know is a gimmick, but could always be improved.
3D Vision will be marketable to a small group, still a gimmick, but needs to be improved.
Tessaltion- Not much games utilize this yet and from the games I saw, it's nothing to brag about yet...
I think they're going for to much at once and ATI took the right path this time with just eyefinity. NVIDIA will turn it around if they can get everything working right and games start utilyzing these features. Basically Fermi is a first generation for this type of chip, but if the game market takes a turn they can get smoked.
Overall though If you're into 3 monitor set ups, ATI is for you. If you just want to max out all settings and have a few gimmicks thrown in NVIDIA is for you.
I personally love the fact that I can play all games now at 2560X1600 stutter free 60 fps per second all max on all games (except metro 2033 and crysis and Age of Conan).
Drivers between the two, ATI wins hands down. I have my Projection TV hooked up to my pc as well as my 30" and ATI allowed profiles with hotkeys. NVIDIA ditched this a long time ago, now I have to purchase a 3 party program just to hotkey profiles? That's ridiculous, I'm not paying extra for something that used to be there in the first place.
Right. Cause 3 monitors is somehow not a gimmick while 3D and PhysX are? Come on dude paint it with the same brush if you want to go that route.
Yes 3 monitors is a gimmick, but at least it works as it's supposed to and games make use of it. Even turning all settings up/ AA is a gimmick that I love too. I wasn't bashing either side, but was pointing out that NVIDIA went too far trying to add to many gimmicks and they either don't work right, or games aren't using them yet.