GeForce 6 series video processor OFFICIAL THREAD

[telstar1]

Originally posted by: redDragon128
Someone just told me that apparently there was some problem with delivering the schematic to the fab. As in somehow the beta schematic was delivered instead of the final. So it's possible that we're all running betas. This sucks.

Who is "someone"? Kind doesn't mean anything unless it's a credible source.

Anyway, assuming what you're saying is true... it lends itself to the possibility that the PCT-Express versions of the 8600 might not have the same problem since it'd be a different reference design.

 

[imported_DanW]

I was just looking at all this and I noticed that they don't state in the X-bit labs article that they are testing with WMV-9. They simply state "HDTV clip", which isn't necessarily WMV-HD, it well could be MPEG2, which is used in over the air HDTV broadcasts. An uninformed reviewer might well make such a mistake. This would explain why they thought that they were able to get it all working with 6800 card. They never tested with WMV-9, so it worked fine. Where as in the case of the Hexus.net article, they tested specifically, with "HDTV T2 trailer in Windows Media Player 9", thus we know they were using WMV HD content. This seems to match to Nvidia claims that the WMV decoder on the 6800 cards doesn't currently work, but that MPEG2 does. It also would suggest that the VP is at least partially functional.

Does anyone know why Anandtech hasn't published anything else on this? They said on October 11th, almost two months ago now, "We'll keep you updated on this topic as we get more information and we will get more information." I don't feel particularly well updated.

DanW

 

[redDragon128]

Originally posted by: DanW
I was just looking at all this and I noticed that they don't state in the X-bit labs article that they are testing with WMV-9. They simply state "HDTV clip", which isn't necessarily WMV-HD, it well could be MPEG2, which is used in over the air HDTV broadcasts. An uninformed reviewer might well make such a mistake. This would explain why they thought that they were able to get it all working with 6800 card. They never tested with WMV-9, so it worked fine. Where as in the case of the Hexus.net article, they tested specifically, with "HDTV T2 trailer in Windows Media Player 9", thus we know they were using WMV HD content. This seems to match to Nvidia claims that the WMV decoder on the 6800 cards doesn't currently work, but that MPEG2 does. It also would suggest that the VP is at least partially functional.

Does anyone know why Anandtech hasn't published anything else on this? They said on October 11th, almost two months ago now, "We'll keep you updated on this topic as we get more information and we will get more information." I don't feel particularly well updated.

DanW

Good question. I think we should ask him what's going on. Although I doubt nvidia has told anandtech anything at all.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: redDragon128

Originally posted by: DanW
I was just looking at all this and I noticed that they don't state in the X-bit labs article that they are testing with WMV-9. They simply state "HDTV clip", which isn't necessarily WMV-HD, it well could be MPEG2, which is used in over the air HDTV broadcasts. An uninformed reviewer might well make such a mistake. This would explain why they thought that they were able to get it all working with 6800 card. They never tested with WMV-9, so it worked fine. Where as in the case of the Hexus.net article, they tested specifically, with "HDTV T2 trailer in Windows Media Player 9", thus we know they were using WMV HD content. This seems to match to Nvidia claims that the WMV decoder on the 6800 cards doesn't currently work, but that MPEG2 does. It also would suggest that the VP is at least partially functional.

Does anyone know why Anandtech hasn't published anything else on this? They said on October 11th, almost two months ago now, "We'll keep you updated on this topic as we get more information and we will get more information." I don't feel particularly well updated.

DanW

Good question. I think we should ask him what's going on. Although I doubt nvidia has told anandtech anything at all.

You won't get any info from AT, or anywhere else, until nVidia tells them they can print it. They won't risk their status as recipient of nVidia products and ad money by telling what they know, and nVidia won't give them info that could extend their liability in the matter.

I honestly doubt there is anything actionable in nVidia's marketing claims for the 6800s. Their legal department would have approved it first? Large companies don't publish marketing claims they can be sued for very often. You'll probably find the wording doesn't specify how much acceleration of WMV encode, or whether it was the AGP or PCIE version, or something like that.

We'll end up waiting in the end, because we have no control of the situation. If somebody rich enough to start a lawsuit over a video card does so, they'll likely release a driver that gives 1% acceleration, and state "We've met the terms of our marketing. We promised "hardware acceleration" there it is."

The likely story is the Pure Video hasn't passed QA yet, and we won't get to see it till it does.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Rollo

I honestly doubt there is anything actionable in nVidia's marketing claims for the 6800s. Their legal department would have approved it first? Large companies don't publish marketing claims they can be sued for very often. You'll probably find the wording doesn't specify how much acceleration of WMV encode, or whether it was the AGP or PCIE version, or something like that.

We'll end up waiting in the end, because we have no control of the situation.

The fact that you don't see anything actionable in this situation is predictable. The facts on the ground are a lot more fluid and depend much more on product liability statutes in our respective states.

For the life of me I don't see how the word "control" is applicable in this case. The word "power" is far more germane. Two examples of that power are goodwill and word-of-mouth, and a judicious use of either\both can alter NV's so-far arrogant and dismissive attitude. Assuming a posture of servile helplessness has never gotten a bad product recalled and\or fixed.

 

[carage]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rollo

I honestly doubt there is anything actionable in nVidia's marketing claims for the 6800s. Their legal department would have approved it first? Large companies don't publish marketing claims they can be sued for very often. You'll probably find the wording doesn't specify how much acceleration of WMV encode, or whether it was the AGP or PCIE version, or something like that.

We'll end up waiting in the end, because we have no control of the situation.

The fact that you don't see anything actionable in this situation is predictable. The facts on the ground are a lot more fluid and depend much more on product liability statutes in our respective states.

For the life of me I don't see how the word "control" is applicable in this case. The word "power" is far more germane. Two examples of that power are goodwill and word-of-mouth, and a judicious use of either\both can alter NV's so-far arrogant and dismissive attitude. Assuming a posture of servile helplessness has never gotten a bad product recalled and\or fixed.

Technically, I think Rollo does have a point. Companies will go to great lengths to avoid legal responsibility. They also have loopholes in contracts. That is a fact.
It's not like we haven't seen nVidia alter its product feature descriptions either. So what is going to stop them for changing it again if something doesn't work out? I am still clueless about the actual difference between what is marketed as a Pure Video Engine and an Adaptable Programmable Video Processor. Do you know?
Besides, from a technical point of view, that hardware acceleration is indeed ambiguous. I have never seen any official product description that claims or promises of a specific amount of CPU utilization. If it could get it under 50% I would be happy, but from nVidia's point of view, just by releasing something that cuts down CPU utilization by 1% does honor their end of the bargain. Of course, how the market reacts to it is a whole other issue, but we can't hold them responsible for something they never really specified in the first place. We can be angry because we were disillusioned as it was not the same as what we thought, but proving such would still be a hardball in court.

 

[Chippy99]

Originally posted by: carage

<snip>

from nVidia's point of view, just by releasing something that cuts down CPU utilization by 1% does honor their end of the bargain.

Again, I suspect that could be one for the lawyers to argue over. Here in the UK, the sense of *reasonableness* applies. Is it *reasonable* that they should describe a 1% reduction in CPU as being hardware acceleration? No, I would say it isn't.

Any judge would spot a mile off that its not working and showing a 1% improvement was just some pathetic attempt to weasel out of paying damages.

Sometimes the law isn't as much of an ass as you might think!

Chip

 

[carage]

Originally posted by: Chippy99

Originally posted by: carage

<snip>

from nVidia's point of view, just by releasing something that cuts down CPU utilization by 1% does honor their end of the bargain.

Again, I suspect that could be one for the lawyers to argue over. Here in the UK, the sense of *reasonableness* applies. Is it *reasonable* that they should describe a 1% reduction in CPU as being hardware acceleration? No, I would say it isn't.

Any judge would spot a mile off that its not working and showing a 1% improvement was just some pathetic attempt to weasel out of paying damages.

Sometimes the law isn't as much of an ass as you might think!

Chip

Well, I was a paralegal intern so I know firsthand how the law and corporate press releases can be a real bitch at times. Of course, in the corporate world's point of view, consumer advocate groups are real bitches too.

Although you are indeed correct, that would be something the lawyers would have to argue over, but technically in that case they did "something". We might not like that "something" because it is not "enough", but satisfaction is a qualitative statement.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: carage

Technically, I think Rollo does have a point. Companies will go to great lengths to avoid legal responsibility. They also have loopholes in contracts. That is a fact.

I never said or implied that companies don't function that way. What I did say was that (regardless of the disclaimers and such used to protect a company from the defects of its products) whether they can easily blow off consumer concerns has a great deal to do with BB statutes in individual states, and the ruckus said consumers are willing to make when wronged. I also mentioned that acting like a whipped dog or being in AWE of a company that's snookered you is NOT the way to get a situation rectified. Besides, does this HAVE to be viewed in terms of class action? BFG has said that they'll make it right if NV doesn't and that's good enough for me.

 

[carage]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: carage

Technically, I think Rollo does have a point. Companies will go to great lengths to avoid legal responsibility. They also have loopholes in contracts. That is a fact.

I never said or implied that companies don't function that way. What I did say was that (regardless of the disclaimers and such used to protect a company from the defects of its products) whether they can easily blow off consumer concerns has a great deal to do with BB statutes in individual states, and the ruckus said consumers are willing to make when wronged. I also mentioned that acting like a whipped dog or being in AWE of a company that's snookered you is NOT the way to get a situation rectified. Besides, does this HAVE to be viewed in terms of class action? BFG has said that they'll make it right if NV doesn't and that's good enough for me.

Maybe I should clarify this, I definitely agree we should fight, both in the media and in court if neccesary.
However, I am just pointing out it might not be that easy to WIN anything substantial.
Best case scenario, nVidia hears news of bad press and possible lawsuit then comeout with a honest and substantiable response.
Second scenario, we start suing, bad press ensues, nVidia forced to make a settlement. (Hey! free NV50s for everyone would be nice!!)
Worst case scenario, the battle of lawyers begin. By the time we get over all the appeals and extensions, we are all running next-next gen products.
Even worse case scenario, after years of fighting we still end up losing or nVidia goes out of business we have no choice but to buy ATi stuff (and I don't want to see that.)

I've just called BFG half an hour ago, and guess what I've got a slightly different answer.
While the rep did say BFG will strive to guarantee that BFG cards are not "defective" products and wil live up to the lifetime warranty (product line lifetime that is), they cannot alter or fix nVidia's design whether it is a problem or not. I asked about the November driver release the other rep told me last time, and he said that is what they were all told on November 1. Obviously, nVidia has problems getting it done, but BFG can't force nVidia to handover work in progress either.

 

[imported_humey]

I phoned the UK PR guy again as its a fair 6 days past deadline, i need wait on call back since it was a answer machine.

He made the claim same as i read here that 99% buy card to game and this is true, but i used to encode 2 avi to svcd per day and a gpu that makes this faster again lightening load on cpu would be added bonus.

So as far as nvidia are concerned i do still encode daily, piss on them, it says alot of things on my nice big box that aint working so far, so i want a fix or a replacement with next gen card if its agp, mines is like 1 month old and its near end of its time already.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: carage
Maybe I should clarify this, I definitely agree we should fight, both in the media and in court if neccesary.
However, I am just pointing out it might not be that easy to WIN anything substantial.

I've just called BFG half an hour ago, and guess what I've got a slightly different answer.

No clarifiction needed, carage. I understood your point quite well. I disagree with Rollo's idea that all I can do is "take it" becasue nVidia is SO powerful and I'm so weak. That's what I responded to, nothing more. Please keep this in mind should you choose to respond to me directly.

Corporate speak aside, my card IS defective. BFG is ultimately responsible for the defects and\or workmanship of their products. Also, just to be crystal clear about this, I'm not at all interested in "winning" anything. I simply want my $400 video card rendered operable persuant to its listed specs.

 

[carage]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: carage
Maybe I should clarify this, I definitely agree we should fight, both in the media and in court if neccesary.
However, I am just pointing out it might not be that easy to WIN anything substantial.

I've just called BFG half an hour ago, and guess what I've got a slightly different answer.

No clarifiction needed, carage. I understood your point quite well. I disagree with Rollo's idea that all I can do is "take it" becasue nVidia is SO powerful and I'm so weak. That's what I responded to, nothing more. Please keep this in mind should you choose to respond to me directly.

Corporate speak aside, my card IS defective. BFG is ultimately responsible for the defects and\or workmanship of their products. Also, just to be crystal clear about this, I'm not at all interested in "winning" anything. I simply want my $400 video card rendered operable persuant to its listed specs.

Point taken. I would like to have a fully functional product as my goal too. Anything beyond it would just be a bonus and maybe a gesture of good faith on NV's part. If we can't get a fully functional product as advertised, then I would like to start seeing compensation options.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: carage

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: carage
Maybe I should clarify this, I definitely agree we should fight, both in the media and in court if neccesary.
However, I am just pointing out it might not be that easy to WIN anything substantial.

I've just called BFG half an hour ago, and guess what I've got a slightly different answer.

No clarifiction needed, carage. I understood your point quite well. I disagree with Rollo's idea that all I can do is "take it" becasue nVidia is SO powerful and I'm so weak. That's what I responded to, nothing more. Please keep this in mind should you choose to respond to me directly.

Corporate speak aside, my card IS defective. BFG is ultimately responsible for the defects and\or workmanship of their products. Also, just to be crystal clear about this, I'm not at all interested in "winning" anything. I simply want my $400 video card rendered operable persuant to its listed specs.

Point taken. I would like to have a fully functional product as my goal too. Anything beyond it would just be a bonus and maybe a gesture of good faith on NV's part. If we can't get a fully functional product as advertised, then I would like to start seeing compensation options.

I agree entirely, and like you I'm not picky about what avenue is taken to get me where I want to be. :thumbsup:

 

[saechaka]

well best of luck to you guys. i ended up returning my bfg 6800 oc. i'll probably buy one that doesn't have that video processor problem. i'm not patient enough to wait.

 

[redDragon128]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: carage

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: carage
Maybe I should clarify this, I definitely agree we should fight, both in the media and in court if neccesary.
However, I am just pointing out it might not be that easy to WIN anything substantial.

I've just called BFG half an hour ago, and guess what I've got a slightly different answer.

No clarifiction needed, carage. I understood your point quite well. I disagree with Rollo's idea that all I can do is "take it" becasue nVidia is SO powerful and I'm so weak. That's what I responded to, nothing more. Please keep this in mind should you choose to respond to me directly.

Corporate speak aside, my card IS defective. BFG is ultimately responsible for the defects and\or workmanship of their products. Also, just to be crystal clear about this, I'm not at all interested in "winning" anything. I simply want my $400 video card rendered operable persuant to its listed specs.

Point taken. I would like to have a fully functional product as my goal too. Anything beyond it would just be a bonus and maybe a gesture of good faith on NV's part. If we can't get a fully functional product as advertised, then I would like to start seeing compensation options.

I agree entirely, and like you I'm not picky about what avenue is taken to get me where I want to be. :thumbsup:

Well said!

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Rollo
The likely story is the Pure Video hasn't passed QA yet, and we won't get to see it till it does.

First, I would like to say that everything else in your post (that I didn't quote), was quite spot-on accurate. However, I had to chuckle at the quoted part - this is NVidia we're talking about here, one that releases "leaked" driver versions nearly weekly, and apparently has an army of driver-developers coding for them. And yet, this same company, can't deliver a working, QA-tested, set of drivers to support the full advertised functionality of the hardware, nearly six months later? You've got to be kidding me. It can't be because of a lack of driver-writing resources or capabilities. Obviously, there is a problem in the pipeline, somewhere. Anyone with an iota of common-sense and the capability to "read between the lines" a little, should be able to see this.

Btw, I'm not attacking you, Rollo, just trying to point out that such an explaination seem to be a bit... highly dubious, at least to me. Btw, "PureVideo" is meaningless marketing nonsense. NVidia advertised a programmable video processor, capable of accelerating both decoding and encoding, of a number of various advanced video media formats. Not just that the product "contains PureVideo support".

Also, given how both NV's and ATI's high-end video cards had somewhat extremely-advanced "paper launches", it doesn't totally surprise me to find out that some of them contain "paper features" only as well. But NV made their bed, now they have to lie in it, and they should make things right, IMHO.

 

[y0bailey]

best words ever

 

[redDragon128]

update for you guys:
This is from Loyd Case @ ziffdavis.
I think "totally broken" may be overstating the case. The 3D functionality works very well.

However, we do know that the 6800 video processing engine is turned off in the current drivers, for whatever reason. That means the CPU load for video playback is quite high, since the processor is doing all the work.

We're looking into the issue and hope to have something more concrete relatively soon.

Best regards,

Loyd Case

I emailed him today @ around 4 and he responded around 8. I'm very surprised at how fast this guy was at responding. In any case, looks like their looking into it. Dunno though. I hope they can get something in writing about it. That would help us.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Rollo
The likely story is the Pure Video hasn't passed QA yet, and we won't get to see it till it does.

First, I would like to say that everything else in your post (that I didn't quote), was quite spot-on accurate. However, I had to chuckle at the quoted part - this is NVidia we're talking about here, one that releases "leaked" driver versions nearly weekly, and apparently has an army of driver-developers coding for them. And yet, this same company, can't deliver a working, QA-tested, set of drivers to support the full advertised functionality of the hardware, nearly six months later? You've got to be kidding me. It can't be because of a lack of driver-writing resources or capabilities. Obviously, there is a problem in the pipeline, somewhere. Anyone with an iota of common-sense and the capability to "read between the lines" a little, should be able to see this.

I agree with you on their driver team seemingly having high productivity, but I think this is a lot different than putting out the Dets in that there is much more at stake here than better UT2003 numbers. I'm guessing nVidia takes this more seriously than any of us given the ramifications to them if their fix fails: it would mean some bad PR and will cost them money in either sales or returns. I believe the X800s are supposed to use some combination of RageTheatre and the shaders for their acceleration, right? Perhaps nVidia is trying to pull off something similar. As far as the "six months" goes, the 5800Ultra had bad AF until 6/03, and it was supposed to be out the door 10/02. (so they had working samples long before that)
I've never coded device drivers, so I don't know if 6 months is a little or long time for this.

Btw, I'm not attacking you, Rollo, just trying to point out that such an explaination seem to be a bit... highly dubious, at least to me.

Didn't think you were.

Btw, "PureVideo" is meaningless marketing nonsense. NVidia advertised a programmable video processor, capable of accelerating both decoding and encoding, of a number of various advanced video media formats. Not just that the product "contains PureVideo support".

If their "Pure Video" enables the hardware to do this, I'd say it's not "meaningless", time will tell. 3DFx supporters used to call nVidia's OGSS FSAA a "software hack"- not real hardware FSAA like their RGSS. The end result was somewhat the same though, and the OGSS became nVidia's way of doing it for three generations. Similarly, nVidia fans called 3dfxs "geometry assist" a "software hack" for T/L, but it nonetheless had a small affect on performance.

Also, given how both NV's and ATI's high-end video cards had somewhat extremely-advanced "paper launches", it doesn't totally surprise me to find out that some of them contain "paper features" only as well. But NV made their bed, now they have to lie in it, and they should make things right, IMHO.

It's just as likely their rushed launches only meant the device drivers weren't done and all functionalty hasn't been enabled. ChrisRay and others over at nVNews are supposedly enabling 3dc on 6800s with registry editing and leaked drivers, and running ATIs 3dc demos with notable differences. If true, for five months that wasn't possible AFAIK.

 

[carage]

Just wondering had anyone ever turned on Enable VMR in the driver and see what that does??

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: redDragon128
update for you guys:
This is from Loyd Case @ ziffdavis.
I think "totally broken" may be overstating the case. The 3D functionality works very well.

However, we do know that the 6800 video processing engine is turned off in the current drivers, for whatever reason. That means the CPU load for video playback is quite high, since the processor is doing all the work.

We're looking into the issue and hope to have something more concrete relatively soon.

Best regards,

Loyd Case

I emailed him today @ around 4 and he responded around 8. I'm very surprised at how fast this guy was at responding. In any case, looks like their looking into it. Dunno though. I hope they can get something in writing about it. That would help us.

Lloyd Case is the man. I used to read him like the Bible back when I subscribed to Computer Gaming World back in the day.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Btw, "PureVideo" is meaningless marketing nonsense. NVidia advertised a programmable video processor, capable of accelerating both decoding and encoding, of a number of various advanced video media formats. Not just that the product "contains PureVideo support".

If their "Pure Video" enables the hardware to do this, I'd say it's not "meaningless", time will tell.

I just meant the name - it doesn't have any inherent technical definitions, like "programmable video processor" does. NV could chose to re-define that term at will, to mean anything at all.

Originally posted by: Rollo
Similarly, nVidia fans called 3dfxs "geometry assist" a "software hack" for T/L, but it nonetheless had a small affect on performance.

Well, it was a hack. Since T&amp;L was the hot new feature, many games were introduced that detected and required hardware T&amp;L support in the Direct3D device caps, and would refuse to run otherwise. So 3Dfx basically faked it, and emulated T&amp;L in software. (Which is kind of strange, since MS's own software T&amp;L pipeline support for DX6 was pretty-well optimized, and ran great on the then-new 3DNow! support of K6-2 CPUs - better than on a PIII, in fact. But the fault was that the software application authors refused to let their programs run on a system that only implemented software T&amp;L.)

Originally posted by: Rollo
It's just as likely their rushed launches only meant the device drivers weren't done and all functionalty hasn't been enabled. ChrisRay and others over at nVNews are supposedly enabling 3dc on 6800s with registry editing and leaked drivers, and running ATIs 3dc demos with notable differences. If true, for five months that wasn't possible AFAIK.

That's actually pretty interesting, and good news - that means that if both ATI and NV are supporting 3DC, then we might start to see it utilized by games now too. (And it would be a good arguement for default-enabled support of 3DC in benchmarks like 3DMark05 too - something that was a point of contention in the past since 3DC was originally ATI-only.)

 

[Malichite]

Just thought I should post this since I have seen severals posts claiming that the GFFX is performing better at the WMVHD videos than the 6800. Well I just upgraded tonight from a Gainward 5900 128M O/Ced to 475/950 to a BFG 6800 Ultra OC on a A64 3200+ (754 chip so it has 1M cache). Since this seemed such a hot topic and I didn't want my new video card to tank on playback of DiVX/DVD/WMVHDs. Using the 1080p version of "Step Into Liquid" both of my cards performed close to identical (e.g. both run in the 65-80% region) using the same driver 67.02. I understand this does nothing to show that the 6800 WMVHD hardware acceleration is working (actually the opposite), but this is at least one example that there is no decrease in playback performance between the 5900 and 6800 Ultra OC using 67.02 drivers.

Realistically I bought the card for the 3D performance and not the video playback, but at the same time I didn't want to get downgraded performance. Overall I am quite pleased with my new 6800 Ultra OC.

-Malichite

 

[Ice27181]

On http://www.computerbase.de/new...ruevideo-treiber_2012/
ther is a report (it's in german ) that nVidia will release a "PureVideo-enabled driver" on December 20th.
I don't know where they have that information from or what exactly this driver will be, but it's the first time I read anything concerning a video driver on an official news site!
Does anybody know something more about that?