Jen-Hsun, NVIDIA?s CEO states NV4x 2 times faster

[SilverBack]

When looking at the performance element of NV4x, Jen-Hsun expects the performance increment from the previous generation to be dramatically higher than any previous architectural transition they have previously been through. Indeed, presumably speaking about NV40 specifically, NVIDIA?s CEO states that "if we?re not a lot more than 2 times faster I?m going to be very disappointed". Upon discussing where such performance increases could come from he made note that due to the programmable nature of the graphics pipeline and that now applications are making use of this, more and more elements can be brought over from the CPU world to enhance the instruction execution performance, and its expected that NV4x will adopt a lot of these techniques.
Found here

I sure hope so

EEEKKK
Didn't see the previous post

 

[PliotronX]

If it really does have 16 pipes it sure as hell better be at least twice as fast. If it isn't I'm going to be very disappointed.

 

[SunnyD]

2x faster than what? A S3 Virge DX? I should hope so...

 

[SilverBack]

Jen-Hsun expects the performance increment from the previous generation to be 2x

 

[KillaKilla]

What i'm wondering- would PC enthusiast and gamers be opposed to having a P4/AMD A-XP class CPUs essentially built into and AGP card? by P4/AMD A-XP class I mean CPUs that are developed for incredibly high performance. Would an Intel or AMD made GPU (I'm not talking about Intel's cheesy integrated graphics, but an ATI/NV card with an Intel/AMD quality CPU on it) work faster or better than ATI/NV's next-gen GPUs? Seeing as how P4's run at 3.4Ghz, and AMDs run at equivelant if not higher efective speeds, and NV and ATI GPU cores run at ~ 400Mhz, how could they (NV/ATI) beat the CPU industry's processors?

Or are ATI/NV processors so efficient that a processor running at 3.4Ghz can't beat them out, even though they run at ~400Mhz? That is, assuming that intel/amd would design a GPU core purely for graphics processing...

-Gunslinger

 

[pcmodem]

When is the nv4x generation actually due to be on the shelves?
-PCM

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: KillaKilla
What i'm wondering- would PC enthusiast and gamers be opposed to having a P4/AMD A-XP class CPUs essentially built into and AGP card? by P4/AMD A-XP class I mean CPUs that are developed for incredibly high performance. Would an Intel or AMD made GPU (I'm not talking about Intel's cheesy integrated graphics, but an ATI/NV card with an Intel/AMD quality CPU on it) work faster or better than ATI/NV's next-gen GPUs? Seeing as how P4's run at 3.4Ghz, and AMDs run at equivelant if not higher efective speeds, and NV and ATI GPU cores run at ~ 400Mhz, how could they (NV/ATI) beat the CPU industry's processors?

Or are ATI/NV processors so efficient that a processor running at 3.4Ghz can't beat them out, even though they run at ~400Mhz? That is, assuming that intel/amd would design a GPU core purely for graphics processing...

-Gunslinger

It's not a matter of clock speed, it's a matter of effective operations. The whole point of a multi-pipelined GPU is that it's massively parallel for most 3D graphics operations. 400Mhz * 8 pipes should be roughly equivalent to a 3200Mhz GPU with one pipeline (which would be effectively what a Pentium 4 3.2 used as a GPU would be).

Basically, the clock speeds on CPU cores aren't faster because AMD/Intel are smarter than ATI/NV (although they do have about a 6-18 month technology lead), it's because their CPUs do WAY less work/clock and don't work on parallel data streams (except in certain cases such as SSE2, but that's SIMD, which is not exactly what graphics cards do). Consider also that you're paying $200-300 for a GPU with MORE transistors than a P4/Athlon, 128-256MB of very fast RAM, and a PCB that's approaching a motherboard's complexity, compared with paying $200-300 for a top-end CPU alone. A video card with a CPU of similar technology (essentially, a multi-cored P4 or Athlon) might be doable, but it would be at least twice as expensive as today's graphics cards (which are already approaching the price of an entire system on the top end!)

 

[Genx87]

Wait until PS 4.0

The model looks very CPUish.

 

[larciel]

nice. a powerful machine.

so did nVidia finally got the technology from acquired 3dfx how to make external AC adapter for video card?.

that thing will heat my room in 2 minutes in winter... nice.. very nice

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: KillaKilla
What i'm wondering- would PC enthusiast and gamers be opposed to having a P4/AMD A-XP class CPUs essentially built into and AGP card? by P4/AMD A-XP class I mean CPUs that are developed for incredibly high performance. Would an Intel or AMD made GPU (I'm not talking about Intel's cheesy integrated graphics, but an ATI/NV card with an Intel/AMD quality CPU on it) work faster or better than ATI/NV's next-gen GPUs? Seeing as how P4's run at 3.4Ghz, and AMDs run at equivelant if not higher efective speeds, and NV and ATI GPU cores run at ~ 400Mhz, how could they (NV/ATI) beat the CPU industry's processors?

Or are ATI/NV processors so efficient that a processor running at 3.4Ghz can't beat them out, even though they run at ~400Mhz? That is, assuming that intel/amd would design a GPU core purely for graphics processing...

-Gunslinger

No. GPUs are heavily parallel, and not counting newer shader tech, do largelky dumb tasks, which are easily handled with parallel designs. They already have reached the raw power levels of CPUs, in both computational power and heat output, but the computational part is very specific. There are some university types thinking of shunting vector-based calculations of supercomputers to the graphics cards