NV20.....

[DLC]

Ok, whats the deal with the NV20?
Whats the specs.....

 

[HannibalX]

Specs are as follow:

Really Fooking Fast!

 

[obeseotron]

Not released yet. Not until early september probably. I would imagine an advanced T&L unit with 75-100 million polygons/sec, 1.5-2.5 Gigapixels, and hopefully a lot of bandwith. nVidia has gone on record saying that their chip will "crush" the Playstation 2's GPU.

 

[piku]

The GeForce 2 crushes the PS2's GPU, so the NV20 will do it easy.

Really, the Playstation 2 doesnt have THAT good of graphics power... but it does have really nice physics calculation power.

Which is pretty much pointless, because if faking the physics of a ball hitting the ground and acctually doing the calculations provide the same result, what is the point of using up all the extra power?

Case in point - Metal Gear. The Dreamcast could EASILY do the graphics of the game (minus the jagged lines too) - their pretty simple really. But the Dreamcast wouldnt be able to replicate the rain, awesome shadows, ect. because of the immense calculations needed. The Dreamcast could fake it to where its close, but it wouldnt be exactly the same.

(edit: put in the jagged thing in the wrong spot )

 

[Shagga]

September! As early as that?

I fear now for 3dfx. I really hope ATI's Radeon regains some limelight. Who'd of thought that ATI would release a card so feature packed and would hopefully kick the Voodoo 5500/6000's a$$. How must 3dfx feel at this time. Bad enough I suppose to release some never seen before 'Motion blur' shots in Q3A and try to re-kindle some interest, as it seems to me that the voodoo 5500 is already dying a death. 'Motion Blur'........em!....forgot about that one now that everyone is releasing FSAA in some form or other and 3dfx don't seem to be making it a big issue anymore.

Needless to say, I will not be making my mind up until I see some benchmarks comparing the ATI offering and the NV20. This is gunna get interesting.

Needs that P3 800 first though!

 

[duragezic]

It seems the NV20 should beat the ATi Radeon pretty easily. Already, the GF 2 GTS beats the Radeon in almost all benchmarks and resolutions except in 32bit color, which is isn't that far behind. You would think a next-gen card from nVidia would outperform the GF2 GTS pretty well, so it would outperform the Radeon then. I do have to compliment ATi though, they seemed to have finally made a good card for gaming.

 

[Cosmic_Horror]

the question isn't who has the fastest card, but who has the best band for bucks card. Some people will go out and get the fastest card aviable, whereas many of us can't afford the top of the line card. hell i still use a TNT (1)!

cards like the geforce MX will be the down fall of cards like the radeon, g800 and rampage etc etc, as they will sell in greater number purely because they are cheaper, yet still offer great performce.

radeon based cards will do well as ATI has a huge number of OEm contracts that they can now offer a faster 3d card for the home user to enjoy, with more features also.

G800 will be marketed toward topend 2D users with great 3d also.

NV20 and rampage will be geared toward the rich hardcore gamer.

 

[snow patrol]

<< . Already, the GF 2 GTS beats the Radeon in almost all benchmarks and resolutions except in 32bit color, which is isn't that far behind. >>

Jeeze! You make it sound as if 32bit colour isn't that important. 32 bit colour is what Nvidia fans have been bragging about to 3dfx users for ages, and now there is a card that beats Nvidia's best product in 32 bit colour.


<< except in 32bit colour, which is isn't that far behind >>


Hmmn, presumabley you're talking about Quake 3 (yes, some might be surprised to know this isn't the only game in the world ). Take a look here:
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/guides/ati_radeon_64mb_ddr/5.shtml
MDK2, on an Athlon 800 in 32 bit colour (the colour depth gamers demand!):
1024X768x32 - GTS: 51.36fps || Radeon: 79.40fps!
1600x1200x32 - GTS: 21.90fps || Radeon: 45.30fps! (over 100% faster!).

And just to rub salt in Nvidia's wounds, the Radeon beats the GTS in all the high quality modes at all resolutions in Quake 3 (by around 40% at 1600x1200)...

As for Unreal tournament: (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1281&amp;p=25
1280X1024x32: Radeon outperforms GTS by over 50% and delivers very playable frame rates.

Quite simply, as far as I can tell, the Radeon is the fastest, most feature packed card a gamer can buy. The 2d quality is reputably excellent, unlike the 64meg GTS, from what has been said. The only gamers that this card might not appeal to would perhaps be extremely hardcore ones who like to play at low detail settings (16bit) and get 150FPS...

Let me say this - I am almost certainly not going to get a Radeon, as I've decided to hold on to my Voodoo 3 for a few more months, and get something from the next generation.

However, if I were to purchase a new video card tomorrow, with money no object - I would definitely choose the Radeon over the GTS. It's just way faster....simple as that

 

[duragezic]

snow: Oh, hehe I didn't mean to make 32bit sound bad. It just seemed that the GF2 GTS was faster mostly. Thanks for the Sharky links. I stand corrected.