So, does the 7950GX2 count as a single card solution?

[Ackmed]

You didnt do any work, to be done. Just like the others, you only focus on one aspect of my post. You cant refute anything else, so you ignore it, same as the other two. Comparing a GX2 to a dual core CPU is pretty silly. Which is what my post was about, yet you along with others, seem to focus on the one point of my post.

kobymu, expanded on it, and put it pretty well. The only thing they have in common, is the one "slot". Run off if you want, we all know you dont keep your word.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
EDIT: There are currently no less than 73 (count them) Nforce 4 motherboards with single PCI-e x16 slots available on newegg. That is just Nforce4 chipsets. There are countless others with varying chipsets with single PCI-e x16 slots. They all have the same limitation, being able to support only one PCI-e video card. And all of them will accept a GX2.

So, while the rest of you folks continue to debate technical points on why the GX2 should be considered two cards, lets stay in the real world where end users with single slot PCI-e motherboards could enjoy a GX2 if they so desired. My work is so done here.

Enjoy.

Actually if you go to the NVidia website there are only a TOTAL of 51 motherboards that have claimed support for the 7950 across ALL chipsets be it NVidia, ATI, Intel, or VIA. So just because you have a PCI-e x16 slot doesn't mean you can use the card.

My own motherboard doesn't support it and most of the motherboards that do support it have the NF4 SLI chipset.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
You didnt do any work, to be done. Just like the others, you only focus on one aspect of my post. You cant refute anything else, so you ignore it, same as the other two. Comparing a GX2 to a dual core CPU is pretty silly. Which is what my post was about, yet you along with others, seem to focus on the one point of my post.

kobymu, expanded on it, and put it pretty well. The only thing they have in common, is the one "slot". Run off if you want, we all know you dont keep your word.

To be honest Ackmed, I didn't really read any of your points. Maybe I will in a short while, but I don't really feel a pressing need to read your spin.

Keep my word? You mean the time I said I was leaving and never coming back to video? But still came back anyway? LMAO. Guess what!! I got over myself and now deal with the likes of you in a different manner. It's easy.

EDIT: And that's if I find it worth my time.

 

[nts]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: nts

See this is where the driver comes in handy. The driver directly communicates with the hardware, what the OS can do is extremely limited.

it is the OS that sends out data, driver is only a encoder that encodes data so hardware can understand.

"The driver object is a portion of memory allocated by Windows, which describes where the actual driver is loaded into memory plus contains information readable by Windows about the driver"

"When you decide to print a document or connect to the Internet, Windows will examine the Function Dispatch Table to see which major function code will be able to fulfil the request. "


Text[

Good job making yourself look even stupider. Read your own link, would be a start.

For simplicity lets quickly examine how an OpenGL video drivers works.

Your system has an opengl32.dll (and some others) which simply pass the called functions and arguments to the appropriate driver (usually a dll like nvoglnt.dll for nvidias driver). If there is no driver installed it simply goes to a microsoft software renderer. If howerer there is a driver installed this driver will take what you want it to do and directly communicate that to the hardware. The windows opengl dll is only based on version 1.0, so if you want any support higher then you need to map extensions which the driver exposes.

The OS can only communicate with the video card in a very limited fashion. There is base functionality that every video card must support (doesn't include 3D TnL or anything like that) and windows can only access this base functionality, nothing more. That's why you need a video driver to be able to use the other functionality of the video card.

Any modern video card without a driver installed is a useless piece of junk.

 

[Bull Dog]

And beggerking lets get one more thing in for the record as to why you cannot compare a 7950GX2 with a X1900XTX and make a fair comparason between the two.
As of 12:30 PST on July 1st, 2006,
The 7950GX2 costs $520AR @NewEgg
The X1900XTX costs $425AR@NewEgg
The X1900XT costs only $355 @NewEgg

I'm sorry, but no matter how hard you try, you cannot compare a card that costs $520 to a card that costs $95 and $165, respectively, less. That much of a price difference, places the X1900XT and the X1900XTX in a completely leagues than the 7950GX2 is in. Is the 7950GX2 as a whole faster than a X1900XTX? Yes, but then again, so are two SLIed 7900GTs.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Bull Dog
And beggerking lets get one more thing in for the record as to why you cannot compare a 7950GX2 with a X1900XTX and make a fair comparason between the two.
As of 12:30 PST on July 1st, 2006,
The 7950GX2 costs $520AR @NewEgg
The X1900XTX costs $425AR@NewEgg
The X1900XT costs only $355 @NewEgg

I'm sorry, but no matter how hard you try, you cannot compare a card that costs $520 to a card that costs $95 and $165, respectively, less. That much of a price difference, places the X1900XT and the X1900XTX in a completely leagues than the 7950GX2 is in. Is the 7950GX2 as a whole faster than a X1900XTX? Yes, but then again, so are two SLIed 7900GTs.

Maybe we can work out price/performance values another time, because this thread is asking if the 7950GX2 counts as a single card solution. Not which is the better buy. You want the fastest card, you pay the highest dollars. Same goes for the best overclocking motherboards, memory, fastest CPU's. You want the fastest, you pay.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

To be honest Ackmed, I didn't really read any of your points. Maybe I will in a short while, but I don't really feel a pressing need to read your spin.

Keep my word? You mean the time I said I was leaving and never coming back to video? But still came back anyway? LMAO. Guess what!! I got over myself and now deal with the likes of you in a different manner. It's easy.

EDIT: And that's if I find it worth my time.

Then maybe you should read, before posting. I posted, to someone who said that a dual core CPU is the same as a GX2. I posted several reasons why I dont think it is. You and two others, only focus on one, because you cant refute the others. Its really pretty simple if you actually read.

Yeah, you didnt keep your word. Again in this thread. Deal with the likes of me? Im not the one only harping on one part of a post, and disregarding the rest of it because I have no answers. That would be you.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

To be honest Ackmed, I didn't really read any of your points. Maybe I will in a short while, but I don't really feel a pressing need to read your spin.

Keep my word? You mean the time I said I was leaving and never coming back to video? But still came back anyway? LMAO. Guess what!! I got over myself and now deal with the likes of you in a different manner. It's easy.

EDIT: And that's if I find it worth my time.

Then maybe you should read, before posting. I posted, to someone who said that a dual core CPU is the same as a GX2. I posted several reasons why I dont think it is. You and two others, only focus on one, because you cant refute the others. Its really pretty simple if you actually read.

Yeah, you didnt keep your word. Again in this thread. Deal with the likes of me? Im not the one only harping on one part of a post, and disregarding the rest of it because I have no answers. That would be you.

Like I said, I'll get to you when I want to. I'm feeling a little lazy today. Beautiful day here. Going out to the movies in a few. When I get back, maybe I'll feel up to going over your points with you. But understand something. If I disagree with any or all of your points (not saying I will or won't) and explain why, you should respect my opinion as I will yours. And we will both leave it at that and not carry on for eighty pages of BS. Ok with you?

Just to be clear, are these your points you're speaking of: Bottom numbered list:

1. That depends on the motherboard. It doesn't use the slot, though it may block the slot.

2. CPU heatsinks can block ram slots, do you say that they take up a ram slot? No, you don't.

3. Artic Silencers block a slot too, but they don't make your card a two-card solution.

4. Funny thing about this argument is it is pointless. Most of the 2-slot arguers are fanATIcs and most of the single slot arguers are nvidiats.

5. All because the ATI people want to believe the x1900xtx is still the fastest 'part' when it quite obviously isn't.

6. Even funnier is that, based upon your argument, that the card blocks the second slot, the x1900xtx is a 2 slot card as well.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



numbered by me to make it easier

1. Care to take a guess at what percentage it is where a GX2 doesnt block the second slot?

2. Why would I? Its not even the same thing.

3. I never said it did.

4. Its one point out of several, that you and begger seem to hinge your whole arguement on.

5. I dont care which has the faster card. Its "obviously isnt"? According to the poll, most think the GX2 is two cards slapped together.

6. Once again, you hinge your whole post, and argument on one point out of several in my post. Ill post it again, since you dont seem to want to respond to the whole post.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Like I said, I'll get to you when I want to. I'm feeling a little lazy today. Beautiful day here. Going out to the movies in a few. When I get back, maybe I'll feel up to going over your points with you. But understand something. If I disagree with any or all of your points (not saying I will or won't) and explain why, you should respect my opinion as I will yours. And we will both leave it at that and not carry on for eighty pages of BS. Ok with you?

Just got back from Superman, was pretty good. I recommend it. Its 11 pages for me.. and I havent posted much in it, except for the last page and this one.

Those were not my original points. As you can see, he was only talking about one of them, again. Ignoring the rest of them, again.

I dont care if you disagree with one, or all of my points. My beef was, you and others only want to bring up the one. I made several points as to why I thought comparing a dual core CPU to a GX2 was silly. Other than the one "slot" connection between the two, they dont share much in common. As I said several times, the GX2 has two PCB's, two GPU's, two fans, two sets of memory (not doubling them, just like two cards in SLI). Looking at my Opty 165 (dual core) it looks just like my old 3700+. Looking at a GX2, and then at a 7900... well I think its safe to say one looks like two cards, and the other like one.

So as I said, when trying to compare the two, and only taking one of the points I made, and ignoring the rest, is just avoiding the whole issue. Which is what they did, not posting back, after I (at least I think so) made several good points in how a dual core CPU is not like a GX2 in all aspects. Saying something like "dual-core cpu = single socket, dual-gpu graphics adapter = single slot" and saying that the GX2 and a DC is the same thing, while looking at nothing else, is being very shortsighted. Thats all I was saying.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Just got back from Superman, was pretty good. I recommend it.

I dont care if you disagree with one, or all of my points. My beef was, you and others only want to bring up the one. I made several points as to why I thought comparing a dual core CPU to a GX2 was silly. Other than the one "slot" connection between the two, they dont share much in common. As I said several times, the GX2 has two PCB's, two GPU's, two fans, two sets of memory (not doubling them, just like two cards in SLI). Looking at my Opty 165 (dual core) it looks just like my old 3700+. Looking at a GX2, and then at a 7900... well I think its safe to say one looks like two cards, and the other like one.

So as I said, when trying to compare the two, and only taking one of the points I made, and ignoring the rest, is just avoiding the whole issue. Which is what they did, not posting back, after I (at least I think so) made several good points in how a dual core CPU is not like a GX2 in all aspects. Saying something like "dual-core cpu = single socket, dual-gpu graphics adapter = single slot" and saying that the GX2 and a DC is the same thing, while looking at nothing else, is being very shortsighted. Thats all I was saying.

LOL! Superman is what I'm going to see.. I'm a fan.

Ok, these must be the points you want addressed:

"Except its not that simple. The GX2 takes up more than just one slot, the one its plugged into, and another. A dual core CPU does not. The GX2 has two seperate PCB's, two seperate GPU's, two seperate fans, two seperate amounts of ram. The dual core CPU is nothing like it in that regard. The only thing they have in common, is that they both plug into one "slot". Looking at the outside of a dual core CPU, and a single core, you cannot tell the difference. You can with a GX2 and a single 7900 card very easily.

The votes are pretty much dead even, with a very small percentage leaning towards it being two cards. Thats my opinion on it. I can easily see two cards "bolted" together. It doesnt matter what it is really, all that matters is that its here, and aside from some bugs, works very well. The rest is not relevant. Most people here are not going to buy one, and some just want to claim a "victory" for the fastest "single" card out."

I'll look at it when I get back. Just glancing over it quickly tells me this is slightly OT "kinda". Thread is long and loses track often.

Later.

 

[Ackmed]

Yes, that was my post. And from that, all that was taken out, was the one slot comment. Leaving all other to the side.

edit, enjoy the movie, was pretty good. Some good previews too... like Spiderman, shows Venom. And Lady in the Water, if you liked Signs, and The Village, you may like it. Made by the same person, M. Knight.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Bull Dog
And beggerking lets get one more thing in for the record as to why you cannot compare a 7950GX2 with a X1900XTX and make a fair comparason between the two.
As of 12:30 PST on July 1st, 2006,
The 7950GX2 costs $520AR @NewEgg
The X1900XTX costs $425AR@NewEgg
The X1900XT costs only $355 @NewEgg

I'm sorry, but no matter how hard you try, you cannot compare a card that costs $520 to a card that costs $95 and $165, respectively, less. That much of a price difference, places the X1900XT and the X1900XTX in a completely leagues than the 7950GX2 is in. Is the 7950GX2 as a whole faster than a X1900XTX? Yes, but then again, so are two SLIed 7900GTs.

Maybe we can work out price/performance values another time, because this thread is asking if the 7950GX2 counts as a single card solution. Not which is the better buy. You want the fastest card, you pay the highest dollars. Same goes for the best overclocking motherboards, memory, fastest CPU's. You want the fastest, you pay.

Maybe you should have explained that to beggerking since his sole reason for arguing for so many pages was to compare the 7950GX2 to the X1900XTX. Bull Dog simply was saying that even if the hardware is comparable from all standpoints, the price points are not.

I do agree though, if we are going to have a complete comparison thread someone should make it. This thread is supposed to concentrate on one particular aspect of those comparisons: whether it counts as a single card solution.

 

[downlow]

As a software developer who's been lurking in the forums for a few months now, I'd like to put my 2 cents in on this thread:

1) The following quoted post, which references this CodeProject article on drivers, is slightly off the mark:

http://www.thecodeproject.com/system/tdriver.asp

The phrase "driver path" in that article has nothing to do with the "driver path" discussed in this thread.

Originally posted by: josh6079
Within the link I gave, here is the section that you, and I, were talking about:

LPTSTR driverPath; //driver disk path
LPTSTR driverDosName; //driver's dos name, to link with it

<...snip...>

The methods you can use in this class are:

InitDriver(...)
This function is used to initialize the parameters of the driver such as: driver name, driver path and driver dos name. If you only know the driver path, the funtion tries to get the rest of the parameters.

The part I bolded above is the part your selective reading skimmed over like redbox suggested.
The bolded, underlined, and italized part is the whole line which you cut out in a pathetic attempt to continue your ramblings.
Then under everything else, I underlined the main part that explains that a driver path is indeed a parameter for certain types of drivers.
Let me show you (again):
"to initialize the parameters of the driver such as: driver name, driver path and driver dos name."
It does not say "data path", which you seem to think is interchangable.
Now before bring up any other worthless ramblings, can you simply answer the questions that you deem to be possible.

If you read the entire article, the author is providing an easy way for driver developers to load a driver file (e.g. a file whose name ends in .SYS) from an application, in order to make testing easier.

In the context of the article, "driver path" means the "location of the driver file" to be loaded. In other words, in that article the "driver path" specifies where the driver is. In programming, "path" is a generic term for "file location" (including directory) and that's how it's used it that article.

In Windows, a "path" (or "pathname") is usually an drive name, followed by a directory (folder) name, followed by a filename. For example, the driver you want to load could be located at this path: C:\Windows\System32\DRIVERS\MyDriver.sys

I hate to say it, but at least on this score, BeggerKing is (half) right. The "driver path" in that article has nothing to do with the "driver path" that BFG10K originally brought up.

On the other hand, I don't think the way that BFG10K used the phrase "driver path" is wrong. This was the first place I could find mention of "driver path" in this thread:

Originally posted by: BFG10K
The driver path that is invoked is the SLI driver path, not the single GPU path.

I don't think he's wrong to use the phrase "driver path". What I understood from his posts is that he's saying when you use the 7950GX2, the Nvidia display driver does "whatever it needs to do for an SLI solution", rather than "whatever it needs to do for a single-GPU solution". Just because he used the phrase "driver path" is no reason to attack his arguments. It's like me asking somebody "What path of action are you going to take today?", instead of asking (more normally) "What are you going to do today?" Would I be "incorrect" to use an "unusual", yet grammatically correct phrase like "path of action"?

That CodeProject article is definitely not proof that "driver path" is an "industry-standard phrase" or anything like that.

If I wanted to load a document from an application, I could call its location the "document path". Or if I wanted to load an image, I could call its location the "image path". But that wouldn't give the phrases "document path" or "image path" any special meaning whatsoever.

2) Before anyone can begin to settle the argument of "Does the 7950GX2 count as a single card solution", shouldn't everybody agree on the definition of "card" and "single card solution" in the first place? Obviously no one does, so no one is gonna win this argument. Just like no one can agree on what the phrase "driver path" could/should mean.

This is how marketers rip us consumers off. They use fuzzy definitions of terms like "single-card solution" so that no one can prove/disprove that they are trying to trick us.

It's the same as "monitor size". When CRTs were popular, they quoted the diagonal size of the cabinet, which was usually about 1 inch longer than the viewable area. When LCDs came out, the industry started quoting actual viewing sizes (maybe because people complained about deceptive advertising?). Anyway, if you did not properly define "monitor size", then someone could look at a 15-inch (advertised) CRT and say, "No, that's really a 14.1-inch monitor" (or whatever.)

Anyway, for what it's worth, I think that if you could define "single-card solution", then this argument would be settled pretty quickly.

Edited for spelling and clarity

 

[josh6079]

Thanks for the summurization downlow. I said that it exists simply because a good population of people hear "driver path" and don't argue about what it is. Whether it is actually a technically correct term or not doesn't matter. "Santa Clause" is a term that everyone knows, or at least has some vague idea as to what its meaning encompasses. While Santa Clause isn't real, you can't exactly jump on someones back just for using the term.

All of the arguments concerning whether or not "driver path" exists were simply topics that beggerking was provoking in order to distract from his primary argument. Heck, even his primary arguement ("SOFTWARE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HARDWARE!!!!") doesn't even have to deal with his main goal of getting a 7950GX2 comparison with an X1900XTX, something that happened before this thread was on fire.

Whether or not the 7950GX2 is a "single-slot-solution" is something that is defined in the hands of the beholder. I believe BFG10K's statement about it being one card from a hardware standpoint, but two from a softwares to be correct. I can't say that the 7950GX2 is completely a single slot solution from any way you look at it. beggerking disagreed with this and I tried to understand his reasoning as to why, but his efforts in explaining his theories were underdeveloped to say the least.

 

[downlow]

josh6079, I agree that it doesn't matter whether "driver path" (the way it's used in this thread) is a technically correct term. But that CodeProject article you linked doesn't settle it one way or another, since it is talking about another kind of "path" altogether. IMO, if you just read it as plain English (the "path" that the "driver" takes), it works.

Although most of BeggerKing's posts seem pretty incoherent, he has half a point when he says that "software has nothing to do with hardware". I know this example has already been used, but when you use an Intel hyperthreading CPU, the operating system sees two logical CPUs, even though there is only one physical CPU. So what he might be trying to say (although I don't necessarily agree with it) is that although the display driver treats the 7950GX2 as two GPUs, there is actually 1 physical card.

Also, it is true that hardware can be virtualized. Just look at VirtualPC, VMWare, Rosetta Stone on the Mac (which virtualizes a PowerPC architecture in an OS that's running on an Intel chip), and various older video game console/arcade emulators. Right now, VirtualPC emulates a Pentium II. I could see theoretically, in ten years from now, when CPUs are hopefully much faster, maybe VirtualPC will emulate a Pentium 4 with HyperThreading.

Anyway, you're right. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[josh6079]

I see your points, and for a new member you are making more sense here than others who have been around a lot longer. However, if you think that what he was trying to say was,

Originally posted by: downlow
although the display driver treats the 7950GX2 as two GPUs, there is actually 1 physical card.

then you should take a look at what started this whole argument:

Originally posted by: BFG10K
In terms of hardware it's a single card (one slot, works in non-SLI motherboards, etc).

In terms of software it's two cards because the drivers react to the card like they do with two cards in SLI.

basically what you've summarized out of beggerking's posts. The display driver (software) treats the 7950GX2 as two GPUs. beggerking responded to that with this:

Originally posted by: beggerking
and BFG10K is wrong. software is required for a SLI setup so the OS can distribute data to each GPU evenly to allow parallelism, there is nothing physically related between software and hardware. NV might as well tweak the SLI to allow single GPU to be used, but then that would be a waste of time since there is no need for data distribution/balancing on a single GPU. Same apply to dual core CPU, an OS supporting multiCPU is required to make use of its 2nd core.

He didn't mean that at all. And if he did then what does that say about him after making such an ordeal out of this simple concept?

 

[BFG10K]

we did the same when we went from single core to dualcore. I consider dualcore a single CPU.

You told us the software has nothing to do with the hardware but now you're admitting the software changes based on the hardware.

In otherwords a complete contradiction.

software doesn't "need" to change for the hardware to work.

So when I install a NIC can I use my existing GPU driver to operate it?

hardware works as it is. software, on the other hand, changes to improve performance.

So again you're saying the software does need to change. That's two flip-flops in three sentences.

data are send to driver by OS.

Without a driver the OS cannot operate a device properly. This is basic operating system design.

 

[downlow]

josh6079, fair enough. Obviously a lot of what beggerking's saying is suspect. To be honest, I didn't read every post fully, I only skimmed through the thread. I think the solution here is to ask Nvidia and ATI to provide exact, technical definitions of "single-card solution" .

Personally, I agree with some of the other posters: because the 7950GX2 utilizes two GPUs in SLI mode, it is not exactly comparable to a "true single-card solution" (or maybe I should say "single-GPU solution") like the 1900XTX, for example. Especially because of issues like lack of dual-monitor support in SLI mode.

Not that I'm an expert on any of this stuff. I've just been reading up so I can figure out what to buy when I retire my current system (which is nothing special).

Maybe, instead of arguing about whether it's 1, 2, or 1.5 cards, people should just focus on the pros and cons of buying the 7950GX2. If it does what you want, at a cost you can afford, who cares "how many cards" it is? Unless you feel that Nvidia is using deceptive marketing (which I do) - I can understand that.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: downlow
I think the solution here is to ask Nvidia and ATI to provide exact, technical definitions of "single-card solution" .

LOL. That would be interesting if someone did that.

Personally, I agree with some of the other posters: because the 7950GX2 utilizes two GPUs in SLI mode, it is not exactly comparable to a "true single-card solution" (or maybe I should say "single-GPU solution") like the 1900XTX, for example. Especially because of issues like lack of dual-monitor support in SLI mode.

I agree as well. Although, even if it isn't fair to compare it to the X1900XTX or any other single cards, that doesn't mean that it isn't compared to it. Heck, there are benchmarks that compare a 7900GTX SLI to an X1900XTX. (They compare it to X1900 crossfire setups as well, but it is still nonetheless being compared to it).

Maybe, instead of arguing about whether it's 1, 2, or 1.5 cards, people should just focus on the pros and cons of buying the 7950GX2. If it does what you want, at a cost you can afford, who cares "how many cards" it is? Unless you feel that Nvidia is using deceptive marketing (which I do) - I can understand that.

QFT. However, this thread was supposed to dicuss just one of its features, the one that was questionable between users and is still pretty much split 50/50. I'm not saying that it is 1 or 2 or 1.5 cards, in fact, I'm saying that it is both 1 and 2 cards when looking at it from all perspectives.

Sorry to those who seemed to be "forced" to read this and for taking up some thread space on the main page. I've learned that beggerking is someone who sometimes can't understand simple things nor maintain a concrete stance on what he thinks he understands. I'll try to refrain from such an argument with him again in the future both for the forums sake, and for my own sanity's.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Bull Dog
And beggerking lets get one more thing in for the record as to why you cannot compare a 7950GX2 with a X1900XTX and make a fair comparason between the two.
As of 12:30 PST on July 1st, 2006,
The 7950GX2 costs $520AR @NewEgg
The X1900XTX costs $425AR@NewEgg
The X1900XT costs only $355 @NewEgg

I'm sorry, but no matter how hard you try, you cannot compare a card that costs $520 to a card that costs $95 and $165, respectively, less. That much of a price difference, places the X1900XT and the X1900XTX in a completely leagues than the 7950GX2 is in. Is the 7950GX2 as a whole faster than a X1900XTX? Yes, but then again, so are two SLIed 7900GTs.

Maybe we can work out price/performance values another time, because this thread is asking if the 7950GX2 counts as a single card solution. Not which is the better buy. You want the fastest card, you pay the highest dollars. Same goes for the best overclocking motherboards, memory, fastest CPU's. You want the fastest, you pay.

Maybe you should have explained that to beggerking since his sole reason for arguing for so many pages was to compare the 7950GX2 to the X1900XTX. Bull Dog simply was saying that even if the hardware is comparable from all standpoints, the price points are not.

I do agree though, if we are going to have a complete comparison thread someone should make it. This thread is supposed to concentrate on one particular aspect of those comparisons: whether it counts as a single card solution.

I have always praised 1900xt for its price/performance ratio. Stop making false accusation Josh.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: nts
Good job making yourself look even stupider. Read your own link, would be a start.

For simplicity lets quickly examine how an OpenGL video drivers works.

Your system has an opengl32.dll (and some others) which simply pass the called functions and arguments to the appropriate driver (usually a dll like nvoglnt.dll for nvidias driver). If there is no driver installed it simply goes to a microsoft software renderer. If howerer there is a driver installed this driver will take what you want it to do and directly communicate that to the hardware. The windows opengl dll is only based on version 1.0, so if you want any support higher then you need to map extensions which the driver exposes.

The OS can only communicate with the video card in a very limited fashion. There is base functionality that every video card must support (doesn't include 3D TnL or anything like that) and windows can only access this base functionality, nothing more. That's why you need a video driver to be able to use the other functionality of the video card.

Any modern video card without a driver installed is a useless piece of junk.

games(which runs under OS) cannot only directly communicate with video drivers(which runs above OS ) without OS intervention, else any keystrokes/mouse movement will not work.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

we did the same when we went from single core to dualcore. I consider dualcore a single CPU.

You told us the software has nothing to do with the hardware but now you're admitting the software changes based on the hardware.

We made the decision to change software based on hardware to improve performance. Its not like software won't run correctly without hardware. you can run dualcore CPU on win 95, just that you will only get the performance of a single core CPU. (both core will still be working on data, but both will be working on the same set of data, yield no performance)..

software doesn't "need" to change for the hardware to work.

So when I install a NIC can I use my existing GPU driver to operate it?

no but completely irrelevent to my above comment.

data are send to driver by OS.

Without a driver the OS cannot operate a device properly. This is basic operating system design.

[/quote]

your previous comment is
"
No, the driver does( sending data). The OS has nothing to do with SLI, it's all the driver doing the load distribution and programming the hardware.
"
you are the one flip-flopping.

 

[Bull Dog]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Maybe you should have explained that to beggerking, since (presumably, -my addition) his sole reason for arguing for so many pages was to compare the 7950GX2 to the X1900XTX. Bull Dog simply was saying that even if the hardware is comparable from all standpoints, the price points are not.

I do agree though, if we are going to have a complete comparison thread someone should make it. This thread is supposed to concentrate on one particular aspect of those comparisons: whether it counts as a single card solution.[/quote]

You my dear friend hit the nail on the head. Oh well I'm outta this thread, this will be the last time I post in it/ read it.

 

[Keysplayr]

Ok here goes:

"Except its not that simple. The GX2 takes up more than just one slot, the one its plugged into, and another. A dual core CPU does not.

Dual CPU systems (not dual core systems) took up two physical sockets and was a "dual processor system" until they developed dual core CPU's, two sockets were needed for multiprocessor systems. Now two CPU's only take up one socket.

Dual GPU systems such as SLI and Crossfire take up two physical PCI-e slots for a "dual GPU system" until they developed a way to have SLI on a single PCI-e x16 slot. Cards such as Gigabyte and ASUS made actually required and SLI motherboard to utilize SLI functionality. The GX2 can run on just about any of the 51 non SLI single PCI-e Nforce4 boards available from OEM's. Sure, the extra width of the GX2 will cover any adjacent PCI/PCI-e x1 slot, but that also goes for any card with a hsf that takes up an adjacent slot as well.

The GX2 has two seperate PCB's, two seperate GPU's, two seperate fans, two seperate amounts of ram. The dual core CPU is nothing like it in that regard.

Yes, the GX2 has what you listed above. That is how it is packaged. Nvidia could have made it into one very large card but it would have been impractical to market a product that wouldn't fit into most PC cases. As for the Dual core CPU reference, some DC CPU's are two physical and separate chips in the package, such as the Smithfield or Presler. X2's I believe are part of the same piece of sillicon. It's all in the way it is packaged. Core 2 Duo's are part of the same silicon. The way nvidia created the GX2 was the most practical way to implement it. Rather than have a very huge single PCB, limiting the number of people who can actaully buy it and use it in their case, two smaller PCB's were used side by side making it much more user friendly. And it still has SLI performance while only utilizing a single PCI-e slot making SLI performance available to all those people who only opted for a single PCI-e x16 motherboard. (If I am on the wrong track here, let me know. Commenting as best I can as per the context I see.)


The only thing they have in common, is that they both plug into one "slot". Looking at the outside of a dual core CPU, and a single core, you cannot tell the difference. You can with a GX2 and a single 7900 card very easily.

Yes, one slot/socket is used for both a Dual Core CPU and a GX2. Like I stated above, it was the most practical way for Nvidia to design the GX2. They can market it to almost anyone with a single PCI-e motherboard. It is just the packaging. For example, Nvidia could have sealed the GX2 in some sort of plastic/aluminum air tunnel with a different fan design. Think of the 5900 series from Leadtek Winfast cards. All you could see were fans and a large enclosure, and could not see the PCB at all. Now because it could not be seen, and still only utilized one PCI-e slot, do you think anyone would still even pose the question whether or not it was a single card solution or not? I don't know for sure, but my guess is not really.



The votes are pretty much dead even, with a very small percentage leaning towards it being two cards. Thats my opinion on it. I can easily see two cards "bolted" together.

Yes, two PCB package. Connected together. It doesn't really matter if we decide the GX2 is one or two cards.
It brings 7900GT SLI level power to single PCIE slot motherboards, and is the most powerful single PCIE slot graphics solution on the market today. It's widely available, reasonably priced, uses less power than a single X1900XT, is quieter, and offers far higher framerates. (not to mention the additional AA modes and HDCP)
What I mean to say is, we can dispute endlessly about why the GX2 is two cards that can mysteriously be run on single PCIE boards, lots and lots of of people are buying them and enjoying SLI levels of performance.


It doesnt matter what it is really, all that matters is that its here, and aside from some bugs, works very well. The rest is not relevant. Most people here are not going to buy one, and some just want to claim a "victory" for the fastest "single" card out."

It's true, it really does not matter. They are selling extremely well. I see quite a few people here who either have one or are waiting in eVGA's step-up queue. Those that have one, can claim "victory" (if so desired) of having the fastest single PCI-e slot solution available (right now). Something faster is always up the pike and around the corner.

I hope this is more like the response you were looking for. I think I addressed all of the points one way or another.

P.S. I never got to see Superman yesterday. My little girl suddenly got a fever. She is doing better today so we shall see.

Keys

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Bull Dog
And beggerking lets get one more thing in for the record as to why you cannot compare a 7950GX2 with a X1900XTX and make a fair comparason between the two.
As of 12:30 PST on July 1st, 2006,
The 7950GX2 costs $520AR @NewEgg
The X1900XTX costs $425AR@NewEgg
The X1900XT costs only $355 @NewEgg

I'm sorry, but no matter how hard you try, you cannot compare a card that costs $520 to a card that costs $95 and $165, respectively, less. That much of a price difference, places the X1900XT and the X1900XTX in a completely leagues than the 7950GX2 is in. Is the 7950GX2 as a whole faster than a X1900XTX? Yes, but then again, so are two SLIed 7900GTs.

Maybe we can work out price/performance values another time, because this thread is asking if the 7950GX2 counts as a single card solution. Not which is the better buy. You want the fastest card, you pay the highest dollars. Same goes for the best overclocking motherboards, memory, fastest CPU's. You want the fastest, you pay.

Maybe you should have explained that to beggerking since his sole reason for arguing for so many pages was to compare the 7950GX2 to the X1900XTX. Bull Dog simply was saying that even if the hardware is comparable from all standpoints, the price points are not.

I do agree though, if we are going to have a complete comparison thread someone should make it. This thread is supposed to concentrate on one particular aspect of those comparisons: whether it counts as a single card solution.

I have always praised 1900xt for its price/performance ratio. Stop making false accusation Josh.

You're back again, and still misreading everything. Bull Dog made that accusation beggerking. I was summarizing it for keys. When did I say that you haven't praised the X1900's price/performance ratio?

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: nts
Good job making yourself look even stupider. Read your own link, would be a start.

For simplicity lets quickly examine how an OpenGL video drivers works.

Your system has an opengl32.dll (and some others) which simply pass the called functions and arguments to the appropriate driver (usually a dll like nvoglnt.dll for nvidias driver). If there is no driver installed it simply goes to a microsoft software renderer. If howerer there is a driver installed this driver will take what you want it to do and directly communicate that to the hardware. The windows opengl dll is only based on version 1.0, so if you want any support higher then you need to map extensions which the driver exposes.

The OS can only communicate with the video card in a very limited fashion. There is base functionality that every video card must support (doesn't include 3D TnL or anything like that) and windows can only access this base functionality, nothing more. That's why you need a video driver to be able to use the other functionality of the video card.

Any modern video card without a driver installed is a useless piece of junk.

games(which runs under OS) cannot only directly communicate with video drivers(which runs above OS ) without OS intervention, else any keystrokes/mouse movement will not work.

Fair enough, but nts's main point was about the HARDWARE directly communicating with drivers, not games. Trying to get you to understand the basic relationship between software and hardware is a task enough. nts wasn't talking about communication between software and software (i.e. OS and drivers like you so explained) on that level. He only mentioned how there is a very simple and basic relationship between the OS and driver, unlike the very dependent relationship between the driver and its corresponding hardware.

Its not like software won't run correctly without hardware.

Really? So what does software run on if not hardware? Heck, where does software exist if not on a piece of hardware? (i.e. hard drive, DVD, CD-ROM, etc.)

you can run dualcore CPU on win 95, just that you will only get the performance of a single core CPU.

Which defeats the entire purpose. Why do it if it really doesn't do anything beneficial?

You have made it clear that you will argue just to argue. Your main agenda that you wanted from all of this has already happened on numerous review sites. Your suggested evidence contradicts your own arguments, you misread what others say and base more arguments around those misinterperatations, and you continually try to debate the fact that drivers are essential to the hardware's intended operation. You're just not worth the effort and hopeless.

I tried to discuss a majority of this to you by PM's, but you simply want to ignore me when using those. That doesn't matter now though since I have nothing more to say to you about this. I'm sorry if you really feel the need to argue this further, but given the history of your previous posts I'll bet that you will continue with it for argument's sake.