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

[BFG10K]

We made the decision to change software based on hardware to improve performance.

Then demonstrate how to load a NIC driver onto a GPU.

According to your reasoning it should still "work", it just won't have the same performance because we didn't "decide" to load the correct driver.

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

Demonstrate how to load and operate a NIC driver without a NIC loaded in the system.

no but completely irrelevent to my above comment.

Oh it's very much relevant, namely to disprove your nonsensical "hardware has nothing to do with software". The hardware dictates the drivers because the driver directly programs hardware.

you are the one flip-flopping.

Do you even know what that term means?

If OS doesn't fetch data from HD how does it run games?

I doesn't "fetch data from the HD", the game requests it through the API and Windows then passes the API call to the driver which then directly programs and operates the HD to get the data.

Hardware directly communicating with drivers DOES NOT imply hardware has anything physically related to software.

This is simply comical beyond belief.

Any hardware can take any input from any driver(software).

So for the third time I'll ask you to demonstrate how to get a NIC to take input from a GPU driver.

The cpu itself won't even "know" the OS has been changed, it will continue to work the same way as it did with XP installed.

By that reasoning when you turn off the power the CPU will work the same way because it's still processing inputs like it was, it just isn't getting any inputs.

What is your definition of "work"?

Driver doesn't access any function on videocard directly

Yes it does - that's exactly what a driver does. The OS only accesses it at a high level because the purpose of the driver is to abstract away the hardware implementation from the OS.

the driver simply encodes data to be send to the videocard, which will be processed by videocard bios,

OMG, this is beyond comical now. Now you're claiming it's the BIOS doing all the work on the video card? Why do we even need drivers then if the OS is simply sending data to the BIOS?

Do you even know what BIOS is?

It's a basic input/output system whose purpose is to initialize the hardware to allow the driver to take control of it.

and driver cannot do much with vidoecard directly if videocard itself without OS providing data. Uninstall your Os and try it out....

Already done - when you run a Windows installer there is no OS installed yet you have access to your video card and your hard-disks because the installer loads drivers for it.

If we load drivers only for performance reasons why does XP need SATA drivers from a floppy disk before it can access your SATA drives?

I thought you claimed the OS is the one "fetching the data"? Why then do we need drivers for SATA drives?

the game needs to be programmed to know what TnL is and make use of it.

Utter rubbish and again your arguments demonstrate a total lack of understanding. Under the standard OpenGL pipeline T&L can be automatically forced by the driver even when the application and OS have no idea what it is.

Likewise how do you think AA and AF works in old games? The game certainly isn't requesting it because it doesn't know they exist and the OS certainly doesn' t know what they are. The driver is solely responsible for forcing said features.

I suggest you do some basic research as your arguments lack even basic knowledge about the things you're trying to argue.

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: beggerking

and driver cannot do much with vidoecard directly if videocard itself without OS providing data. Uninstall your Os and try it out....

Xbox.

xbox doesn't have an OS? I'm pretty sure I've heard something about a stripped down win2000 OS that is been used in xbox...

Didn't say it had no OS.

However, direct access to hardware is something very common to consoles.

Xbox is unique in this regard as it also uses a version of DirectX. Thus making it really easy to port from/to Windows. It also makes it easier to develop for as DirectX has been around for a while, while the new specs for the PS3 (example) are brand new to that machine.

So why did I put it there? To stop you from using the OS as a "Magic Program" that has direct Access to the hardware of a machine without drivers (since you know, windows only needs drivers for better performance *giggles*).

Notice how your agruement is that the Xbox has an OS rather then its so stripped down, (and rewritten) but it works exactly the same as windows.

Why can't you say that? Because if you install linux on the Xbox, you can still play the games normally... FROM linux. No performance hit.

So now what you would have to argue is that Linux virtualizes the OS for the XBox. To do this you need the Virtualization software.

But how can software allow as good of access to hardware with this method then it could without using it? Isn't that an extra layer?

No, because despite what you keep saying, Games get a near Direct connection to the video, sound, and input hardware via DirectX. This is the purpose and design of DirectX. To be lower level then windows, but just above the hardware. The only thing lower level then DirectX are the GC's drivers.

If your make beleive world of software never having access to hardware where true (well except for the Magic OS), Virtual Machines would be useless. Its software running in windows.

How could that be useful except to basically test things? Thats 3 Layers (Virt OS, Virt Machine, Base OS) of software.

We made the decision to change software based on hardware to improve performance.

No, we changed software based on hardware to have performance. The reason windows has few issues with having basic drivers is that hardware is designed to support a subset/basic range of functions for just such a thing.

Like Video cards and Text Based Windows Mode. Or Linux before GForce/ATI drivers are installed.

However, to get my XPlosion card to work, I HAD to install the drivers for it.

Yeah, so only for better performance. Not like the driver software is required or anything.

 

[bigtm135]

if the GX2 is counted as a Single Card Solution, then Quad SLI does not exist. Otherwise it is a dual card solution.

 

[Keysplayr]

Beggerking, if there are people, or teachers, that taught you all the things you are posting in here about hardware and software, they should most definately be cane whipped. Sounds like somone taught you this stuff but you misinterpreted all of it.
D- for the class? I'm not flaming you here, but DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMM son?
Every, and I mean EVERY one of your "points" have been deflated by various members.
BFG10K's last post should have made a little light bulb go on in your head.

It's as if you do not wish to learn anything and sticking to the way you were taught, no matter how silly it is.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Beggerking, if there are people, or teachers, that taught you all the things you are posting in here about hardware and software, they should most definately be cane whipped. Sounds like somone taught you this stuff but you misinterpreted all of it.
D- for the class? I'm not flaming you here, but DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMM son?
Every, and I mean EVERY one of your "points" have been deflated by various members.
BFG10K's last post should have made a little light bulb go on in your head.

It's as if you do not wish to learn anything and sticking to the way you were taught, no matter how silly it is.

Ok......Ok......I told my self I would not enter the fray again but that was funny. LOL

One more thing I thought was funny is that that was your 7950th post Keys

 

[5150Joker]

I can't believe this thread is still going. Beggerking, give it up already because not a single person from what I've seen here agrees with your line of reasoning, if you can call it that.

 

[thilanliyan]

I think he's taking a more "advanced" C++ course so he can come back and argue some more.

 

[Creig]

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

If two PCBs physically connected together via an SLI bridge or a CrossFire dongle are each considered a single individual card, how can two PCBs physically connected together via a PCI-E connector be considered only one card?

The PCB, HSF, GPU and memory is "the card", not the interface.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Creig

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

If two PCBs physically connected together via an SLI bridge or a CrossFire dongle are each considered a single individual card, how can two PCBs physically connected together via a PCI-E connector be considered only one card?

The PCB, HSF, GPU and memory is "the card", not the interface.

Well, basically some of us are looking at it from how many PCB's there are and counting two cards. Others are looking at how many PCI-e slots it uses and counting one. Mix in a whole smattering of other garbage, and you have the makings of a thread that makes no sense whatsoever. Nor does it even matter.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Beggerking, if there are people, or teachers, that taught you all the things you are posting in here about hardware and software, they should most definately be cane whipped. Sounds like somone taught you this stuff but you misinterpreted all of it.
D- for the class? I'm not flaming you here, but DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMM son?
Every, and I mean EVERY one of your "points" have been deflated by various members.
BFG10K's last post should have made a little light bulb go on in your head.

It's as if you do not wish to learn anything and sticking to the way you were taught, no matter how silly it is.

Ok......Ok......I told my self I would not enter the fray again but that was funny. LOL

One more thing I thought was funny is that that was your 7950th post Keys

LOL!! 7950th post. Didn't even notice it.

 

[Ulfhednar]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Others are looking at how many PCI-e slots it uses and counting one.

Yes, and those people are called lying fanboys with selective vision. It's been proven over and over again with photographic evidence and quotes from AnandTech and Extreme Systems that the 9750GX2 setup uses one board as an expansion board, connecting the two boards with a second PCI-E slot.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Others are looking at how many PCI-e slots it uses and counting one.

Yes, and those people are called lying fanboys with selective vision. It's been proven over and over again with photographic evidence and quotes from AnandTech and Extreme Systems that the 9750GX2 setup uses one board as an expansion board, connecting the two boards with a second PCI-E slot.

Translation: You don't respect other peoples opinions.

Result: Not many people will respect yours.

 

[Ulfhednar]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Others are looking at how many PCI-e slots it uses and counting one.

Yes, and those people are called lying fanboys with selective vision. It's been proven over and over again with photographic evidence and quotes from AnandTech and Extreme Systems that the 9750GX2 setup uses one board as an expansion board, connecting the two boards with a second PCI-E slot.

Translation: You don't respect other peoples opinions.

Result: Not many people will respect yours.

That's an appeal to emotion, and your logical fallacies are becoming tiresome. It's not even remotely relevent how I feel about the opinions of others, as I am not stating an opinion, I am stating a fact.

Here is the evidence again, seeing as you have ignored it every time so far. Feel free to lie again and say it's not a PCI-E slot, or even better come out with that old chestnut of a red-herring fallacy "it doesn't count because it's not on the motherboard." :roll:

It's fvcking scary to me sometimes how fanatic people like you are in the face of overwhelming evidence. It's like watching a wounded dog backing into a corner and going mental at anyone who approaches it.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Others are looking at how many PCI-e slots it uses and counting one.

Yes, and those people are called lying fanboys with selective vision. It's been proven over and over again with photographic evidence and quotes from AnandTech and Extreme Systems that the 9750GX2 setup uses one board as an expansion board, connecting the two boards with a second PCI-E slot.

Translation: You don't respect other peoples opinions.

Result: Not many people will respect yours.

That's an appeal to emotion, and your logical fallacies are becoming tiresome. It's not even remotely relevent how I feel about the opinions of others, as I am not stating an opinion, I am stating a fact.

Here is the evidence again, seeing as you have ignored it every time so far. Feel free to lie again and say it's not a PCI-E slot, or even better come out with that old chestnut of a red-herring fallacy "it doesn't count because it's not on the motherboard." :roll:

It's fvcking scary to me sometimes how fanatic people like you are in the face of overwhelming evidence. It's like watching a wounded dog backing into a corner and going mental at anyone who approaches it.

Talk about emotion!? Just look at the foul language your using. If that does not indicate emotional responses, what does? Now, if your quite through playing Mr. Psychoanalyst, I going to order my rig. Hmmm, let me see. Ah yes, this looks good. An ASUS A8n5x mobo, an X2 4400, 2GB RAM, hmmm. What should I do for a vid card? I only have one PCI-e slot so I can use that cool 7950GX2. Darn.. Oh hold up a sec!!!!!! The 7950GX2 only requires one PCI-e slot!!! I'm golden!!!

Dramatization for effect and point. I am actually waiting for Core 2 Duo. But I think that my point, overrides any "evidence" you have created in your own mind. You my friend have given me a good laugh this morning, thank you for that.

Now, let's see what insults you hurl at me for this. Keep in mind that from this point on, I will be sending your replies to the mods if they are not respectful. If you do not care if your vacationed or banned, so much the better for us, because we will be rid of you that much quicker. Good Day.

 

[Ulfhednar]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Talk about emotion!? Just look at the foul language your using. If that does not indicate emotional responses, what does? Now, if your quite through playing Mr. Psychoanalyst, I going to order my rig.

That's funny, because I thought you were the one making a big deal about my tone and my personality. :roll: If I am a psychoanalyst, I guess you are the chief registrar in psychiatry. Now, if you're done trying to take focus off the topic at hand simply because you have no counter-points to anything I have said...

Hmmm, let me see. Ah yes, this looks good. An ASUS A8n5x mobo, an X2 4400, 2GB RAM, hmmm. What should I do for a vid card? I only have one PCI-e slot so I can use that cool 7950GX2. Darn.. Oh hold up a sec!!!!!! The 7950GX2 only requires one PCI-e slot!!! I'm golden!!!

Request: Please quote where I ever said that the 7950GX2 was bad or that people should not buy it. Funnily enough, I recall saying that I want one myself at least twice.

I think that my point, overrides any "evidence" you have created in your own mind.

Firstly; Just because you disregard evidence does not mean you have debunked it.

Secondly; Photographs, and quotes from sites like AnandTech and ExtremeSystems hardly qualify as "evidence I have created in my own mind." They're simply evidence, and it's a hell of a lot more evidence than you have cared to provide.

Now, let's see what insults you hurl at me for this. Keep in mind that from this point on, I will be sending your replies to the mods if they are not respectful. If you do not care if your vacationed or banned, so much the better for us, because we will be rid of you that much quicker. Good Day.

If only I had a penny for every logical fallacy you make, I would be rich, and if only this was a true debate site, you would have been laughed out of this thread on your third strike. You just made an appeal to force fallacy, possibly the worst fallacy you have made yet as it doesn't even try to get a point across, it's just an idle threat. :roll:

I think that you should learn to debate before you try, since all I seem to see you do is make yourself look foolish.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: Rangoric
So why did I put it there? To stop you from using the OS as a "Magic Program" that has direct Access to the hardware of a machine without drivers (since you know, windows only needs drivers for better performance *giggles*).

The problem is, I never said OS needs no drivers. what a driver is , is a software that translates instructions to specific hardware, any OS would need one for each of its devices.

Notice how your agruement is that the Xbox has an OS rather then its so stripped down, (and rewritten) but it works exactly the same as windows.

Why can't you say that? Because if you install linux on the Xbox, you can still play the games normally... FROM linux. No performance hit.

So now what you would have to argue is that Linux virtualizes the OS for the XBox. To do this you need the Virtualization software.

?? where did I say that?
stop putting words into my mouth.

But how can software allow as good of access to hardware with this method then it could without using it? Isn't that an extra layer?

No, because despite what you keep saying, Games get a near Direct connection to the video, sound, and input hardware via DirectX. This is the purpose and design of DirectX. To be lower level then windows, but just above the hardware. The only thing lower level then DirectX are the GC's drivers.

well, can you run Directx in Mac or Linux? If you cannot, that means directx is OS specific therefore requires OS to run the API itself, therefore OS intervention is used.
The DirectX API does have direct access to drivers, but the DirectX API itself was run by WindowsXP. Not so direct anymore, is it?

We made the decision to change software based on hardware to improve performance.

No, we changed software based on hardware to have performance. The reason windows has few issues with having basic drivers is that hardware is designed to support a subset/basic range of functions for just such a thing.

Like Video cards and Text Based Windows Mode. Or Linux before GForce/ATI drivers are installed.

However, to get my XPlosion card to work, I HAD to install the drivers for it.

Yeah, so only for better performance. Not like the driver software is required or anything.

So you are basically agree with me...hardware work as it is, you install software to get the results from running hardware.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: thilan29
I think he's taking a more "advanced" C++ course so he can come back and argue some more.

actually I have a life outside of this forum....to celebrate 4th of July with tons of parties.. I only get on at work.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Beggerking, if there are people, or teachers, that taught you all the things you are posting in here about hardware and software, they should most definately be cane whipped. Sounds like somone taught you this stuff but you misinterpreted all of it.
D- for the class? I'm not flaming you here, but DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMM son?
Every, and I mean EVERY one of your "points" have been deflated by various members.
BFG10K's last post should have made a little light bulb go on in your head.

It's as if you do not wish to learn anything and sticking to the way you were taught, no matter how silly it is.

Yet I have proved BFG's various made-up terms." driver path" , "pipeline section" etc. to be invalid. Don't see you comment on that. your personal bias is getting into you. Keys.

BFG's posts? how does the following prove anything or provide any useful information?

"Do you even know what that term means? "
"This is simply comical beyond belief. "
"Utter rubbish and again your arguments demonstrate a total lack of understanding"

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

We made the decision to change software based on hardware to improve performance.

Then demonstrate how to load a NIC driver onto a GPU.

According to your reasoning it should still "work", it just won't have the same performance because we didn't "decide" to load the correct driver.

Incorrect driver yields 0 performance.
I believe this was originally someone else's argument to refute your attempt to say NIC cannot use a GPU driver, and the person pointed it out to you that the NIC can indeed load an incorrect driver, just that it will give out garbage results.

Please don't use other people's concept without first make sense of it first.

I doesn't "fetch data from the HD", the game requests it through the API and Windows then passes the API call to the driver which then directly programs and operates the HD to get the data.

really? didn't know a non-harddrive driver can directly access a harddrive....wow.. I think you just invented a whole new concept!

Hardware directly communicating with drivers DOES NOT imply hardware has anything physically related to software.

This is simply comical beyond belief.

yet you cannot refute it as it is the fact.

The cpu itself won't even "know" the OS has been changed, it will continue to work the same way as it did with XP installed.

By that reasoning when you turn off the power the CPU will work the same way because it's still processing inputs like it was, it just isn't getting any inputs.

that is actually true.

the driver simply encodes data to be send to the videocard, which will be processed by videocard bios,

OMG, this is beyond comical now. Now you're claiming it's the BIOS doing all the work on the video card? Why do we even need drivers then if the OS is simply sending data to the BIOS?

BIOS = basic input/output software. I don't see how driver can not go thru it.
its basically a decoder to decode data send from your driver.

the game needs to be programmed to know what TnL is and make use of it.

Utter rubbish and again your arguments demonstrate a total lack of understanding. Under the standard OpenGL pipeline T&L can be automatically forced by the driver even when the application and OS have no idea what it is.

[/quote]

that is because the game was programmed using directx which supports it. try running a dx8 game with it, it will not work.

 

[Keysplayr]

I don't think we have anything further to discuss. All who disagree with your opinions are lying fanboys, correct? /Ulfhednar

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Beggerking, if there are people, or teachers, that taught you all the things you are posting in here about hardware and software, they should most definately be cane whipped. Sounds like somone taught you this stuff but you misinterpreted all of it.
D- for the class? I'm not flaming you here, but DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMM son?
Every, and I mean EVERY one of your "points" have been deflated by various members.
BFG10K's last post should have made a little light bulb go on in your head.

It's as if you do not wish to learn anything and sticking to the way you were taught, no matter how silly it is.

Yet I have proved BFG's various made-up terms." driver path" , "pipeline section" etc. to be invalid. Don't see you comment on that. your personal bias is getting into you. Keys.

BFG's posts? how does the following prove anything or provide any useful information?

"Do you even know what that term means? "
"This is simply comical beyond belief. "
"Utter rubbish and again your arguments demonstrate a total lack of understanding"

Ok beggar. Whatever you say.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: redbox
Nope you won't even have to wait for the games to be written to support DX10. Cause a game is after all just software. Your hardware will just get input data and then output that said data. Doesn't matter what it is written with cause we all know software has nothing to do with hardware.

the problem is, non DX10 GPU will not know how to process DX10 instructions...and please stop derailing the thread.

I thought there would be no problems since "OMG!!! SOFTWARE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HARDWARE!!!". You said it yourself....nuff said.

And now back to your regularly scheduled pointless arguing...have fun.

<hmmm...now to figure out how to hyperthread my A64 so I can enjoy dualcore goodness...>

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: redbox
Nope you won't even have to wait for the games to be written to support DX10. Cause a game is after all just software. Your hardware will just get input data and then output that said data. Doesn't matter what it is written with cause we all know software has nothing to do with hardware.

the problem is, non DX10 GPU will not know how to process DX10 instructions...and please stop derailing the thread.

I thought there would be no problems since "OMG!!! SOFTWARE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HARDWARE!!!". You said it yourself....nuff said.

And now back to your regularly scheduled pointless arguing...have fun.

<hmmm...now to figure out how to hyperthread my A64 so I can enjoy dualcore goodness...>

well, not all instruction are processed by CPU to save CPU time. Most rendering are done by GPU. If the GPU doesn't support an instruction, it won't be rendered.

If software has something to do with hardware, then it'd be 1 on 1 relationship.. meaning either software or hardware support would be enough for data to be rendered correctly.

 

[josh6079]

Sorry, I know I said that I wouldn't post in this thread anymore, but beggerking is almost right. He just needs to change one thing in his previous post.

Originally posted by: beggerking
If software has something to do with hardware, then it'd be 1 on 1 relationship.. meaning either software or hardware support would be enough for data to be rendered correctly.

That is not correct. If software has something to do with hardware it would mean that software and hardware are enough for data to be rendered correctly. (Which, it is)

The argument you are continuing is like saying hydrogen has nothing to do with water.

what a driver is , is a software that translates instructions to specific hardware, any OS would need one for each of its devices

So it (software) has something to do with hardware then, right?

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: beggerking
The problem is, I never said OS needs no drivers. what a driver is , is a software that translates instructions to specific hardware, any OS would need one for each of its devices.

Well then obviously, you should stop with the circle jerk OS/Driver crap.

An OS can't work with hardware without the drivers.

Thanks for agreeing.

?? where did I say that?
stop putting words into my mouth.

I didn't. You just are unable to parse what I said.

That quote you have of mine, has nothing said from you save that the XBox has an OS.

well, can you run Directx in Mac or Linux? If you cannot, that means directx is OS specific therefore requires OS to run the API itself, therefore OS intervention is used.
The DirectX API does have direct access to drivers, but the DirectX API itself was run by WindowsXP. Not so direct anymore, is it?

Not understanding how DirectX works is not a crime. You may go.

So you are basically agree with me...hardware work as it is, you install software to get the results from running hardware.

As such, software does have something to do with hardware.

Glad to see you are agreeing with me. As you have been espouting this as false for the last how many pages?