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

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: redbox
Oh...and I still haven't heard anything from you on how I am supposed to fool my OS into thinking that my A64 can do hyperthreading since you seam to believe software can do anything you make it do irregardless of the hardware required to utilize certain software features.

ever heard of an emulator? explain to me how it works. If you know how an emulator work, you'll know software can emulate any existing hardware. If you don't know how an emulator work, then it'd be useless explaining it to you. The best way is to search the web.

So your telling me that there is an emulator that will enable my A64 to use HT? Care to link it? Better yet find an emulator that will allow an older P4 to use HT, or even the conroe. Fact is software is bound by the limitations of hardware.

I would also like you to answer how a name and a technical name differ in meaning.

He can't do that redbox because he knows he's wrong but is just rambling in hopes to confuse everyone enough to miss that.

beggerking, if you really knew anything about what you're talking about, you wouldn't ask BFG to link proof to everything that he discusses (which he does anyway). You haven't linked a shred of evidence that suggests a "driver path" does NOT exist. All you've done to the proof of its existence thus far is say, "Well...nuh uh........"

You haven't even answered the questions at hand that bear the most significance to your arguments (and you probably still wont answer them when you reply to this). Quit dodging the obvious and pointing out the irrelevant.

Show us how to do HT on my A64. Show us how to use the 7950GX2 effeciently without SLI profiles activated in the "driver" (...oh, I'm sorry, in the "data"). Better yet, show us how to "fool" our computers into thinking that instead of just having one card, and one GPU that we can have two, because after all "SOFTWARE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HARDWARE!!!!"

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar

Originally posted by: nullpointerus
It's not a gimmick. The GX2 works with non-SLI system boards. It fits in a single PCI-E slot. When you hold it in your hand, it's one distinct unit. So from the end user's point of view it is a single card solution, and that's why it is marketed as such. Everybody knows it uses SLI; it's in practically every review and every fanboy argument about the damn thing. If you people would stop imagining that someone's trying to pull the wool over your eyes, you wouldn't have a problem with nVidia marketing it as a single card solution.

It is a gimmick. Nvidia market it as a single card with 1GB RAM, purely for e-penis++ reasons and to say "we have the fastest single card in the world, it even performs as good as two."

The reason this is purely a gimmick is because it is two, which I have proven with photographic evidence of all things.

Obviously, Nvidia fanboys will fight tooth and nail to convince everyone that it is a single card solution as they can then, like Nvidia themselves, claim this much coveted "single card performance crown."

Marketing the GX2 as a single card solution is not a gimmick; you need to read what you quoted for my explanation since I really don't feel like typing it again. As for the 1GB RAM, I've no disagreement with you, but that's not even what we were discussing. If you have a point to make, which I doubt, you wouldn't need to put words in my mouth. And I highly suggest finding some nVidia fanboys before shooting off your mouth at them.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: josh6079 Today: 06/27/2006 03:11 PM
You haven't linked a shred of evidence that suggests a "driver path" does NOT exist. All you've done to the proof of its existence thus far is say, "Well...nuh uh........"

06/15/2006 02:36 PM post

Originally posted by: josh6079
"I'm sorry for not clarifying though, but I was meaning that the driver must have SLI activated for it to function properly. I think your broken English is rubbing off on me and I actually made up a phrase. Sorry. "

Originally posted by: josh6079
"The fact that I admitted that the phrase "driver path" was incorrect ..."

so, does "driver path" exist? show me a link.

 

[josh6079]

I made up the phrase to explain the SLI profiles in the driver. That phrase, "Driver Path" was a mistake on my part as I did not mean "Driver Path". However, that does NOT mean that a "Driver Path" does not exist. The fact that I simply threw an already existing phrase to suggest what I was talking about doesn't mean that I alone made it from scratch. Rather, I made up the term to try and explain what I was talking about. When I said the phrase was incorrect it was in the context of signifying my meaning for SLI profiles.

Nice link though, it brings anyone who clicks on it to yet another thread you were trolling on.

Once again you have dodged backing your own suggestions. I'll ask again, just to make sure your thick skull is getting a dent:

Show us how to do HT on my A64. Show us how to use the 7950GX2 effeciently without SLI profiles activated in the "driver" (...oh, I'm sorry, in the "data"). Better yet, show us how to "fool" our computers into thinking that instead of just having one card, and one GPU that we can have two, because after all "SOFTWARE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HARDWARE!!!!"

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: thilan29

I think the best explanation still was given by BFG10K:
"In terms of hardware it's 1 card but software sees it as 2 cards." (basically like an SLI setup in terms of software.)

how softwares sees doesn't change the fact that

1. 7950gx2 is a hardware.
2. 7950gx2 is physically a single PCI-e card with 2 GPUs.

well, for the same reason I consider a dualcore CPU as a single CPU, I consider 7950GX2 as a single card solution.

Bulldog, do you consider dualcore CPU as a single CPU or not?

This is more like a dual CPU system than a dualcore system. Just like the dual CPU has it's own socket per CPU and memory(usually) this card has it's own socket/card and memory per GPU. And since you say software has nothing to do with hardware then you can't bring up the argument that a dualcore system and dual CPU system would be seen in ALMOST exactly the same way by the OS.

So having said that do you consider a dual CPU system the same as dualcore??

You can go on and on about how "software has nothing to do with hardware" but the fact is your hardware is useless without the correct software(and this point has been made several times by several people). You can stare at your video card all you want but it aint gonna magically let you play games if you don't have the correct software.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: thilan29

I think the best explanation still was given by BFG10K:
"In terms of hardware it's 1 card but software sees it as 2 cards." (basically like an SLI setup in terms of software.)

how softwares sees doesn't change the fact that

1. 7950gx2 is a hardware.
2. 7950gx2 is physically a single PCI-e card with 2 GPUs.

well, for the same reason I consider a dualcore CPU as a single CPU, I consider 7950GX2 as a single card solution.

Bulldog, do you consider dualcore CPU as a single CPU or not?

So are you disagreeing with what BFG10K said or are you agreeing? Yes the 7950GX2 is a piece of hardware and ducks float, the sky is blue and 2+2=4, etc.... thanks captian obvious. We don't argue that fact, instead we have continued to say that the 7950GX2= 1 card in regards to hardware, but 7950GX2=2 cards in regards to software. I still don't understand why you so vehemently object to this simple statement.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: thilan29
This is more like a dual CPU system than a dualcore system. Just like the dual CPU has it's own socket per CPU and memory(usually) this card has it's own socket/card and memory per GPU.

dualcore doesn't have its own socket. 7950gx2 doesn't have its own socket per GPU. so do you still consider it dual CPU rather than dualcore?

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: josh6079
I made up the phrase to explain the SLI profiles in the driver. That phrase, "Driver Path" was a mistake on my part as I did not mean "Driver Path".

Originally posted by: josh6079 Today: 06/27/2006 03:11 PM
You haven't linked a shred of evidence that suggests a "driver path" does NOT exist. All you've done to the proof of its existence thus far is say, "Well...nuh uh........"

contradicting... isn't it?

so ..show me a link to your "driver path"..

you can't, because you simply made it up AND it does not exist. Admit it, you messed up.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: josh6079
I made up the phrase to explain the SLI profiles in the driver. That phrase, "Driver Path" was a mistake on my part as I did not mean "Driver Path".

Originally posted by: josh6079 Today: 06/27/2006 03:11 PM
You haven't linked a shred of evidence that suggests a "driver path" does NOT exist. All you've done to the proof of its existence thus far is say, "Well...nuh uh........"

contradicting... isn't it?

so ..show me a link to your "driver path"..

you can't, because you simply made it up AND it does not exist. Admit it, you messed up.

Can you give it rest now please? You lost any trace of being taken seriously when you said "Software has nothing to do with hardware." And this is a rare thing, this statement. Because no matter what context we put it in, still it remains a dumb thing to say.
So, ever since that statement, it's just been blah, blah, blah. Might as well be talking to Charlie Browns teacher.

 

[josh6079]

I made it up for my explanation of the SLI profiles, I didn't invent the phrase which you seem to think. It's not like I conjured up the phrase "driver path" and everyone else and their dog (including IBM) started using it since. Yes, I didn't MEAN driver path, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I also didn't mean data path, what I meant was the SLI profiles.

Besides, it is a commonly used phrase and considered a term to those who actually make drivers. Did you know that not until recently, the term "wedgie" wasn't a real English word found in a dictionary. Yet people have known what it meant even before it was accepted by Webster. This is an analogy showing that if enough people use the term, it does exist.

You combated that statement with, "A driver path doesn't even exist" when in fact it does: the "nonexistent" driver path

You continue to banter about something that is irrelevant to the thread as a whole. You have already agreed with BFG's statements about the 7950GX2 being two cards as well as one, yet you continue to argue about things that were said and don't mean anything anymore. I might as well have said "Digestive Track" to explain what I meant since it does exist but doesn't explain what I was talking about.

Try to explain to us your wonderful, independent software theory again. There are a lot of us who are STILL waiting a response in which you explain the questions already asked.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: josh6079

You combated that statement with, "A driver path doesn't even exist" when in fact it does: the "nonexistent" driver path
.

"//driver disk path" as commented by the author.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: josh6079

You combated that statement with, "A driver path doesn't even exist" when in fact it does: the "nonexistent" driver path
.

"//driver disk path" as commented by the author.

and what is dirrectly in front of that?

LPTSTR driverPath;

Did you just float over that when you where reading? I am sure that driver path, or even driver disk path isn't what josh was wanting to say, but the fact that you flat out deny reality is a little scary. At any rate driver path is a phrase/name/whateveryouwanttocallit and many people use it, and we have made a sufficent effort in explaining this to you. Furthemore, this driver path issue and what the correct name is for it doesn't have anything to do with wether or not the 7950GX2 acts like an SLI system softwarewise (something you have even said yourself all the while debating BFG10K when he says the exact same thing). On the other hand, when asked directly, numerous times to provide links to your wonderfully manupulated software which can do HT just because you want it to, run SLI AA on a single gpu, DX10 on a FX chip, and many other feats of flat out magic, you simply turn tail and bring up this driver path junk again. So for the upteenth time please tell me how to turn on HT with this A64 I have. Heck I'll even take an emulator, even though if software had nothing to do with hardware you wouldn't need an emulator now would you!?!?

 

[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

BOOL initialized; //variables to store the status of this class
BOOL started;
BOOL loaded;
BOOL removable;

//get a handle to the driver
DWORD OpenDevice(void);
};

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.

 

[teflonbilly]

It takes 1 pcix slot. its one card. When they have drivers available to support 2 at the same time you can have 2 in yoru computer and then its 2 cards. It has 2 seperate circuit boards, but I would define the quantity of cards by the number of slots it takes in your computer, not by the number of pcb's it has. If you want to get really into it you could then argue that the 1900xtx and other 2 slot cards are as uch a dual card system, since they use up 2 availbale slots in your computer while plugging into only one.

 

[beggerking]

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

BOOL initialized; //variables to store the status of this class
BOOL started;
BOOL loaded;
BOOL removable;

//get a handle to the driver
DWORD OpenDevice(void);
};

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.

OMG, do you even know what you are reading?
LPTSTR driverPath; //driver disk path
means

a variable named "driverPath" of type LPTSTR. get it? its a name of a variable..

right after that, "//driver disk path" is a comment to let another programmer know "driverPath" variable holds the path to find a driver.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: beggerking

OMG, do you even know what you are reading?
LPTSTR driverPath; //driver disk path
means

a variable named "driverPath" of type LPTSTR. get it? its a name of a variable..

right after that, "//driver disk path" is a comment to let another programmer know "driverPath" variable holds the path to find a driver.[/quote]

Ok that seams resonable, but it still doesn't mean that "driverpath" doesn't exist. And as usuall we are still waiting for you to tell me how to use HT on this here A64. Even with an emulator.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: beggerking
OMG, do you even know what you are reading?
LPTSTR driverPath; //driver disk path
means

right after that, "//driver disk path" is a comment to let another programmer know "driverPath" variable holds the path to find a driver.

So it does exist then. All you've done here is clarify it. Thanks for proving yourself wrong. Once again it is then summerized further down:

Originally found in: the link
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.

Again, posted by: beggerking
a variable named "driverPath" of type LPTSTR. get it? its a name of a variable..

You said it doesn't even exist, and upon your pathetic, rambling request I showed you that it does. Now your argument is that it is a name? Can you really be that stupid?

Now that I have entertained your dense skull with your data/driver obsession, are you going to explain your independent software? Are you going to illustrate how "SOFTWARE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HARDWARE!!!!" Or are you going to make another worthless post complaining about something that doesn't even concern itself to this thread?

Stop continuing with nothing. You have no arguments that are valid to the thread since all you want to do is post about technical terms and then try to discredit them because they are names. :roll:

Make your own thread about data/driver paths, this one is about the 7950GX2 and what makes it both a single card and a dual card. This has all started with your disagreement with BFG's statement concerning the needed SLI activation from within the driver on a supposed single card. Then you go to a different thread and say that it is basically an SLI set-up? What, may I ask, makes it basically an SLI setup if, from a hardware standpoint, it is one card? Yep, you guessed it. (or maybe not) That means that it is basically an SLI setup because of its drivers i.e. software.

 

[Ulfhednar]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Photographic evidence? If anything, you have proven that this is nothing but you're opinion, which is fine. Anyone can see that these PCB's need a way to communicate with each other, hence the connector slot. But we still only can make out one actual PCI-E slot in which to insert the card into any PCI-E motherboard. SLI board or not.

You're such a dishonest little fanboy. If you actually look at the picture, anyone can see the PCI-E connector that's on the "expansion" board of the card. The 7950GX2 uses two PCI-E slots, not one.

Listen, you say tomato (tah-may-toe) and I say tomato (tah-mah-toe). Simple as that.
You have zero evidence that the connector that joins the PCB's are called PCI-E connectors anyways. Not that it would matter. I think it's just something you are calling them.

And the survey says? X! Wrong again, according to TechReport themselves "If you look down between the card's two circuit boards, you can see the physical connection between the cards that carries both PCI-E and SLI data."

It's a PCI-E slot, stop lying to yourself fanboy. :roll:

There is really nothing you can say to someone who has his mind made up based on his own observations. You and I included. So, I know it's a single card. And you know it's 2 cards. Yet they cant be used separately nor can you buy them separately to even try.

You're right, except let me rephrase that for you: -

"There is really nothing you can say to a fanboy who has his mind made up based on bias and wishful thinking. So, I know it's a multi-card solution, and you know it's a multi-card solution, yet I will continue to wish that it wasn't and I will continue to spew irrelevent red-herring fallacies to make my point, as I cannot do it any other way in the face of such overwhelming evidence. I have been completely destroyed here."

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Photographic evidence? If anything, you have proven that this is nothing but you're opinion, which is fine. Anyone can see that these PCB's need a way to communicate with each other, hence the connector slot. But we still only can make out one actual PCI-E slot in which to insert the card into any PCI-E motherboard. SLI board or not.

You're such a dishonest little fanboy. If you actually look at the picture, anyone can see the PCI-E connector that's on the "expansion" board of the card. The 7950GX2 uses two PCI-E slots, not one.

Listen, you say tomato (tah-may-toe) and I say tomato (tah-mah-toe). Simple as that.
You have zero evidence that the connector that joins the PCB's are called PCI-E connectors anyways. Not that it would matter. I think it's just something you are calling them.

And the survey says? X! Wrong again, according to TechReport themselves "If you look down between the card's two circuit boards, you can see the physical connection between the cards that carries both PCI-E and SLI data."

It's a PCI-E slot, stop lying to yourself fanboy. :roll:

There is really nothing you can say to someone who has his mind made up based on his own observations. You and I included. So, I know it's a single card. And you know it's 2 cards. Yet they cant be used separately nor can you buy them separately to even try.

You're right, except let me rephrase that for you: -

"There is really nothing you can say to a fanboy who has his mind made up based on bias and wishful thinking. So, I know it's a multi-card solution, and you know it's a multi-card solution, yet I will continue to wish that it wasn't and I will continue to spew irrelevent red-herring fallacies to make my point, as I cannot do it any other way in the face of such overwhelming evidence. I have been completely destroyed here."

LOL, whatever you say dude. If you're ego can't handle it, just say so. I'll be the bigger person here and end this. Cause I have more or less said my piece for all to see, and that's enough for me. /keys & Ulfhednar dispute

Cheers.

 

[Ulfhednar]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
LOL, whatever you say dude. If you're ego can't handle it, just say so. I'll be the bigger person here and end this. Cause I have more or less said my piece for all to see, and that's enough for me. /keys & Ulfhednar dispute

Cheers.

If you're not going to address the fact that, according to photographic evidence and TechReport, the connector is a PCI-E slot then your concession is gladly accepted. Thanks for playing, bye.

/thread

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
LOL, whatever you say dude. If you're ego can't handle it, just say so. I'll be the bigger person here and end this. Cause I have more or less said my piece for all to see, and that's enough for me. /keys & Ulfhednar dispute

Cheers.

If you're not going to address the fact that, according to photographic evidence and TechReport, the connector is a PCI-E slot then your concession is gladly accepted. Thanks for playing, bye.

The Anandtech article covered the PCI-E switch in some detail weeks ago, so it's not exactly a startling revelation. I fail to see what this would have changed anyway since the use of a PCI-E switch on the "master" board has nothing to do with nVidia's marketing to typical users. The few self-appointed community watchdogs don't seem to understand that there is no scam and that the "single card performance crown" is at best just a wooden crown coveted only by bickering fanboys.

 

[Ulfhednar]

Originally posted by: nullpointerus
The Anandtech article covered the PCI-E switch in some detail weeks ago, so it's not exactly a startling revelation. I fail to see what this would have changed anyway since the use of a PCI-E switch on the "master" board has nothing to do with nVidia's marketing to typical users. The few self-appointed community watchdogs don't seem to understand that there is no scam and that the "single card performance crown" is at best just a wooden crown coveted only by bickering fanboys.

The reason I brought up the PCI-E switch is because the fanboys who like to beat the "single card performance crown" drum say that the 7950GX2 is a single card "because it uses one PCI-E slot." It uses two, therefore I have made my point and more fanboy idiocy has been defeated.

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar

Originally posted by: nullpointerus
The Anandtech article covered the PCI-E switch in some detail weeks ago, so it's not exactly a startling revelation. I fail to see what this would have changed anyway since the use of a PCI-E switch on the "master" board has nothing to do with nVidia's marketing to typical users. The few self-appointed community watchdogs don't seem to understand that there is no scam and that the "single card performance crown" is at best just a wooden crown coveted only by bickering fanboys.

The reason I brought up the PCI-E switch is because the fanboys who like to beat the "single card performance crown" drum say that the 7950GX2 is a single card "because it uses one PCI-E slot." It uses two, therefore I have made my point and more fanboy idiocy has been defeated.

Oh, is that all? Then you have no point. The 7950GX2 uses one PCI-E slot on the system board, and that's the only slot that's relevant in the context of the original discussion.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: thilan29
This is more like a dual CPU system than a dualcore system. Just like the dual CPU has it's own socket per CPU and memory(usually) this card has it's own socket/card and memory per GPU.

dualcore doesn't have its own socket. 7950gx2 doesn't have its own socket per GPU. so do you still consider it dual CPU rather than dualcore?

Read what I said..."DUAL CPU HAS ITs OWN SOCKET PER CPU." Dualcore has only 1 socket but a dual CPU system has 2 sockets (or have you never seen a 2 CPU system before?). I NEVER said dualcore has it's own socket per CPU I said DUAL CPU has it's own socket per CPU. Please read properly and don't misquote me. It's tiresome to repeat what I've said over and over again just because you misread it.

Each 7950 GPU is on it's own card right?? So each GPU has it's own socket. So it is more like dual CPU than dualcore.

So again:
So having said that do you consider a dual CPU system the same as dualcore??

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: teflonbilly
If you want to get really into it you could then argue that the 1900xtx and other 2 slot cards are as uch a dual card system, since they use up 2 availbale slots in your computer while plugging into only one.

Ummm...the the 7950 also takes up 2 slots while plugging into one...so just by your logic it is a dual card system. If as you say you're gonna define the number of cards by the number of slots it takes up then the 7950 is also a dual card.

A true single slot card would be something like a 7900GT or X1800XL.