backtop


Print 77 comment(s) - last by skroh.. on Oct 10 at 5:38 PM

More G80 features abound

As if we mere mortals needed more reasons to be excited about G80, here are a couple more tidbits: 128-bit high dynamic-range and antialiasing with 16X sampling.

The high dynamic-range (HDR) engine found in GeForce 7950 and Radeon series graphics cards is technically a 64-bit rendering.  This new HDR approach comes from a file format developed by Industrial Light and Magic (the LucasFilm guys).  In a nutshell, we will have 128-bit floating point HDR as soon as applications adopt code to use it. OpenEXR's features include:
  • Higher dynamic range and color precision than existing 8- and 10-bit image file formats.
  • Support for 16-bit floating-point, 32-bit floating-point, and 32-bit integer pixels. The 16-bit floating-point format, called "half", is compatible with the half data type in NVIDIA's Cg graphics language and is supported natively on their new GeForce FX and Quadro FX 3D graphics solutions.
  • Multiple lossless image compression algorithms. Some of the included codecs can achieve 2:1 lossless compression ratios on images with film grain.
  • Extensibility. New compression codecs and image types can easily be added by extending the C++ classes included in the OpenEXR software distribution. New image attributes (strings, vectors, integers, etc.) can be added to OpenEXR image headers without affecting backward compatibility with existing OpenEXR applications.
NVIDIA already has 16X AA available for SLI applications.  The GeForce 8800 will be the first card to feature 16X AA on a single GPU.  Previous generations of GeForce cards have only been able to support 8X antialiasing in single-card configurations.

This new 16X AA and 128-bit HDR will be part of another new engine, similar in spirit to PureVideo and the Quantum Effects engines also featured on G80.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: PS3's video chip?
By Sharky974 on 10/5/2006 6:49:46 PM , Rating: -1
Umm that article is dumb. Did he measure FEAR's frame rate on 360? How does he know it only has 2XAA?

And even if he did know those, it means nothing. FEAR is a PC>360 port and there's absolutely no telling what that means for performance (Halo didn't exactly scream on a PC, did it?).

Plus he's ignoring the real factor that limits consoles in this comparison..RAM. They must make do with 512MB. Outfit a 360 with 2 GB and it might do a lot better.

Plus I like his snarky comment about 2004 wants there graphics mode back. I'm not sure what future he's living in but back here 90% of regular people use fixed pitch 17" or 19" LCD's that are 1280X1024 (not much above 1280X720!) and cannot exceed that. If he's honestly implying the majority of gamers, let alone people, use a fancy expensive widescreen monitor with> 1280 res, he's lying.

I could even go on about how Oblivion is basically 95% as good graphically as on a uber high end PC PC on a 299 Xbox360.

Plus everything he said goes for PS3 as well, or more, except PS3 is more expensive and not even out yet.

And hell, in a sense he might as well compare year old PC cards to G80. Because the 360 is a year old.

I mean he's right in a sense, all Xbox360 and PS3 use is mid-high end GPU's by PC standards. But that's still pretty good.

Oh and I forgot but he doesn't take into account games like Gears of War, Bioshock, Assasins Creed, Project Gotham Racing 3, NBA2K7, that look as good (usually better) visually as ay PC game, regardless what's under the hood. Project Gotham 3 smokes any PC racer graphically and it was out one year ago! The only games that will match Xbox360's overall visuals will be the latest few PC games released in the last year which is not that many.

But yeah, again, FEAR is a port, and as a 360 game measured against other 360 games, it's not very impressive graphically. Nor is the PC version graphically impressive against 360 games.

Hell there isn't any PC game that blows away 360/PS3 games. In the future there will be though, yes.


RE: PS3's video chip?
By Sharky974 on 10/5/06, Rating: -1
RE: PS3's video chip?
By EclipsedAurora on 10/6/2006 5:57:48 AM , Rating: 2
ha
You made a good point.

I can't live without my 40" LCD TV and THX home theater system now, while PC can only stuck with small monitors and cheapie speakers.

One more thing, the upscaler of any latest TV perform similar things that GPU is doing with their FSAA, but in far better quality. If u guys would like to focus on FSAA, why not talking how great video system like Fujouda DCDi, Philips Pixel Plus 3, Sony DRC-MFv2.5 can boost the visual quality for consoles?

The greatest benifits for consoles start from here, it can make use of your current home theater hardware to improve your gaming experience, while PC can never capable of doing this. Why do u need to use a silly mouse+keyboard for Quake, but not a gun in Time Crisis?


RE: PS3's video chip?
By Sharky974 on 10/6/2006 7:18:34 AM , Rating: 1
More stupidy in that article:

He says the 360 costs 650, and video cards that can challenge it for 299. That works out to 484 and 223 in US dollars.

Well first of all in USA it's 399/299 for xbox360. And actually currently, you CAN probably get a $200 card that will challenge 360 (like a X1900GT or 7900GS). But it's close. I'm not sure those card are up to 360 level but they're close enough. But those cards also just came out, 360 is year old. Anytime in the last 12 months you'd generally pay 299+ for cards like that. At the time the 360 came out in Nov 2005, making the comparison more fair, more like 599 (but 360 was still 299). But just his currency conversion made the comparison seem worse than it is even today. Even today you are generally looking at 299 for a video card alone to equal 360, and the 360 costs 299. His figures make it look like 360 is twice the price a decent card, which is pretty much false and due to Aus currency, plus he shoots pretty low on the card price (223).

But his real backwardsass statements are the ones about the TV's. He says you must pay a few thouands dollars for one. First of all, he's backwards, one advantage consoles always have over PC's is that everybody already owns a TV. Nobody buys consoles and Tv's in pairs yet that's exactly what you do with PC's. The fact is the monitor as an added expense applies much more to PC's than consoles. You buy a PC you dont have a monitor (unless you already had one, which may often be the case nowdays, but you still will probably need to upgrade from CRT to LCD or something like that). You buy a console you already have a TV. Historically.

Now there's a slight temporary monkey wrench this time because of HDTV. But it's completely false to state you must have a HDTV to enjoy 360. Very false. It helps, yeah, but the machine is just fine on SDTV (and still toasts previous consoles graphically at 640X480). Hell, look at something like Gears of war, that's going to blow away old consoles on SDTV. Unless you're of the opinion SDTV is useless for games, in which case there's about 100 million PS2's out there you just called useless.

The other thing is "thousands of dollars". Lie. I got a 27" 720P LCD for ~$500. No dead pixels and it is super nice. From Office Depot. You can get that deal all the time. Either Syntax or Westinghouse are great qaulity low price LCD's. And hell, for $1000 you could easily get some big name brands, or better yet a 32" or 37" Westinghouse. Or for under 500 Best Buy and Wal Mart carry big name brand (Toshiba etc) 30-32" CRT HDTV's all day long. I mean shit, I dont even think many Sony's which are the most expensive around top 2 grand anymore. So basically the "thousands" is a pretty blatant fabrication, In reality it's $500 all that's required tops.

Also it's a TV, which you're going to buy an HDTV in the next five years (at least most Americans are) ANYWAY. Whether you have a Xbox360/PS3 or not. So it's really not part of the cost at all, it is something most people will be buying regardless.

He also neglect to mention that that 27", 32", or 37"+ TV is going to be hugely bigger and more impressive to play on that your puny PC monitor that is likely 19-22". Your PC monitor will do higher res, but 37" is going to blow that away as an overall visual/audio experience every time.

Overall he makes some good points, and I generally agree with him, he just throws some biased misinformation at times.


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki