And those lame 3D glasses. Do you realize 3D is a niche fad that comes and goes every ten years. Multiple industries have been trying to make money off 3D since the early 1930's. Nvidia needs to apply the technology to EYEFINITY which shows alot of promise.
Being able to see so much of the playing field (Like in that movie Gamer) is an awsome experience. 20" inch monitors are around $100 so EYEFINITY is becoming a reality not only for games but for viewing live sports.

Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
And those lame 3D glasses. Do you realize 3D is a niche fad that comes and goes every ten years. Multiple industries have been trying to make money off 3D since the early 1930's. Nvidia needs to apply the technology to EYEFINITY which shows alot of promise.
Being able to see so much of the playing field (Like in that movie Gamer) is an awsome experience. 20" inch monitors are around $100 so EYEFINITY is becoming a reality not only for games but for viewing live sports.

Oh yes, let's laud Triplehead gaming. Sorry, Eyefinity. It's amazing, Matrox came out with the whole "Triplehead gaming" schtick Waay back with their Parhalia cards, and nothing every happened with it. Big surprise.

If 3D is a "Niche fad", then what's with Dolby 3D and RealD-3D getting in on the act? How comes almost all the huge blockbuster movies are coming out in 3D? Why do you think LCD TVs are pushing to 120 and 240hz? What standard has just been ratified (with NVidia on the board) with the Blu-Ray standards council? I'll give you a clue, it's not Triplehead gaming.

Oh, and incidentally, Eyefinity is actually breaking part of how Windows is meant to work. It creates one "Virtual" screen across the three displays, but that means things like maximising windows to a screen doesn't work any more.

NVidia cards support 3D acceleration on all "heads". Look at Total Commander - That works properly with Windows' screen system, by (correctly) opening a window on each screen, or opening a window that spans the screen borders.

So if you want "Eyefinity" on an NVidia card, buy yourself a Matrox TripleHead2Go box, and you're done. Wooo... Groundbreaking... *sigh*.

Not this time around. The 5000 series already implements AMD stream technology where programs not running video games can offload some computations to the GPU of a HD 5000 card. This means some developers (Microsoft Apple) have already played around with this and are programming for future ATi releases. Plus If Nvidia doesn't acquire a licence from Intel and AMD then it's GPCPU will be useless because it wont be legal to work on any NEW x86 or X64 motherboards. I'm sure they will get a license and pay royalties to AMD and Intel.

Intel is working on a GPCPU and so is AMD/ATi both are CPU manufactures and are holding all the keys to any new CPU or GPCPU technology. Nvidia has to go through Intel or AMD to get GPCPU technology out to the market. Either they reform their bond with Intel or pay AMD royalties.

That's why Nvidia has been so busy going after alternative markets, Tegra 3d glasses hospital imaging machines, They thought Physix was going to work but it can be done through software or a chip addition to a video card.

So no this time around it's totally different because it's not about just improving graphics no more but about CPU GPU integration and unless Nvidia starts making CPU's then they are going to have to PAY AMD.

Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
Not this time around. The 5000 series already implements AMD stream technology where programs not running video games can offload some computations to the GPU of a HD 5000 card.

Hello, CUDA, greetings DirectCompute, glad to see you're finally catching up, ATI.

Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
This means some developers (Microsoft Apple) have already played around with this and are programming for future ATi releases.

You mean like the DXVA conversion acceleration that already exists in Win7 for NVidia cards (Thanks, again, to DirectCompute)?

Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
Plus If Nvidia doesn't acquire a licence from Intel and AMD then it's GPCPU will be useless because it wont be legal to work on any NEW x86 or X64 motherboards. I'm sure they will get a license and pay royalties to AMD and Intel.

That is not decided as of yet. AIUI, there is still a court-case going through now between Intel and NVidia over the scope of their license.
And as HyperTransport and PCI-Express are "Open" standards (with NVidia on the founding boards for both) there is little need for a license there.

Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
Intel is working on a GPCPU

You mean Larrabee? Don't make me laugh!

Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
and so is AMD/ATi

Really? I'd not heard of that.

Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
both are CPU manufactures and are holding all the keys to any new CPU or GPCPU technology.

Not quite. Tegra is a sure sign that NVidia don't *need* anything more. But NVidia don't *Need* to be in the CPU or GPCPU field. They're a graphics card maker. As long as PCI-Express exists, they will be more than able to compete. And while they may not be able to make motherboard chipsets any longer (And, be honest, apart from Ion, just how many chipsets have NVidia made over the last few years?), they really don't need to.

Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
Nvidia has to go through Intel or AMD to get GPCPU technology out to the market. Either they reform their bond with Intel or pay AMD royalties.

NVidia already has a GP*PU technology out there, and Fermi looks to be a next step in this evolution. Why restrict the amount of processing you can do to how many clocks you can fit in the CPU socket?

Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
That's why Nvidia has been so busy going after alternative markets, Tegra 3d glasses hospital imaging machines, They thought Physix was going to work but it can be done through software or a chip addition to a video card.

It's not just PhysX, that was just a showcase of what they could do. And while Ageia thought their PPU was the cat's ass, NVidia knew differently. They knew PhysX would already run on the CPU, but it didn't HAVE to. Offloading that load from the CPU to the unused capacity on the GPU meant the CPU was free to do other things, like AI or sound.
Besides, NVidia have already got GPGPU working for many, many applications with CUDA and DirectCompute leading the way, and with the latter being a MS-created standard API (like DirectX) to work across all cards, though only NVidia have drivers that support it.

Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
So no this time around it's totally different because it's not about just improving graphics no more but about CPU GPU integration and unless Nvidia starts making CPU's then they are going to have to PAY AMD.

For Intel it may be about CPU and GPU integration, but for NVidia it's not. They don't care what you use as your main CPU, their technology is not dependent on it. All they require is a standard interface (PCI-Express, say), and they're golden.

Oh, and incidentally, it sounds like Fermi has the processing power to be able to run, say, Bochs or QEmu "Natively". Which means you can have your "graphics card" emulating a CPU, and running an OS. There was another company that was quite successful doing things like that. Their name was TransMeta. Perhaps you should look them up.

To be fair, Nvidia's just heading into the GPGPU route because they *hope* that it's going to be the future.

A smart move perhaps, but at the rate it's going they're going to have some massive losses unless they can convince the consumer populace that it's worth it.

I like CUDA and all but there's still not enough programs to justify a purchase of a more expensive GPU.