PDA

View Full Version : R420 Photos



GT98
23rd April 2004, 07:42
The Heat Speader looks pretty neat looking compaired the Nvidia offering.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20040422180038.html

DGhost
23rd April 2004, 08:08
the pics I saw didn't have dual dvi. **** that, i'm staying with NVidia.

dual dvi should be ****ing standard on all video cards right now.

az
23rd April 2004, 08:13
**** the ****ing ****ers :D :p

AZ

Helevitia
23rd April 2004, 08:17
LOL, yeah, **** them, those ****ing ****heads!

hey! I like this thread :D

Helevitia
23rd April 2004, 08:18
Originally posted by DGhost
the pics I saw didn't have dual dvi. **** that, i'm staying with NVidia.

dual dvi should be ****ing standard on all video cards right now.

Aren't you jumping the gun a little? I mean, the product hasn't even been announced, yet you have made a decision. Plus, I noticed that someone(can't remember who) came out with a dual DVI 9600 the other day.

Dave

az
23rd April 2004, 08:42
Doesn't matter! **** them! :D

AZ

DGhost
23rd April 2004, 08:43
*shrug* perhaps.

i have yet to see dual DVI Radeon cards more powerful than a Radeon VE available in America, though.

The company you are referring to is HIS. In addition to only being a Radeon 9600 (not even a 9600 Pro), I have yet to see that video card available for sale yet. Sapphire Tech also demonstrated dual DVI 9800 Pro and XT models at CeBit. They have yet to list product information on their website though, let alone give official announcements.

edit: Tyan introduced a version of their 9600 Pro card with dual DVI. they never sold it in America.

The only video cards that offer dual dvi, high end performance and a reasonable price are the GeForceFX 5700 Ultra cards. And even with those, finding a vendor that will sell the few product SKU's that have dual DVI is hard.

other than that you have the FireGL and Quadro series of cards (expensive even for a card that offers mediocre performance in yesterdays market), the Parhelia derivative products (expensive for what you get, and personally not worth the bother), and the Wildcat series (as good as they are, they are a little expensive for what you get - and i don't even need a workstation class video card).

unfortunately, the comments from most vendors is that dual dvi video cards belong in the workstation market. NVidia is thankfully forcing some change in that arena with the 6800 series. ATI, unfortunatly, doesn't seem to care. probably because it is the one feature that really differentiates the FireGL line from their normal Radeon cards.

Ribbit
23rd April 2004, 08:59
As I've mentioned before, it seems Sapphire are planning dual-DVI 9800Pros and XTs.

But I can't find anything about it on their website, so I guess **** 'em :D

Jammrock
23rd April 2004, 11:25
Most people, especially gamers, run on a CRT, so dual DVI's wouldn't be very economical. With dual DVI's they have to ship a DVI-to-VGA adapter. In other words ... it makes sense until LCD's become more prevelent among gamers.

Jon P. Inghram
23rd April 2004, 11:47
I wish I ******* would have kept my old GF4 4400, getting ******* tired of having to use old OpenGL drivers to make Counter-Strike run half way worth a **** due to the ***** ATI drivers which get ******* slower with every *** **** update on my 8500. :dead:

Helevitia
23rd April 2004, 12:10
This thread is turning into therapy :D

Back on topic...I can't see myself buying an LCD screen for a while due to all of the cons.

The PIT
23rd April 2004, 12:21
Originally posted by Jammrock
Most people, especially gamers, run on a CRT, so dual DVI's wouldn't be very economical. With dual DVI's they have to ship a DVI-to-VGA adapter. In other words ... it makes sense until LCD's become more prevelent among gamers.

LCD's are getting better. I can games quite happily on my Dell 2001fp without blurring. Need a faster card for the 1600 x 1200 for all the eye candy though. :p

Problem the larger CRT's these days you don't see many good ones. Normally they either have wonky geometry or one side of the screen has convergance problems and you don''t have the controls to adjust them out.

Haven't seen very many LCD's with dead pixals. Used to be a common problem but seems to be getting consigned to the past which is good.

The only reasons I see to keep to an CRT is cost and what other hobbies you do in your spare time. If you graphics design on serious basis certainly an LCD isn't for you.

DGhost
23rd April 2004, 12:34
all the cons? my VP171b's don't have any blurring. you should see the reaction of all the fanboi's at lan parties.

back to the therapy...

**** those *** **** mother ****ers!

Helevitia
23rd April 2004, 12:39
I agree there are a lot of great things about LCD's, but the problems that I see are HUGE problems. For instance, change resolutions makes the monitor look like crap, fixed pixel sizes, no true black, limited color(compared to CRT's), slow response time( i know this is subjective, but I can still see ghosting). I rather buy a CRT still at this point.

And yes, **** all of those pussy mother****ers!

The PIT
23rd April 2004, 12:51
Agreed the resolutions change can be a bit of pain then again in the one game I've got whos max res is well down on the screen res I haven't noticed any probs. Text would look pants though.

Dunno which LCD's you used that you found suffered from ghosting.

The crap geometry and convergance problems I find highly annoying. I've seen one 22 inch Monitor in the last few years that hasn't suffered from any obivous annoying defects.

Wombat
23rd April 2004, 13:03
One thing that's kinda bothering me is that I'd probably end up buying a 18" LCD. These things come in at 1280x1024 - the only non-4:3 aspect ratio that's really out there.

Chrono_Wanderer
23rd April 2004, 13:15
looks promising... turn the heat up!!!!!!

few days ago ATI headquarters had a tech day.

http://www.darkcrow.co.kr/Review/Review_Content.asp?board_idx=190

darkcrow has an article on it.

I live like 5 minutes from their headquarters :D

I have never seen ATI's new building interiors until know. Their labs look not nearly as well equipted as NVIDIA's, but somehow ATI managed to remain competitive. Their engineers must be pretty good.

NVIDIA has like 5 buildings in their santa clara headquarters, with like rows and rows of servers, some even itanium boxes. whereas, whereas, ATI has like standard rows of PCs...

make me wonder if ATI is gonna upgrade soon? (the one photoed is their new building built like 2 years ago or something...)

Wombat
23rd April 2004, 14:11
Nvidia needs those servers.
See, the thing is, they don't write good drivers. They write drivers, and use the servers to morph the code - kinda genetic code, but kinda not. They then compile/run/simulate all these drivers, and then choose the best performing as what will be released.

thop
23rd April 2004, 16:07
The bathroom looks nice.

agallag
23rd April 2004, 20:37
Originally posted by Wombat
One thing that's kinda bothering me is that I'd probably end up buying a 18" LCD. These things come in at 1280x1024 - the only non-4:3 aspect ratio that's really out there.

That's precisely why I don't want an LCD right now. If someone would make an 18" screen at 1280x960 (at a reasonable price of course), I'd snap one up real quick. 1024x768 is too low, 1600x1200 is too expensive, and 1280x1024 looks weird.

az
23rd April 2004, 23:42
I think I'll wait till 1600x1200 units become reasonably-priced (which I hope they do sometime in the next two years).

AZ

Novdid
24th April 2004, 00:01
Originally posted by agallag
That's precisely why I don't want an LCD right now. If someone would make an 18" screen at 1280x960 (at a reasonable price of course), I'd snap one up real quick. 1024x768 is too low, 1600x1200 is too expensive, and 1280x1024 looks weird.

If I understand you correctly, then you're wrong. 1280x1024 LCD's aren't 4/3, they are 5/4. So it doesn't look weird.

az
24th April 2004, 01:04
Yes, but everything else looks weird (because only more expensive units have more modes than fullscreen interpolation).

AZ

Evildead666
24th April 2004, 03:09
Damn, i wish we could have more widescreen lcd's.

i've been looking at 17-22in 1280*768 screens, and they arn't too expensive, and some games (like farcry) can use the widescreen resolution.

And why not 1600*960 lcd's...most of video (TV and DVD and Films...) is going widescreen, why not computers? The extra real estate is worth it, even if you just wordprocess extra width to see two pages, comments....

Topha
24th April 2004, 05:57
yep, I would like 16:9 screens to become more common as well.

in the first X-Men movie, every screen you saw was 16:9 :)

Wombat
24th April 2004, 07:17
Originally posted by Novdid
If I understand you correctly, then you're wrong. 1280x1024 LCD's aren't 4/3, they are 5/4. So it doesn't look weird. A 5/4 aspect ratio is the definition of "looks weird." Squares aren't squares, they're squished up.

dZeus
24th April 2004, 07:52
no they appear as squares. LCDs with native 5:4 res have a 5:4 phyisical aspect ratio too (at least all the ones I've ever seen).

thop
24th April 2004, 10:47
Yes dZeus is right, the pixels are perfect squares. There is nothing really wrong with 1280x1024 LCDs, except if you dislike 5:4 in general.

Kurt
24th April 2004, 12:41
For all it's worth, my 21" Eizo T965 (new one is T966) is plainly and simply perfect.

It hasn't been color-calibrated since I play games that need various gamma adjustments, but at least I NEVER had to correct the image geometry.

Can't say that for all the Sony's I've seen.

@The Pit: you're probably not seeing any ghosting _because_ your VGA card is too slow ;)

The PIT
24th April 2004, 12:53
Thanks Kurt for telling me my 9800 pro is too slow. I knew it needing confirming. ;)