News Nvidia CEO reveals Fermi architecture

Very true, but it's a bit like swimming in a cold pool: If you want to swim, then at some point you just have to pinch your nose and jump in...

 

this guy makes a good observation at the bottom of the page

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/10/01/nvidia-fakes-fermi-boards-gtc/

the solder pins don't line up underneath the 8 pin bottom of the board XD

&edit- doh kroten beat me to it in the other thread =]

 

Give me a video card that isn't the size of a netbook!!!!

My PC is only 2 years old now, but I had a hard time finding a decent card to fit in it when my 8800 GT card died. Seriously.. the graphics cards coming out these days are about as long as the motherboard and usually take up two slots. Makes it a b**ch if you have any connections on the motherboard that fall under the massive footprint of the newer video cards.

I admit that buying an off-the-shelf pc limits me somewhat, but really??? Do these cards need to be this f*n big? Can't they at least make them shorter? Why the hell do the cards need to be 10-12 inches long?

 

I'll say yes if you can find a way to do it. It's not that they even waste space on it, it's that cards nowadays require so much room because there's so many components in them.

 

Blame the Motherboard manufacturer's for not thinking about high end graphics when they design board layouts. they could have componants where the GPU sits and move the connectors to another place on the board.

 

"Isitari 30th September 2009, 22:42
hhmmm Games are definitely not going to need THIS much power. " - Games expand to fill the capability of the hardware. I do remember my uncle telling me in 1983 that games would never need more than 64k memory. Do you really think game technology will stop here and never become more complex?

This kind of graphics technology means the potential for better game AI as well as more realistic imagery. We haven't even started on ray-traced games yet and even Fermi is probably a little too weak for that.

 

"RotoSequence 30th September 2009, 23:00
It seems strange to position yourself in the market of co-processors that do double duty as graphics cards. It's expensive and there are hundreds of millions of transistors that will inevitably be useless to the majority of their market...

Do they really think that selling millions of co-processors to people will keep their company afloat against more dedicated solutions? It seems a bit hard to imagine that this will work out for them. Oh well, its an interesting thing to see. " - Of course they think it. Unlike you they have a clearer vision of what is and isn't feasible. Their solutions are many times cheaper than the dedicated solutions you talk about. Very inexpensive and scalable. No contest. Nvidia wins.

 

...512 CUDA cores. I'd be surprised if they didn't find a way to error-test based on groups of cores and their shared cache and disable the error cores, selling lower-end cards with bad blocks of disabled cores to increase their yield. There must be a way to do this using different board firmwares for different working core configurations.

 

whats real time ray tracing mean?

 

ops never mind found it here

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/03/12/caustic-promises-real-time-ray-tracing/1