Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NVIDIA GeForce 7950GX2 Benchmarks

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the new-shinies dept.

51

An anonymous reader writes "On June 6, NVIDIA will launch what it calls 'the fastest single graphics card' on the planet, capable of running 40% faster than the current GeForce 7900GTX. Dailytech has benchmarks and specifications of the card already." From the Dailytech article: "GeForce 7950GX2 takes two GeForce 7900GTX boards, and joins them via 32 PCIe lanes. 16 additional lanes are routed to the motherboard out to the PCIe adaptor. The GeForce 7900GX2 was designed specifically for OEM system builds and as a result nothing was compromised for performance. However, GeForce 7950GX2 is designed to be the retail component, and as such a few things needed tweaking for retail sales."

cancel ×

51 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The numbers and suffices, oh my... (4, Funny)

wesley96 (934306) | more than 8 years ago | (#15416753)

Man, you really have to wonder how infinitely close to 8000 that number will go, accompanied with all those wacky suffices. Sigh...

Re:The numbers and suffices, oh my... (1)

edremy (36408) | more than 8 years ago | (#15416857)

Well, that depends.

Are they counting singly, by decimal? In that case 49. They clearly aren't using octal since we're up to 7950, but if we allow hex you've got 73. Then again, hex might seem to conflict with the letters, so let's stick with decimal.

Assuming that we can have up to three letters after the name (more would be just silly, don't you think?), you'd get 26^3 more possibilities, so you have 17576 possibilities for each number. However, we have to allow for single and double letter combos, so you have an additional 26 + 26^2 or 26+676+17576 = 18278 combinations per number.

That makes it roughly 49*18278= 895622 possible combinations before 8000, assuming decimal numbers and no more than 3 letters. Given the current rate of video card development, I suspect that nVidia can't do more than one new model per hour, which I make out to be roughly 102 years before we get to the GeForce8000.

Personally, I'm waiting for the GeForce 7963 LLQ model. I hear it's really going to be awesome!

Re:The numbers and suffices, oh my... (1)

repruhsent (672799) | more than 8 years ago | (#15416889)

You really need to get out of the basement now and then.

Re:The numbers and suffices, oh my... (1)

Wisgary (799898) | more than 8 years ago | (#15416903)

Sometimes leaving things unanswered is part of what makes a joke funny. The parent did that. You didn't. I concur with the get the fuck out of the basement statement. And your punchlines suck. HHAHAHA LLQ I KILL MYSELF

Only True Next Gen Chips can go 8XXX (1)

Nazmun (590998) | more than 8 years ago | (#15418511)

Slight improvements or in this case putting two of the same gpu's in one pcb is still in the same generation. Their number scheme actually makes sense once your used to it at least. The naming scheme, GEFORCE ULTRA XTX ZERO or whatever the hell each individual pcb manufacturer decides to come up with is a different story.

Fastest single graphics card... (4, Insightful)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 8 years ago | (#15416757)

...made out of two graphics cards?

o_O

Re:Fastest single graphics card... (1)

KitesWorld (901626) | more than 8 years ago | (#15416789)

Why not? Some of the more powerful car engines out there are literally a couple of V8's sliced apart and welded together. Different job, similar idea.

Re:Fastest single graphics card... (1)

idonthack (883680) | more than 8 years ago | (#15416790)

Now put two of them in SLI :)

Re:Fastest single graphics card... (2, Insightful)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15416835)

I note from the article that:

It's also important to note that the SLI bridge is not present on the 7950GX2.

And further down:

Even though the card is designed for QUAD SLI, there will be no four-GPU support at the time of launch with the 7950GX2 due to driver constraints.

Thats one hell of a software driver which can fabricate missing hardware!

Re:Fastest single graphics card... (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 8 years ago | (#15417139)

It's two GPUs *on a single card*.

Not two seperate cards that require seperate PCI Express slots.

Re:Fastest single graphics card... (1)

Nataku564 (668188) | more than 8 years ago | (#15418402)

Yeah, but the article states that they are just joined on the card.

GeForce 7950GX2 takes two GeForce 7900GTX boards, and joins them via 32 PCIe lanes.

So, yeah, its technically on one board, but its really just two cards thinking they are in SLI.

Re:Fastest single graphics card... (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 8 years ago | (#15418612)

The article probably is mistakenly referring to the GPU chips on the card and their support circuitry as seperate boards, when in fact they are not.

Cost (3, Insightful)

Jordanis (955796) | more than 8 years ago | (#15416782)

The thing that I find interesting is that they've basically got two 7900 GTXes, which are still retailing for nearly $500 [newegg.com] in a $600 package. High margins much?

Re:Cost (1)

ThatFunkyMunki (908716) | more than 8 years ago | (#15417180)

Your point being...?

It's like two 7900GTs, not 7900GTXs. (4, Informative)

Behrooz (302401) | more than 8 years ago | (#15417449)

7900GT: 500MHz core, 256MB @ ~600MHz memory. $280

7950GX2: 500MHz core, 1024MB @ 600MHz memory $600

7900GTX: 650MHz core, 512MB @ 800MHz memory $500

It's not two 7900GTXs, it's a pair of 7900GTs with extra memory, coming out of the same quality of chip yield, not the one-in-however-many GPUs that can be stably clocked up to GTX levels.

Plus, the lower clock means much lower cooling requirements and power consumption, with corresponding cost reduction.

Not a bad idea, really.

Re:It's like two 7900GTs, not 7900GTXs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15418817)

Wrong. It's not a 7900GT because it's not a G71. It's actually a G71M. Compare 7950GX2 to the earlier attempt at G71 SLI on a single board. This is why it is so much better.

Re:It's like two 7900GTs, not 7900GTXs. (1)

Jordanis (955796) | more than 8 years ago | (#15419006)

I suppose not--it's the memory counts that threw me off. Still, given the cost differences I recall fairly recently between 256 and 512 cards, I have to figure 512 megs of the stuff costs more than $40. And even if that price difference was just a spot of gouging for the Latest and Greatest (which seems probable to me--the hardcore hobbyists with money are happy to shell out big), it still means that for this particular piece of latest and greatest, they're not taking the usual margin.

I guess it's just a price-point kind of thing. $600 is what top-of-the-line graphics cards cost, and that's that. An interesting glimpse into the marketing world. Or something.

Never happened before (4, Funny)

donglekey (124433) | more than 8 years ago | (#15416884)

'the fastest single graphics card' on the planet

My god, this is so unprecedented.

Re:Never happened before (1)

OctoberSky (888619) | more than 8 years ago | (#15416989)

They should really not be allowed to say that... I mean, there should be some kind of gentlemen's agreement between reviews of Video Cards to never say that.
It should read "Fastest card out right now" or "Fastest card we have ever tested" would be accurate. But when you bring "the planet" into the equation this thing should be Above and Beyond fast(er) than every thing else out there. It is technically right... until next month.

Bah! (4, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 8 years ago | (#15416887)

I'm still happily using my Geforce2 MX/MX400 64MB!

Why should I go spending ridiculous amounts of money (more than my PC cost) just for some silly games, especially since it's like pulling teeth to get current higher-end GPUs supported under anything but MS operating systems?

It seems to be much more economical to simply play games on a console, especially since it seems that many media/game/other content providers insist on the newer cards simply for the DRM enforcement.

Don't get me wrong, I prefer gaming on a PC compared to a game console, but not anywhere near enough to sink that much cash into a GPU, nor add all the DRM that seems increasingly to be required to play current generation games on a PC.

Guess I'll stick to my old games and GPU that still work very well, thankyou. For the money saved alone, I could buy a nice guitar (or 2!). :D

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Bah! (4, Insightful)

colganc (581174) | more than 8 years ago | (#15416953)

A console cycle lasts about four years. When a console comes out they look to be $400 these days. For that much money you can buy two mid range computer graphic cards. One at 0 years and one at the 2 year mark. Since you already have a computer that cost is already sunk. Complaining about DRM on computers and computers games is quite silly as well. Consoles are locked down with quite a bit more DRM. The reason the industry insists on newer cards is because all the game players want their current games to run better, so they buy better hardware to run it on.

my PCI card still beats the best integrated! (1)

80 85 83 83 89 33 (819873) | more than 8 years ago | (#15417380)

i've been very curious about the current level of built in graphics on the motherboard. turns out my PCI 5700 LE (yes, i said old school PCI card, not pci express) beats an onboard pci express nvidia 6150!!! and that 5700 LE is a crippled version of a regular 5700 even.

Re:Bah! (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 8 years ago | (#15417438)

A console cycle lasts about four years. When a console comes out they look to be $400 these days. For that much money you can buy two mid range computer graphic cards. One at 0 years and one at the 2 year mark. Since you already have a computer that cost is already sunk. Complaining about DRM on computers and computers games is quite silly as well. Consoles are locked down with quite a bit more DRM. The reason the industry insists on newer cards is because all the game players want their current games to run better, so they buy better hardware to run it on.

The last console I bought (used, $20) was a PS2 a couple years ago. I wouldn't pay over $100 for a game console new. My computer I built myself about 5 years ago, and am quite happy with. I don't think it would even support some of the newer graphics cards.

I have some problems with DRM on consoles, but mainly from an aggravation standpoint, since I don't infinge copyrights. DRM on my computer, however, I have a big problem with.

I have and do far more on my computer than games, and there have been far too many security-related and function-crippling problems with DRM. I have no confidential or financial info, etc. on a console, nor do I do more than play non-multi-player games on it.

As to the industry insisting on newer cards because of gamers wanting their current games to run better, I don't believe that's even close to the main motivation.

The main motivation is to sell more hardware and games, and also to incorporate ever more restrictive DRM. As a side-benefit, the old games cease to run, which spurs game sales.

They can only succeed at this scheme as long as you keep shelling out the $$$. I draw a line and will not support things I oppose with my dollars, as that is the only way these trends will be stopped: when it's no longer profitable.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Bah! (1)

colganc (581174) | more than 8 years ago | (#15417861)

Then buy a used graphic card from a friend or a low end graphic card (since that is what you got when you bought a PS2 in 2004) and it will cost a similar amount. Confidential or financial info has nothing to do with a comparison between playing games on a console or PC. Both platforms have DRM for games and you can't avoid that. The graphic card companies would not be in business making as much money as they do if people didn't want their games running faster or new games looking better. New graphic cards do not enable more DRM on the computer in relation to games. The most that is happening is encryption for displays. Old games are not ceasing to run because of DRM. The only problems I have running old games is from a software stand point. If that is a big problem you can always keep around an older computer for older games and leave an old OS on it. This is just the same as keeping around your old NES to play NES games.

Re:Bah! (1)

jasen666 (88727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15420701)

Funny, I have zero DRM problems on my PC. We're probably not performing the same tasks I guess? The PC I use for gaming and media related tasks is Windows based, older 5000 series nVidia card. Plays all the new games my kids want to play. All I do is rip my DVD's and music, but no problems there ever. I honestly don't bother with that stuff on my *nix-based boxes.

More Like 5-6 Years (1)

Nazmun (590998) | more than 8 years ago | (#15424609)

The only console that had anywhere near 4 year cycle was the failed xbox one. They tried to rush out the next console since they were going nowhere with the original. Sony is releasing the ps3 earlier then their older longterm plans (I remember 3 years ago they were talking about a 2007 release) as a result but it's still being released at the 5-6 year mark.

This is probably part of the reason for the delay this year and lack of readyness by Sony. They are not only having huge technical issues to work out due to going for bleeding edge in every way possible but their releasing it earlier then they planned a few years ago.

Re:Bah! (2, Insightful)

BarryLoper (928015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15417058)

I'm happy driving my '94 Ford Probe!

It doesn't mean they should stop making Ferraris and Aston Martins.

Re:Bah! (2, Interesting)

grammar fascist (239789) | more than 8 years ago | (#15417657)

'm happy driving my '94 Ford Probe!

It doesn't mean they should stop making Ferraris and Aston Martins.


Rich people have to put their money somewhere. If they didn't, the economy would stagnate.

Luxury items are a major avenue of wealth dispersal.

Re:Bah! (3, Insightful)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 8 years ago | (#15417187)

Pulling teeth?

I've never had any problems getting any NVidia GPU to work flawlessly under Linux.

Yeah, the closed-source aspect of NVidia's drivers may be annoying to some, but I don't mind closed-source drivers if they're high enough quality, and NVidia's drivers are one of the few examples of closed source software with high quality. (The associated closed-source games for Linux, specifically iD Software's products, comprise most of the other examples...)

Face it - due to patent issues out of the chipset manufacturers' control (classic example being S3 Texture Compression - S3TC was the beginning of ATI's transition from fully documented open source drivers to binary-only drivers with the open-source versions lacking critical features for 3D gaming), no chipset manufacturer can release open source drivers that support their card's full feature set, unless their card's feature set is massively crippled. (See Intel GMA-series integrated graphics as an example.)

Re:Bah! (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 8 years ago | (#15417614)

Pulling teeth?

I've never had any problems getting any NVidia GPU to work flawlessly under Linux.

Yeah, the closed-source aspect of NVidia's drivers may be annoying to some, but I don't mind closed-source drivers if they're high enough quality, and NVidia's drivers are one of the few examples of closed source software with high quality. (The associated closed-source games for Linux, specifically iD Software's products, comprise most of the other examples...)

Face it - due to patent issues out of the chipset manufacturers' control (classic example being S3 Texture Compression - S3TC was the beginning of ATI's transition from fully documented open source drivers to binary-only drivers with the open-source versions lacking critical features for 3D gaming), no chipset manufacturer can release open source drivers that support their card's full feature set, unless their card's feature set is massively crippled. (See Intel GMA-series integrated graphics as an example.)


Well, the "pulling teeth" comment might have been a tad excessive. Perhaps I should have worded it better, I grant you. I agree that Nvidia has been one of the better manufacturers in this regard.

However, I don't just run linux. I run a number of *nix-based operating systems such as Free/Open/NetBSD, Open Solaris, and others.

Even under FreeBSD, which is one of the better-supported non-linux, non-MS OSs in regards to GPU support and fuctionality, I still experience occasional bugs and glitches using binary driver modules. (Which requires running the driver module under a linux-compatibility layer.)

I understand the patent issues, but that is their problem, not mine. I can only react in the best way I can consistent with my financial abilities, my interests, and my convictions.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Bah! (1)

Arker (91948) | more than 8 years ago | (#15418213)

It's utterly nonsensical to say that they can't release specs because of patents, unless you mean because they're violating someone elses and afraid to get caught. Patents are, by definition and law, public disclosures. The entire point to getting a patent is so that you don't *need* to keep it a secret anymore.

Nvidia doesn't claim this, by the way. They claim that writing drivers is simply 'too complex' for the free software community to help with it. Which not only misses the point entirely, but is just ludicrously wrong in every respect. The free software community has produced more and better drivers than any company on earth, and will continue to do so for companies that are smart enough to simply open up the interface specs.

Re:Bah! (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 8 years ago | (#15418637)

"unless you mean because they're violating someone elses and afraid to get caught. Patents are, by definition and law, public disclosures."

You forget that it's possible to LICENSE someone else's patents. That is, you are given permission to legally use their patents under certain conditions.

For whatever reason, those conditions have apparently required closed source drivers. I don't know about NVidia's excuse, but this was ATI's reasoning for no longer providing full specifications of their chipsets.

Re:Bah! (1)

Kuvter (882697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15417469)

It seems to be much more economical to simply play games on a console

You must not have seen the estimated cost of the PS3.

Re:Bah! (2, Insightful)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 8 years ago | (#15417535)

"Why should I go spending ridiculous amounts of money (more than my PC cost) just for some silly games"

Well, clearly you're not part of the target market if your entire PC (just one?) cost less than $600, so the answer is doubtless "you shouldn't".
"Don't get me wrong, I prefer gaming on a PC compared to a game console, but not anywhere near enough to sink that much cash into a GPU"

Sure, which is why there are plenty of cheaper cards. Isn't the market clever, covering a wide range of income and interest brackets?
"nor add all the DRM that seems increasingly to be required to play current generation games on a PC"

Sorry? Do you mean the usual CD/DVD based protections that are generally easily bypassed and often patched out completely by official updates, or are Microsoft trying to solder a trusted computing chip onto your motherboard again?

Re:Bah! (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 8 years ago | (#15417809)

"Why should I go spending ridiculous amounts of money (more than my PC cost) just for some silly games"

Well, clearly you're not part of the target market if your entire PC (just one?) cost less than $600, so the answer is doubtless "you shouldn't".


Actually, that's my high-end box. My others are network servers and such, old P2s and P3s and the like. I agree, I shouldn't. :)

"Don't get me wrong, I prefer gaming on a PC compared to a game console, but not anywhere near enough to sink that much cash into a GPU"

Sure, which is why there are plenty of cheaper cards. Isn't the market clever, covering a wide range of income and interest brackets?


Except that the lower-end cards restrict what games I'm able to play, if said games require features and abilities only found on the mid to higher-end cards.

"nor add all the DRM that seems increasingly to be required to play current generation games on a PC"

Sorry? Do you mean the usual CD/DVD based protections that are generally easily bypassed and often patched out completely by official updates, or are Microsoft trying to solder a trusted computing chip onto your motherboard again?


No, I meant things like "Steam" and "DX10" (which aren't actually tied to the GPU, but which I find objectionable) and also restrictions on what video/data I may choose to send to the cards' outputs.

However, I do also object to "the usual CD/DVD based protections" as they can also be harmful in extreme cases (think "Sony rootkit") plus, I don't like being treated as a criminal when I'm a paying customer. I'll ignore the cheap shot, as it adds nothing and only demeans you, not me.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Bah! (1)

hexxeh (790587) | more than 8 years ago | (#15417669)

Sorry, but some if this is entirely absurd.

1) There is nothing stopping you from using a modern graphics card on a non-MS operating system. The GeForce 7-series cards work perfectly well under BSD, Solaris or Linux - using 2D-only Free drivers or proprietary 3D drivers. Infact, chances are you could swap your current card over with zero reconfiguration (depending on the card. A new nvidia-glx release might be required).

2) DRM enforcement... What? Have you considered basing your posts on reality? Whether a game implements copy protection or not is ENTIRELY distinct from its system requirements. There are purely 2D games, and even business software, using copy protection - and modern 3D games without any. There is absolutely *ZERO* provision in the graphics hardware for implementing DRM.

Johnny Two Gits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15418367)

Jesus, you think a new graphics card is a waste of money but you want TWO guitars. In addition to your existing guitar(s)?

If you're upgrading from a GF2 you can buy the cheapest out there and still have a huge improvement (assuming you ever play anything 3D accelerated). Spend about as much as a second hand gamecube, and you won't have to pay a dime for games - lots of OSS or demo games to play on your PC unlike on those locked-down consoles.

Radeon R200 cards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15418649)

I would instead recommend the Radeon R200 [wikipedia.org] series cards for "non MS operating systems." In order of performance from greatest to least:

-- two texture units (faster 3D)
FireGL 8800
FireGL 8700
Radeon 8500
Radeon 9100

-- one texture unit (slower 3D)
Radeon 9000
Radeon 9200
Radeon 9250

These are fine cards for light gaming and have the added advantage of open source 3D Linux drivers with hardware acceleration. Unfortunately ATI did not open up the specs for open source developers to create accelerated drivers for cards after the R200 series. The R200 series is the fasted GPU available with open source drivers.

For you hard core Windows people this might not matter. But an R200 series card is an excellent choice for someone that might want to dabble in alternative operating systems and don't want to mess with binary drivers. Believe me, it's much nicer when things work out of the box and it just feels right.

I recently made the switch to the 9250 (I wanted to make sure I had up to date DVI support). It is great and I can see myself passing this card along to my next computer. There is nothing faster for linux when using the open source drivers.

Re:Bah! (1)

Matt Ownby (158633) | more than 8 years ago | (#15420495)

If your current video card meets your needs fine, then I totally agree with you; do not upgrade.

But I personally love new games with impressive, high-powered graphics, and I am willing to pay to get a good framerate. Furthermore, the vertex and fragment shaders (which aren't available on the geforce2) are very fun to play around with from a development perspective.

I currently have a geforce 6800 ultra which I bought at least 1 year after the card came out. I'd never buy one of these things brand new (I made that mistake with a geforce 3 and spent $400.. ouch)

Re:Bah! (1)

killermookie (708026) | more than 8 years ago | (#15421085)

Don't get me wrong, I prefer gaming on a PC compared to a game console, but not anywhere near enough to sink that much cash into a GPU, nor add all the DRM that seems increasingly to be required to play current generation games on a PC.

Guess I'll stick to my old games and GPU that still work very well, thankyou. For the money saved alone, I could buy a nice guitar (or 2!). :D


Then you're not a PC gamer. If you're in to guitars, then saving for a guitar is money better spent for you. On the other hand, for those of us that really enjoy PC gaming more than buying guitars, then the videocard upgrade is reasonable.

Re:Bah! (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 8 years ago | (#15423589)

Don't get me wrong, I prefer gaming on a PC compared to a game console, but not anywhere near enough to sink that much cash into a GPU, nor add all the DRM that seems increasingly to be required to play current generation games on a PC.

Guess I'll stick to my old games and GPU that still work very well, thankyou. For the money saved alone, I could buy a nice guitar (or 2!). :D

Then you're not a PC gamer. If you're in to guitars, then saving for a guitar is money better spent for you. On the other hand, for those of us that really enjoy PC gaming more than buying guitars, then the videocard upgrade is reasonable.


That's the thing..I *used* to be an avid PC gamer, before the upgrade cycle madness, driver mess, and DRM kookiness just got to be too much. Everyone has a line beyond which it just becomes unreasonable/impractical to continue. I guess I've reached mine, and it will only hurt the gaming and hardware industry.

Not that my few dollars will be of any significance, but if they continue, they may cross enough peoples 'lines' that it will be noticed.

As to other posters' comments about spending money on guitar(s), I make money from playing in a band, but make nothing playing PC games. PC games are (were) one of my forms of entertainment, guitars are part of my job. So buying a guitar is not like buying a game for me, it's more akin to an independent auto mechanic buying tools.

Cheers!

Strat

Moreover... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15416946)

This card goes up to 11!!

leaks (1)

alfs boner (963844) | more than 8 years ago | (#15416967)

There have been a lot of leaks lately too; I think its a game that ATI and NVIDIA play well- Allow someone to leak "Official" documents for a few hours to stir up hype and then create a scene by forcing them to take it down and act like they never knew the info was missing. That causes eveybody to wonder whats the big secret. There's no secret because on one website their is a guy taking the card apart but I cant remember where I saw this but I did see this I'll keep looking and when I find I'll post the link

But really, why? (1)

makenaa (938647) | more than 8 years ago | (#15417015)

I think its great that NVIDIA has created that 'fastest consumer card on the market', but really, who the heck needs a card like that? I am using a connect3d ATI card, and it hasn't slipped up once, even with the video editing and gaming that I do. Even with the most demanding games, nobody needs a card this fast.

nobody (2, Insightful)

zogger (617870) | more than 8 years ago | (#15417164)

nobody except nvidia and the employees and stock holders. Nvidia could just go "oh well, we hit the top of the line,what we have is plenty good enough for human eyeballs now and for the far away future, guess we'll close up shop and go home now". That means they would have to all go out and look for jobs-with companies doing the same exact thing, coming out with new products they can sell so they can stay working.

It's the nature of the beast, we live in a society where you need to "keep making money" in order to live, more or less, and that seems to have evolved around manufacturing, sales, throw the old away, lather rinse repeat.

Unfortunately, I don't know a way around this system until we come up with the universal anything-goes replicator that can take any input and output anything you want.

Re:But really, why? (1)

Donjo (797935) | more than 8 years ago | (#15424994)

What about the people who run 2560x1600 resolution on their 30" monitors? I am sure they would want a card like this. I have a 24" monitor that runs at 1920x1200 and if I want to run games with the highest settings and anti-aliasing and AF, I would "need" one too. Nobody "needs" a Ferrari but there are certainly people who will buy one and max it out, just like people will buy this card and find a way to crank up the graphics high enough to get the frames per second to drop all the way down to the minimum playable rate of 30-40 FPS (maybe more or less depending on what kind of game you are playing).

Fine by me (1)

Espectr0 (577637) | more than 8 years ago | (#15417192)

Let them ship quad-slot zillion transistors sli whatchamacallit kilowatt-sucking video cards. They drive down the price of decent cards that can play todays games at mediam quality for less than 200$.

I can play oblivion on medium quality with my 6600gt, 768mb, athlon64 3400 rig.

Wake me up when... (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 8 years ago | (#15417447)

... they make a video card that can run with my 350w PSU that only has one PCIe x16 port. Also, I'd prefer if it doesn't sound like a 747 or DC-10 starting up.

Re:Wake me up when... (1)

Zaplocked (925208) | more than 8 years ago | (#15418141)

Holy shit, you have a PSU with a PCIe port?

Your not looking hard enough (1)

Nazmun (590998) | more than 8 years ago | (#15418522)

Their's tons of budget pci-x 16 slots that use smaller coolers and use tons less power.

Re:Wake me up when... (1)

Donniedarkness (895066) | more than 8 years ago | (#15418642)

Actually, my 7900GT is pretty darn quiet.

I dunno about power consumption (My box is 420w... 2gb of DDR-400 ram, Athlon64 3500+, 2 160gb SATA-2 HDD, 2 16xDVD burners. I'd say that I could throw in quite a bit more before I got up to 420w, but I can't say for sure.

If your box can handle it, though-- the 7900GT is a great card. This 7950GX2 is basically just 2 7900GT's in one board, from what I understand.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>