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 Launches High Powered Mobile Graphics Chip

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the more-reasons-not-to-pay-attention-in-class dept.

Graphics 152

elbazo writes "Nvidia today launched their new mobile chip the GoForce 5500, which provides a massive jump in graphics technology for handheld and mobile devices. Capable of 'easily' rendering Quake 3, support for 1024x768 graphics output and real time playback of H.264, WMV9 and MPEG4 movies at high resolution the chip looks set to rock the mobile world."

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

Too bad I have a laptop (0, Offtopic)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711685)

All this graphics card wow factor is meaningless to me.

Now, fix that basic problem for my AMD 2600 eMachines laptop, so I could actually upgrade my video card, and I'd be interested.

But until then ...

Re:Too bad I have a laptop (-1, Offtopic)

IrvineHosting (628102) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712427)

The basic problem is that you bought a fuckin' eMachine! What were you thinkin!?!

Hey, btw, check out my new flash puzzle game: Traffic Jam []

Re:Too bad I have a laptop (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712603)

The basic problem is that you bought a fuckin' eMachine! What were you thinkin!?!

I was thinking ... um ... oh, I know ... that it was a $500 laptop with 11b/g wireless, 2600 AMD CPU, a video card that would run The Sims 2, and that I could put 706MB of RAM in for an additional $20.

From that viewpoint, it's been great.

My point is that having non-upgradeable video cards for laptops is kind of silly.

Re:Too bad I have a laptop (0, Offtopic)

quakeroatz (242632) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712654)

They don't care.

People with POS PCs like yours are not even in the fringe market for new GPUs.

omfg not quake3 (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14711688)

thats so 2k1.

Re:omfg not quake3 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14712180)

ha ha ha lol!

Applications for Desktop PC's? (4, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711692)

I just wonder, if this chip has really low energy consumption, is it possible to make a videocard out of it (i.e. one that doesn't require extra large heatsinks to work)?

Re:Applications for Desktop PC's? (1)

jcgf (688310) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711767)

This is a cool idea. Now add in SLI support and you've got yourself quite a card.

Re:Applications for Desktop PC's? (1)

distributed (714952) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711805)

Damn... this card is no good for the water heater i had built with my 6800 SLI config... :-(
Nvidia cant deny us our warm water !! well there always is ATI.

interesting.. i wonder whether SLI would allow it to play some of the newer DOOM3 level games ?

Re:Applications for Desktop PC's? (1)

Awptimus Prime (695459) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712692)

Why blow all that money on SLI when you can get a 7800 for $300 less than a dual card config and get 20% more performance?

Re:Applications for Desktop PC's? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14711885)

That can already be done by tons of video cards out there (like my old TNT2). Remember, it says Quake 3, when you probably want Quake 4 performance.

Re:Applications for Desktop PC's? (1)

Rickler (894262) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712686)

Integrated motherboard graphics are on the same playing field as a gf5500. The gf5 series PC card isn't manufactured anymore. 5 series was a failure for nVidia letting ATI take the market.

Chip looks set to rock the mobile world (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14711703)

nVidia has been saying they were going to rock the mobile world for years. I'll believe it when I see more. nVidia may have been spanking ATI on the desktop (x1900 not withstanding), but ATI has been proven in mobile and handheld. nVidia's efforts have been too power hungry for anything but desktop replacement laptops. Lets hope things change, but I don't believe nVidia pronouncements of "rocking."

Re:Chip looks set to rock the mobile world (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712923)

I think you got your NV's and ATI's backwards there. ATI's power saving abilities didn't show up until a couple years ago. Whereas NV's been able to have power-save modes for quite some time. I know of these things first hand, since I have been witness to an ATI powered laptop and I own an NV laptop. My laptop is able to get 3 hours while playing WarCraft 3 @ 1400x1050.

Re:Chip looks set to rock the mobile world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14712926)

Not to mention they are infamous for having terrible firmware/driver issues. I like to think of them as the drunken, three toed, neep-tied-seaweed eating vergitarian sloths of the graphics world. Where as ATI is more like the one handded two toed gorilla

Re:Chip looks set to rock the mobile world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14712998)

You're thinking a little big. This is aimed at smaller devices, ala PDAs.

Re:Chip looks set to rock the mobile world (1)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 8 years ago | (#14713223)

As for spanking in the desktop, the ATI 9700 pro was the comeback for ATI, I bought one and used it in everything, even my AMD64 3200 to this day (AGP). What made me pick up an Nvidia card was the 7800 GT, a cheap yet yet high end card.

Nvidia just released the 7 series on AGP Due to ATI owning the AGP crowd. So no, theres no spanking going on.

beefy (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14711704)

because headshots with railguns aren't yet frequent enough on subways.

Slashdot returns after this brief advertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14711708)

Don't forget to check out the latest dual core CPU from intel which powers the blaxzingly fast 'Mac Book Pro' from apple computer inc.

This incredibly capable and relentlessly sexy laptop is available for only 1999 in the Slashdot store. Order now!

1024x768 is nice, but... (5, Funny)

lanc (762334) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711712) you really want to play Q3 on your handheld?

...okok, I do :)

Re:1024x768 is nice, but... (2, Insightful)

lanc (762334) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711757) you really want to play Q3 on your handheld?
...okok, I do :)
that is, I would love to, If I had a handhaeld, if they weren't so bloody expensive. I just hate to have a cell phone (or two), an mp3 player, sometimes a digital camera with me, all separated. I just want one gadget. An All-in-wonder single one. Is that really that difficult today yet?

Re:1024x768 is nice, but... (1)

jcgf (688310) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711865)

I think a lot of the difficulty comes in when you consider the interface to such a device. When you hold a phone you like it to fit snugly up to your ear, but at the same time you want all sorts of connectors for your tv and to the computer which takes up space. Next you want it to be both a good video and still camera, which they don't seem to have mastered yet without the phone. Add in the mp3 player and other factors such as the amount of memory available and whether or not it would use cards or just internal flash and things get complicated.

That said, I agree that it would be cool.

Re:1024x768 is nice, but... (1)

diablomonic (754193) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712619)

I have a motorola a1000. Comes very close to what you want: PDA style phone with very large (for a phone) touchscreen stylus interface, built in agps for mapping software etc, very good sounding mp3 player (using earphones - although built in speakers are better than most at that size, they're still not all that good), takes transflash cards : ( tiny flash memory, up to 512mb, only about 8*11*0.5 mm so you could fit quite a few in your wallet if wanted), plays back mpeg4 video, opens .doc, .pdf, .txt, .jpg .mp3 (I think .wma not sure), 1mp camera (not good enough, very noisy) and does video conferencing, can browse the normal internet, not just wap, and many more features.

Basically, if it had 1. faster processor and 2. better camera and 3. a little thinner with better battery life (not that its bad already or too unwieldy), it would be almost perfect (which was going to happen in the a1010 supposed to be released last year but cancelled, and may still happen in a newer one called I think the a2000 or something like that)

all this and its already out of date, being more than a year old. Bring on the successor moto :) (plus it doesnt crash anywhere near as much as other smart phones i've seen -> 3-4 times in almost a year of use)

Re:1024x768 is nice, but... (1)

diablomonic (754193) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712677)

forgot to say also plays 3D Games !!! :D I was surprised at how well (though I think thats common in new phones now)

Re:1024x768 is nice, but... (1)

distributed (714952) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711766)

hey i wanna play quake3 on my ipod !! while watching a video on my TV... but wait a minute, does the ipod video have a TV-out ?
Well, i have played Doom on a Sony Ericsson P800 while on a high speed train in europe, and its kinda *nice*... feels like playing it on a wide screen.

Re:1024x768 is nice, but... (2, Interesting)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711895)

You can get Doom on your iPod [] today...

Re:1024x768 is nice, but... (1)

Random Destruction (866027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712752)

I cant find the link, but I used to have doom on my Hp digicam back around 2002 methinks. It was fun, but they warned that the buttons wore out easily, and it caused the camera to boot slower, eating the gears in the lens. I guess the last command in the boot sequence was STOP PUSHING THE LENS OUT!. Delaying that by even half a second made the most horrendous noise.

Re:1024x768 is nice, but... (1)

modecx (130548) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712443)

The video iPod must have tv/audio out, because when I was searching around for wearable displays, I found this [] ... And it actually looks like it might do the job fairly reasonably. For the geeks who love to fill up their video iPods with podcasts generated by their MythTV box so they have entertainment on the train to work, this might help a bit... Plus what geek wouldn't want to look like Geordi LaForge on the way to work? Pitty the stupid name of their company though.

I'm really interested to learn how well this device works, but I haven't found a review by someone who actually owns one...

Re:1024x768 is nice, but... (1)

Repton (60818) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711998)

If you run WindowMaker, you can simulate the effect here [] :-)

Re:1024x768 is nice, but... (1)

rgigger (637061) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712239)

Do I want to play quake on my phone? No. (Unless I'm really bored)
Do I want to watch video on my phone? Not really. (Unless I'm pretty bored)

Do I want to copy all my divx, mpeg4, H.264, etc files to my iPod or other mobile device and be able to hook them up to any TV anywhere and watch them in full DVD or HD quality. Yes, very much so.

The current iPod video can be hooked up to a TV but it can only play standard TV quality video. Once it can play at least DVD quality it will become a lot more enticing. This is a step in the right direction.

Re:1024x768 is nice, but... (1)

Awptimus Prime (695459) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712709)

Unfortunately, it'll be playing DVD quality after the HD-DVD player makes its way into many homes.

Re:1024x768 is nice, but... (1)

heffeque (942634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712744)

I play Quake 1 in my cellphone and it actualy looks good! It takes a while till it starts but the wait is worth it :-P Same sounds, same 3d graphics... but the screen is "a bit" smaller :-) If you're interested you should check the Motorola MPX200 or even better, the MPX220.

Here's a link to the SpvQuake [] .

1024x768? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14711720)

While I could see easily the benefits such a chip would have on the tablet PC market, I fail to see how it will help the PDA/SmartPhone market when the idea has been tried again and again, and people have shown that they are simply not interested in watching movies on their 1.5" flipscreen phone, especially when one considers that the battery life would be ultimately non-existant after watching even a short full-length movie...

Re:1024x768? (1)

RiotXIX (230569) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712024)

wtf? I appreciate your view point, but with google video + the video ipod starting to really take off watching videos on a mobile tv seems to have a lot of interest - just given todays technology contrraints it hasn't been realised very well. Having a portable movie player/video camera/walkman sounds cool - they're just not good enough for me to have an interest yet.

not so hot resolution (1, Funny)

donour (445617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711721)

"support for 1024x768 graphics output"

Yes, we're living in the future!

Re:not so hot resolution (1)

ironwill96 (736883) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711737)

1024x768 resolution on your CELL PHONE's 2" screen would look pretty darn nice don't you think? We're not talking about laptop graphics chips here :-)

Re:not so hot resolution (3, Funny)

nizo (81281) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711862)

Luckily most new cellphones will come with an optional 17" monitor (and handy carrying straps, allowing you to wear it like a backpack). The only problem is looking at something strapped to your back, but I suppose you could wear it in the front (upside down).

Re:not so hot resolution (1)

jcgf (688310) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711888)

Will you be able to choose between LCD and CRT?

Re:not so hot resolution (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712914)

And subways everywhere will soon be installing a fourth rail for powering all of those extra monitors.

Re:not so hot resolution (2, Informative)

RoboSpork (953532) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711814)

1024x768 is THE standard, and it will be for some time. If you want your app to be usable to average joes, it better fit inside 1024x768. I found out the hard way when a customer called to ask why our app wouldnt fit inside their screen, I had an instant revelation that with those new shiny monitors we had bought everyone had developed on 1600x1200 and not even bothered to test on 1024x768. What a HUGE mistake that was... Nevermind that 1024x768 is very high resolution for a mobile device with a small screen.

and THAT ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14713383) what is wrong with half the websites out there now, and almost all new software.. The devs, being professionals and either getting their equipment free at work or being able to deduct the cost on taxes, have new very fast machines and usually very fast web connections, WHEREAS, joe surfer out there might still be on an older machine, think 3-5 years older, with 1/4 the RAM if they are lucky, maybe only 1/8th the RAM, and 1/3 the CPU speed, while on a crappy connection, with a 15 or 17 inch monitor, not some whizzbang giant glowing thing costs as much as a good used car. That's why apps are all bloated and RAM hungry and why most web pages suck and why it takes ten times the computer now to do what you used to be able to do perfectly well just a few years ago. There's a serious disconnect here. Note: I don't care about any /.ers personal anecdotal to the contrary, that they are still developing on a 486 with a green monitor on a 300 baud connection, you KNOW what I mean and I am speaking in general terms and you know I am *right* on this.

Glad to finally see some dev come clean on that, something that's been *obvious* to non-devs (normal basic computer users) for years now. I've often thought we could get rid of code bloat if devs were restricted to pentium 2s and 64 megs ram.

Re:not so hot resolution (1)

donour (445617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712109)

I was only being vaguely sarcastic. 1024x768 is a _ton_ screenspace for a plam device, but we can all think of ways we might want to use a larger framebuffer for external displays...If only mobile devices supported them.

Doesn't seem to be a good idea (2, Interesting)

heatdeath (217147) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711723)

Maybe they're trying to create a market for multimedia stuff where there currently isn't one, but this doesn't seem like what people want. I'd rather have a cell phone with a long battery life than one that has really cool graphics that drain the battery after 20 minutes.

Maybe they're hoping that fuel cell technology gets small enough for cell phones by the time this hits the market.

Re:Doesn't seem to be a good idea (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711941)

Well, I think the market is more high end PDAs, or even a competitor to the video iPod. I don't think many people want to play movies on the teeny tiny screen on their cell phone,

Re:Doesn't seem to be a good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14712813)

Maybe they're hoping that fuel cell technology gets small enough for cell phones ocomo_announce.php []

2004 is calling, they want their 'new cell phone charging fuel cells' back.
They sell the things at the mall for crying out loud, I've even seen NDS compatable fuel cells selling at the gamestop.

yes they're small, the problem isn't size it's PRICE. who wants to pay $20 for the convenience of being able to recharge their phone like Once without needing a cord? if you really use your cell phone a lot and in places where you can't just plug it in then yeah they're great..

1024x768 And QUAKE 3!!!! (0, Offtopic)

HaMMeReD3 (891549) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711743)

This is amazing, this has to be the fastest card of 1999. Does this run on direct X 7 with that new fangled "texture mapping"

Re:1024x768 And QUAKE 3!!!! (1)

Martindale (942417) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711823)

Oh, the sarcasm. It's so painful it hurts.

It REALLY bugs me seeing a laptop with a powerful graphics card (Alienware.). Anyone understand why?

Re:1024x768 And QUAKE 3!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14712590)

It REALLY bugs me seeing a laptop with a powerful graphics card (Alienware.). Anyone understand why?

I would surmise that it's a feeling of inadequacy. You most likely don't have a laptop at all (or a very old one) and a desktop computer that is years old, possibly not even capable of playing Quake 3. When you see a computer that is several times smaller and faster than yours in every respect, you feel anger because internally you're trying to justify not upgrading your own PC with the thought process that if your PC is good enough for daily work, nobody else should need a computer that is faster than yours.

Re:1024x768 And QUAKE 3!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14712141)

Wow. I had no idea you could play Quake III at that resolution in 1999 on your cell phone.

It's a good thing you read TFA.

RAZR V3X has Nvidia 3d accelerator disabled (5, Interesting)

edxwelch (600979) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711744)

Slightly offtopic, but you might find it interesting nevertheless.
The Motorola RAZR V3X sports a nVidia Goforce 3D 4800 WMP, but for some strange reason it's not used by the KVM. In other words games using the Java 3D API will have the same sucky performance as phones with no hardware acceleration. Some guy even started a petition to get Motorola to change it ( l [] )

Re:RAZR V3X has Nvidia 3d accelerator disabled (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14712890)

I'll be looking forward to this because what can withstand an online petition, the greatest political force known to man?

gee, great textures on that 2-mm splotch! (3, Interesting)

spacefiddle (620205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711770)

Um... okay. So?
I mean i guess it's cool they could do it and all, but... the PSP's screen size, frex, is acceptible. Barely. But my cellphone...? (I like how the articles cites "...the original Quake 3 for the Playstation," btw. Uh...)

I just don't get how it's desireable or even not-painful to be looking at smaller and smaller screens and cramming higher resolutions on them. So WHAT? You REALLY want to watch a full length movie on a moving train/bus/backseat on a screen the size of your hand? Ow. Ugh. Oh what an experience. Nah. ...I'll just go back to waiting for the optic nervesplice HUD overlay, thanks :D

Re:gee, great textures on that 2-mm splotch! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14712097)

WTF is "frex"?

Re:gee, great textures on that 2-mm splotch! (1)

Awptimus Prime (695459) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712742)

Actually, screens on cell phones and mobile devices are getting bigger and brighter, with more pixels all the time. The only reason the whole thing isn't one big touch-sensitive plasma or lcd display is the fact that it is too expensive right now.

Re:gee, great textures on that 2-mm splotch! (1)

heffeque (942634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712781)

I've watched quite a few movies already in my cellphone. Even subtitled ones. There was electricity where I was but no TV signal so... my 1 GB memory card with several Xvid encoded videos at more or less 200 MB per movie (take into consideration that the resolution is lower so it needs less bitrate). I also put TV series in it. It's actualy entertaining.

High-powered? (2, Interesting)

Tavor (845700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711780)

And yet it has 1024x768, and no HDCP support?
Slashdotters seem to have a short memory anyhow. Here's a jogger. []

Re:High-powered? (2, Funny)

Slack3r78 (596506) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712183)

Are you missing the fact that this chipset is aimed at mobile phones and PDAs? I don't think many people are really interested in hooking their cell phone up to their HDTV.

Runs games from 1999 with ease? (4, Insightful)

appleprophet (233330) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711811)

Quake 3 was released in '99 - 7 years ago. I remember playing that on a 400 MHz G4 with an ATI 128 and being pretty impressed.

Re:Runs games from 1999 with ease? (1)

panth0r (722550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712252)

Were you playing it on a cell phone?

Mods too. (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712264)

Probably can run mods too. :)

Duke Nukem Forever (1)

dukiebbtwin (912572) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712570)

But will it run Duke Nukem Forever?

1024x768 ... (2, Insightful)

hattig (47930) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711819)

Well, I suppose that Nokia's Linux based web tablet (770) has a pretty decent 800x480 display, and I bet that something like this chip would be quite a good match for it.

I don't know about mobile phones though - maybe the highest end communicator style phones ... maybe.

Of course digital cameras are multifunction these days, and have large ridiculous DPI displays on them. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 3" 800x600 display on one soon. Again, this GPU would be good for that, and for playback of recorded video, and the 10MP capability suggests it might be targetted (in nVidia's dreams?) at high end consumer digital cameras (which will be 5MP to 8MP for the next couple of years).

You won't see it in a $200 phone though. Not this year or next anyway.

Dense, are we? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14711834)

This video card is obviously for PDAs! RTFA.

Super for Camera resolutions (3, Insightful)

RiotXIX (230569) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711843)

That is off the hook for using the phone as a (video) camera - I'm not much of a gamer, but if anything got me interested about upcoming phones it was the ability to always be carrying a high-def camera with you at all times.

Re:Super for Camera resolutions (3, Informative)

mythosaz (572040) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712173)

The problem with cameras in phones is the size and quality of the CCD sensor - not the size of the rest of the electronics necessary. I already cary a 1.3MP camera, and it's a vast improvement over the .3MP cameras on most "old" phones -- but they're nothing near a good 5+MP camera with a good (read: "large") CCD. You also need space and battery for a flash. Those blinking white LEDs don't cut it.

The larger combo-everything phones made by HTC (top end Audiovoxes, iPaq's, iMate) all have this small sensor, no-flash 1.3MP camera. It's useless.

You could easily put my 68 gram Panasonic phone into a Sony Cybershot and have a device smaller than my PDA-style phone -- but it's honestly not available yet.

I wouldn't count on that (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712360)

You aren't going to get HD resolution out of a fisheye lense, regardless of what electronics you have backing it. That's the real limiting factor with a phone. I have a phone that takes 640x480 stills, which is SD essentially (SD is actuallt 720x480 for NTSC, but the pixels aren't square). In reality, it does not get that kind of resolution. Sure it takes that many pixels, but it's all kinds of blurry and noisy. That little lense is just insufficient to really resolve that kind of detail. To get any kind of useful HD picture is just going to take a bigger, more expensive lense than you'd want to put on a cell phone.

Riddle me this.. (1)

MrTester (860336) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711903)

Why has no one developed an external fire-wire graphics card for laptops?

The only reason that I can think of is that even fire-wire is not fast enough?

Anyone know what order of magnitude increaase in communications speed we would need to make something like this work? (assuming that is the problem, or course)

Re:Riddle me this.. (0, Flamebait)

MarkTina (611072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711992)

Thats a good question .. maybe if you get an answer you could also ask why we can't get an graphics card for the IEC bus on my Commodore 64 as well ? No seriously I'd like to know why we can't just stick graphics cards on every bus type out there, I'm sure I heard something about bus speeds, latency and stupidity course but hey maybe there is a good reason ? ;-)

Re:Riddle me this.. (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712008)

I wouldn't be surprised if within the next year or two you get Expresscard graphics cards. It'd only be PCIe x1 (250MB/s bidirectional, so between AGP1x and AGP2x), and most likely in an external box rather than inside the expresscard, as it isn't the largest format in the world. If there's enough power provided by expresscard, that is ...

Re:Riddle me this.. (1)

panth0r (722550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712319)

Funny that I'm reading this now... I was aimlessly looking for PCMCIA graphics cards just a few days ago and found []

I think it's probably mostly software-based, but still pretty cool and relevent to you bringing up Expresscards...

Re:Riddle me this.. (1)

quakeroatz (242632) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712675)

Even 800kbps Firewire(b), which no one has (yours is probably 400kbps) isn't enough to transfer video.

Re:Riddle me this.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14713156)

Even 800kbps Firewire(b), which no one has

Aside from, you know, everyone who bought one of either of the Apple Power lines in the past few years?

It can run quake3? Oh it must be teh 1337! (1)

jigjigga (903943) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711922)

In all seriousness, isn't it an archaic game? What is the point, its like saying an athlon x2 4800+ can run Solitaire with ease!

Re:It can run quake3? Oh it must be teh 1337! (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14711958)

Can an Athlon x2 4800+ run Solitaire with ease if you try to downclock (and downvoltage) it enough to run in (frations of) a watt?

Can it run Quake 4? BF2? FEAR? (0)

Aaron England (681534) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712009)

These are the real questions gaming enthusiats are asking. Not whether it can replicate technology that was cutting edge 5 years ago.

Re:Can it run Quake 4? BF2? FEAR? (4, Insightful)

justins (80659) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712242)

You were playing Quake 3 on a handheld 5 years ago?

But how much power does it use? (4, Insightful)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712034)

That's really the key question here, and the answer will determine how usefull it is. No one wants a mobile device, be it a PDA or whatever that kills the battery in an hour. I see no technical specs on power consumption, which is a bit worrying since I can only assume that nVidia isn't terribly proud of it.

what does this have to do with Ameriniggerism? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14712056)


GUI (1)

jazzman45 (86593) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712099)

I think this could be huge for graphical interfaces. Everyone seems to be focusing on games just because the blurb mentioned Quake3, but what about Quartz3D on a handheld device. Hmmm? Handhelds would be great to fill with eye-candy. Touch screens with ripple effects, major WOW factor there.

WHOA! NOT ALL IS AT IT SEEMS (3, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712148)

gamers can experience Quake 3 equal to that of the original PlayStation

Now of course this is a statement in a press story so it probably has all the accuracy of well a press story (0) but what exactly does this mean?

Quake 3 was a PC game. It was the game I got a matrox G400 (bumpmapping) for, well that and dualhead, and I think was typically played at 1024x768 resolution.

So when was it released on the playstation. Oh right, never. A version was released for the playstation 2. Big difference right there but even with its improved hardware the PS2 is still not exactly up to snuff. The resolution is TV, wich is far far lower then you would ever accept on a pc.

So what exactly is this new chip capable off? Can it play at 1024x768 OR can it play at playstation (2) resolutions? Why does it compare a pc game with a lesser console version?

I smell a load of marketing. Reminds me of the days on the farm.

It may be powerfull but comparing it to a poor console version of an old console game is not exactly inspiring.


PitaBred (632671) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712243)

Or you could read and see that this is aimed at PDA's, not laptops. 1024x768 Quake 3 on a Palm (or comparable) seems pretty frickin' fast to me. But what do I know, I only RTFA.

Use your brain for a minute (0, Troll)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712276)

I got the quote from the article. So get of your high horse.

And yes I know it is aimed at mobile devices. So what?

But your clearly and idiot. 1024x768 Quake 3 seem fast to you. Right. Because game + resolution == frame rate.

If you actually read my post you will have noted that I point out that it is not quake 3 but rather quake 3 revolution. The first is a PC game and the second is a PS2 game. The PS2 does not have 1024x768 resolution. If you had a brain you would realise that this could mean that the chip supports 1024x768 but can only play quake3 in lowers resolutions.

You may have RTFA but you haven't UTFA (U for understood). Don't worry, as you grow older you will learn to read between the lines of marketing bullshit.

Re:Use your brain for a minute (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712428)

I am not disagreeing with your comment but I have a small nit to pick; the PS2 does indeed have 1024x768 resolution, but only in VGA output mode, which AFAIK is only used in Linux, which in turn can only be run on old-style (big) PS2s because it requires the hard drive.

Re:Use your brain for a minute (4, Funny)

pboulang (16954) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712488)

But your clearly and idiot. [Image of a defanged viper gumming its prey] That was a pretty effective insult...

Q3 on a mobile phone (4, Funny)

teslar (706653) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712218)

At first I was going to crack a joke on how hard it would be to circle-strafe-jump on a mobile phone.

Then I realised that kids who can text at 40 characters per second probably won't even blink at the difficulty.

You know you're getting old when you still need a mouse and a keyboard for FPS games...

Consider other markets. (2, Insightful)

EvilGremlin (939211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712268)

Okay, the majority of the comments thus far come from a PC-centric mindset, that is, you assume that the consumers of this chip will have PCs so why would they bother? I see this product as far more likely to be aimed at South-East Asian (e.g. Malaysian) markets where people are far less likely to have computers, but practically everyone has a mobile phone. In those markets, a chip that can play Quake 3 is pretty damn awesome.

And let's not forget that video encoding and decoding are vital steps in video calls; if this chip can make those steps faster/better, an increase in the quality of those services is just a step away.

Re:Consider other markets. (1)

JohanAA (898821) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712630)

scuse me, but we have quite a few computers here in malaysia, thank you. Penetration rate of 66%, relative to say korea 61%, or taiwan 58%. Your statement about southeast asia may be true, but you chose the wrong country.,39043754,39246 721,00.htm []

Re:Consider other markets. (1)

JohanAA (898821) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712695)

oops, sorry, those were stats for small businesses, not population at large, but you get the general idea.

"Car Computer"? (2, Interesting)

corychristison (951993) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712435)

Perhaps they could push these chips in the direction of "Car Computers." Personally, I think it would be really neat to have a full entertainment system, with a nice powerful LCD display at 1024x768 in my car. If I had kids, I suppose it would make more sense for long trips etc. ... just my $0.02 :-)

Re:"Car Computer"? (1)

Psiven (302490) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712823)

the mac mini is exactly the width of standard car radios. plus you can find other space for a fulldesktop in most cars. so the car isnt the 1st place i'd think to put this tech.

very very cute (0, Offtopic)

goarilla (908067) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712523)

but will it run gnu/linux or *BSD??? or OpenSolaris??????

OMFG! All-in-one cellphone! (1)

Laserwulf (951642) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712538)

Ooh, a cell-phone that you can play games on...
AND watch movies on...
heck, let's even throw on an FM radio; more features = more profits, right?

And we'll call it...
The N-Gage.

To their credit, though, if a cell-phone can take 10-megapixel pics, I'd seriously consider it.

I'm going back to a land line. (2, Funny)

sttlmark (737942) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712668)

Yeah, this is going to rock the mobile world, definitely. The phone I had 5 years ago would drop calls. My current phone drops calls and periodically crashes, totally locking up when the bluetooth, camera, MP3 player, or web browser decides to take a shit. Now we have souped up graphics going into these bad boys, and man, it's gonna rock. I can't wait until I have to install a video driver update on my friggin' telephone.

It is for a new class of device (2, Interesting)

ChrisA90278 (905188) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712710)

Everyone here thinks in terms of PC games. THis is for something else. Can you imagine a 4 by 6 inch hunk of black plastic maybe 3/8 inch think. It is a featurelass slab of black pollished plastic until you draw a circle on its face with your finger then it comes to life as a frameless LCD pannel that can show video lke an iPod. THere is even a picture of an iPod click wheel on the front of it. Had I turnned it on by drawing an "X" on the face rather then ther "O" it would come to life with a picture of a cell phone on the display and I could use it to make a call. Drawing a "V" turns it into a TV/TIVO remote with a live preview display.

1024x768 is perfect for what I'll call ther "vertual gadget"

THe rumer mills are saying Apple is woring on something like this. Recently filed pattents and trademarks back this up. I fuly expect them to sell some kind of touch sensitiv LCD scren handhald device that does NOT look or act like a small scale desktop.

Obligatory (0, Offtopic)

Cytlid (95255) | more than 8 years ago | (#14712797)

I for one, welcome our Nintendo DS slaughtering overlords.

Aqua? (3, Interesting)

nojayuk (567177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14713030)

I was chewing the fat with a Linuxhead-turned-MacAddict a few days ago, tossing up ideas about where Apple might go in the future. Friend dragged the stinking corpse of the Newton out of its uneasy grave (he has a thing about PDAs, forgive him). I pointed out that the Newt was buried for a good reason or six, then inspiration struck.

Apples' range of portables has been, to be kind, lacking in features the past couple of years mainly because of their boat-anchor PPC fetish. Apple's Teh Shiny! has been the iPlod range of jewelry and fashion statements, their premier bottom-line enhancement mechanism. Video, hard disks, flash but no sign of an Apple PDA in the mix.

But... imagine an Apple PDA with Aqua, enough smarts to do the look-and-feel kabuki of its bigger brothers, a coat-pocket tablet-gesture device with a 1024x768 display and a Centrino, a shitload of Flash and no battery-sucking hard drive, able to run those new-fangled PPC/x86 fat binaries native. Of course it would be slow and not exactly the device most people whould run PhotoShop on, but as a workalike sibling to the iBooks with all the wireless connectivity Teh Shiny! comes with as standard today I figure it would fly out the door sales-wise.

The killer for this pipe-dream was fitting enough GPU power under the hood, affordable in power consumption terms, to make Aqua usable in less than geological time -- in independent tests, ten out of ten Apple owners never want to see a spinning beachball ever again. I speculated about Cell as a dedicated Aqua graphics engine but from what I've seen about its power consumption that doesn't fly. This device might just do the job though. Hmmm.

Big whoop -- a 10MP image from a 10 cent lens (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14713142)

The concept of a 10MP image on a mobile handheld with a 10-cent fixed-focus plastic lens blows my mind. Like putting a 400 horsepower engine in a Yugo...

Someone wake me up when they start putting decent lenses in camera phones.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?