Dreamhack 2005

category: general [glöplog]
AbcuG: hmm fx5200 is not enough you say? I thought it was quite recent actually. It has a 3rd generation shader if my memory serves me.

Suppose I was planning to buy a new box for running (and possibly developing) demos, what hardware should I look at? I mean reasonable hardware, not ultra-l33t that will drop 2x in price in 6 months. As a full time Linux user I was thinking about buying an AMD64 system, but AFAICT from looking at new releases Windows is still the dominant platform, and it does not use 64 bit features of AMD, therefore I'd probably be better of with Intel w/ faster clock, right?
added on the 2005-11-29 19:09:49 by FiL FiL
i'm not the most responsible in this topic but if you asked me:
speed of the fx5200 is nearly like a gf2 mx400 (the 64bit version is rather under a gf2 :) (Not what developers says, just what i experienced!) Yes, it has pixel and vertex shader (v2.0 both) but please! NV just realeased first member of the 7800 series now :) For double price you can buy a radeon 9600pro or 9800 (or a basic nv.6600). these cards don't too expensive nowadays. I owe an Asus fx5700TD256MB witch seems to really minimal req. nowadays ... it cost ~75eur what almost double like a 5200... Yeah, hungary is an expansive place :) I bet: you can buy a better one for this price :)))
added on the 2005-11-30 09:46:21 by AbcuG! AbcuG!
the whole fx5xxx series was an abomination we should all try to forget.
added on the 2005-11-30 10:13:55 by smash smash
on an off topic note, what's the whole point of this 64bit issue anyway? it may be me, but I've never needed doubles much. or numbers over 4 billion. and I can't really imagine how ms word or the intarweb will improve from it, either.
added on the 2005-11-30 11:24:51 by skrebbel skrebbel
You can address more memory. 4gb isn't really that much nowadays anymore. Plus, I'd assume a 64-bit move instruction would move stuff faster than a 32-bit one..
added on the 2005-11-30 12:18:47 by Preacher Preacher
skrebbel: 64 > 32. big numbers are cool.
added on the 2005-11-30 12:57:32 by kusma kusma
the 64bit above is not about number precission, but the width of the bus in the graphics chip - it affects the rate at which you are able to pump texture pixels and vertex data to the chip. With a 128bit bus you can push twice as much per single clock tick, with 256bit (PCI-E) even four times more! Of course the CPU/GPU bandwidth may be a bottleneck for some applications and not for others - the more work you put on GPU, the less bus bandwidth matters.
added on the 2005-11-30 13:16:38 by FiL FiL
FiL, I don't know whether this changed or not, but last time I owned an nVidia chipset card (3 years ago), there was no linux 32bit AMD driver for it. So ATM I'm using 64 bit AMD [because of what kusma said :) ] AND radeon, altho, the videocard is neither the newest, nor the best model, but I experienced no problems so far. Oh sorry, once a 4K lasted for two seconds, I think because of the 64bit CPU, can't really recall wich one it was, tho. ;)
added on the 2005-11-30 13:27:29 by kelsey kelsey
what I said above is not correct - 64/128/256 in card names are the widths of bus between the chip and it's onboard memory. So it primarily affects the fill rate of the chip, but also all texturing / image compositoning opertions.
CPU/GPU bandwidth depends on supported AGP or PCIe clocks, and not the widths of those interfaces which are fixed (as far as I can tell after my quick research).

I just checked nVidia and they now provide binary linux drivers for AMD64/EM64T.

speaking of nVidia - does anyone know where can I learn the differences between say 6600, 6600 GS, 6600 GT and 6600 Ultra? Their pages have pretty mermaids and stuff, but it's not easy to find solid facts there... I found 6x/7x comparisons, and 66x/68xx but nothing more...
added on the 2005-11-30 14:04:14 by FiL FiL
BB Image
van damme was at dreamhack
added on the 2005-12-01 01:58:21 by violator violator