Nvidia releases graphics card with physics ability
by Zack Stern 
{ Nov 8th 2006 at 9:55PM }
Nvidia launched a new line of GPU and motherboard products today, the GeForce 8800 and nForce 680 respectively. The hardware looks good, but these sorts of press events are big on hype; we'll have to wait until the card and motherboard make it out to the wild for detailed assessments. The wait, at least, will be short; all products will be shipping to retail today.
Nvidia's 8800 card comes in two versions, costing between $449 and $649, but we weren't expecting a bargain. For that price, you get a DirectX 10 card that can compute physics tasks in addition to its polished graphic touches. Nvidia also says that the card dynamically allocates its processing power, so idle silicon that would normally be shading a fully-shaded scene, for example, can be used for other 3D tasks. The card also includes a 2D video accelerator to draw HD and other video.
At the San Jose launch event, Nvidia demonstrated the card, creating live smoke and water effects by plotting the 3D movement of the particles, in addition to rendering the graphics. Before the game demos, Nvidia showed a realtime tech demo of an 8800-created version of model Adrianne Curry. This demonstration looked a little creepy, watching the avatar model skimpy clothing with a slightly robotic gait. But when standing still, the character looked realistic; her hair and face were especially believable. Overall, the character didn't quite look like a real person -- the animation probably threw us off. Years ago, "photo-realistic" got undeservedly tossed around so much, the term went out of style, but parts of this demonstration were as close as we've seen.
We're interested in how the GeForce 8800 (and nForce 680) perform in the real world; the event certainly made a lot of promises. As an aside, we also give Nvidia PR kudos for dovetailing the announcement against its multi-day LAN party. The gamer audience, high on Bawls, cheered and pumped its fists with each announcement.
More pictures after the break.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
A Gupta @ Nov 8th 2006 10:02PM
Is it just me or is that nose ENORMOUS?
Other than that - yawn. More expensive products for the bleeding edge that I'll have to wait a year or two for, when they're in the bargain bin.
HaloGX @ Nov 8th 2006 10:07PM
She looks like that "model" that the guy from The Brady Bunch married.
Spuky @ Nov 8th 2006 10:10PM
nah, you are right A Gupta, the nose is gigantic
$449?? OUCH!, and thats why i dont even have my own computer(not because its needed, but because if i have a pc, i would like it to be the best of the best)
AssemblyLineHuman @ Nov 8th 2006 10:11PM
Coincidentally, "Adrianne Curry" IS that "'model' that the guy from The Brady Bunch married."
G99 @ Nov 8th 2006 10:14PM
Gamespot has already done testing on it:
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6161267/index.html
They loved it.
jaysins @ Nov 8th 2006 10:19PM
anandtech.com and tomshardware.com have had reviews and benchmarks of these things up for a few hours now. They definitely smoke the GPUs in the 360 and PS3 and they aren't even running DX10 software yet. They're sexy but definitely a bit expensive. I think the gtx though is suppose to retail for $599 not $649 but is inflated due to demand. Still wouldn't trade my 360 in but man these things are incredible. Maybe MS will let me upgrade :)
Leto @ Nov 8th 2006 10:19PM
Where are the videos of the demos?
Dave @ Nov 8th 2006 10:26PM
Perhaps they should have hired actual artists to create the model for their demo? That face is terrible.
ill trooper @ Nov 8th 2006 10:36PM
Graphics chip-set companies are so instrumental in shaping all of this gaming these last few years that I'm wondering when ATi or Nvidia is just going to roll out their own console...
retro @ Nov 9th 2006 7:50AM
You guys are fucking trolls. Not even the funny kind. The face looks like an actual attractive human face, which is the entire point. Go troll badly somewhere else.
bill pullman @ Nov 8th 2006 10:43PM
the chick has a big nose in real life, guys.
Campion @ Nov 8th 2006 10:46PM
It's possible y'all have spent too much time with Japanese illustrations and not enough with actual females.
kc @ Nov 8th 2006 11:01PM
id do her
Josh @ Nov 8th 2006 11:03PM
Do a little research before you comment. Those are pictures of some fairy-thing, not a human...
In any case, before it's even released the PS3 has become obsolete as having the most powerful hardware. That didn't take long.
599 US DOLLARS (applies to both).
xpensive @ Nov 8th 2006 11:43PM
well at least we now know which graphic card we need to play crysis
diskoboy @ Nov 8th 2006 11:08PM
Woah!!!
Quiznon @ Nov 8th 2006 11:11PM
Yeah, this is the reason why I laugh at the PS3 advertisements claiming that it is so amazing. Sure, it has good graphics, but that is not something that will make me buy a console because a computer can do it better. I'd rather spend my money on a high end graphics card, that costs less than the PS3, than on a game system with worse graphics than a PC and a HD movie format I wouldn't use anyways.
Chris m @ Nov 8th 2006 11:16PM
me = speechless, aside from the nose though it's bloody damn impressive
BrotherEstapol @ Nov 8th 2006 11:43PM
Up your research guys, plenty of sites have detailed reviews(with benchmarks of current game titles) online already since they've already received review cards. ;)
Tom's Hardware has a great review up:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/08/geforce_8800/
Jeremy @ Nov 8th 2006 11:22PM
I don't know about you guys, but that pic looks almost perfectly like her to me. Here, you can check out her profile on myspace.com. I think it's pretty close.
http://www.myspace.com/adricurry
Dave @ Nov 8th 2006 11:34PM
Sorry folks, it's not just the nose. Her whole face is out of proportion... look at the size of the chin in reference to the size of her forehead / nose spacing between her eyes. It does NOT look quite like the human that someone posted.
You still need good artists to drive the tech... the textures are nice, but the skeletal structure isn't correct.
diskoboy @ Nov 9th 2006 12:10AM
Now that I can speak again - that first render is beautiful.
The facial muscles, soft shadows around the nose and eyes, bump mapping and textures are beautiful. Even those single strands of hair hanging down. That almost look like a fully raytraced render.
Physics co-processors are gonna be future PC standards, looks like...
JJ @ Nov 9th 2006 12:29AM
Guys you do realize usually whenever a console is released there usually is something new on the market for the PC thats more powerful than whats in the console right?
It happens pretty much every gen. Anyone who thinks ANY console (Ps3, 360, pS2,xbox or otherwise) will always be the most powerful gaming thing on the market is foolish. you all should know that the way the tech industry moves, what was top of the line yesterday, is bargain bin within a year.
Just the way things are.
boost @ Nov 9th 2006 12:30AM
The PS3 is future proof right, for the next 10 years??? This isn't a more powerful gpu than in the PS3 that has actually uses the unified shaders like the 360, is it?
JJ @ Nov 9th 2006 12:38AM
Well boost, if its more powerful or not, it doesn't really matter, as in the PC world there will be a stronger video card in 3 or 4 months.
Besides PS2, Xbox and GC are more than half a decade old, and gaming on them is still fine, heck people even pay MS to play games from 15+ years ago i hear... man this future tech is great iddn't it?
But seriously, if supported, i could see both 360 and PS3 lasting at least as long as their former gen counterparts did (well in xboxs case thats not such a good thing... i HOPE it lasts longer anyway. I dont want to be buying a new MS system in 08)
Dave @ Nov 9th 2006 12:50AM
Those "single" strands of hair?
Uh, look closer. That's a transparency map... your PS2 does that.
tracked @ Nov 9th 2006 1:55AM
Does this mean that the Geforce7 cards will be cheaper?
I am looking forward to seeing the price of the GeForce 7900GTX fall down. If not ATI here i come.
Darren Tilley @ Nov 9th 2006 2:04AM
In the PC realm developers either develop for the lowest common denominator, or aim for the cutting edge (unfordable) hardware. In both cases, it results in games that look like high res Dreamcast games, or they can't be played at a decent framerate for a few generations.
There are a few good looking games in the FPS genre, but that really is all the PC has going for it graphically. Driving games on the PC still struggle to look even remotely as good as Gran Turismo on the PS2.
Luckily Nvidia produce these graphics demos so that you can show off your new card and not feel like you've wasted your money.
Sagan @ Nov 9th 2006 4:13AM
@27 (Darren Tilley): I've heard that same comment "high res dreamcast games" about 360 and PS3 games, too. So wheres your point? Btw I don't agree with that statement, and I suppose you haven't played many PC first person shooters or driving games recently...
And you do realize, that these cards are as expensive as a PS3? So how is this any more wasting money than buying a PS3? Suppose someone has a one year old PC in his house which he has been using for office work and internet surfing for the last year. Now he wants to play cutting edge games. He could buy a PS3 or 360, or buy a graphics card for the same price.
Of course if he was to wait a year, the cost/performance ratio would probably be much better than with a console. Because there is no need for hardware this powerful right now, and the price will drop considerably in a few months.
Darren Tilley @ Nov 9th 2006 4:44AM
Sagan, that's exactly what I'm saying. You can wait a few months and pick up a card like this for quite a bit cheaper, however it'll be a matter of months before developers are targeting cards with twice as much memory your's has, or the next DirectX features.
With a console, no matter which you choose, you are gonna see a steady flow of games that your system is definitely going to run exactly how the developer designed it.
And don't patronize me about how I mustn't have played recent PC games. I know a thing or two about video game graphics as I am a games artist, and PC game developers (First Person Shooters excluded) are almost always a generation or two behind with the use of shaders and effects, when compared to console games.
Nvidia puts all these fancy effects into a card like this, but you won't see games that take advantage of them until you can pick this card up for less than $200. PC graphics cards are about penis size and little else.
JJ @ Nov 9th 2006 7:29AM
Well yeah basically Darren, but hey it keeps the market going.
For instance, is there any real NEED for a nice car? No, any old junker will get you from A to B the same way. But sometimes...well, people just like the option of having a 30k+ car.
John Lucas @ Nov 9th 2006 7:52AM
They can NEVER fully pull this off until they learn to embrace IMPERFECTION.
No face, no life form is perfectly symmetric.
It will end up like Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.
So close to realism but yet so far as it misses the key components that make something come to life.
I'll give you a hint.
The key is in the "Eyes".
Without that the whole thing is without a soul & the "realism" will actually seem faker.
A step in the right direction towards the ultimate graphic leap, VR, but they still got MUCH work to do.
No wrinkles, no textures, no flaws.
Just virtual soulless dolls.
Lou Ferrigno made The Incredible Hulk come to life.
The CGI version from the movie paled in comparison.
It's funny how illustrative less realistic works (cartoons) capture the realness of emotion better than stuff like this.
John Lucas
steve @ Nov 9th 2006 8:54AM
"Driving games on the PC still struggle to look even remotely as good as Gran Turismo on the PS2."
Hah, um, no. Try GTR 2, or all the Need for Speed games, which look identical to the 360 versions on the PC and run at higher resolutions. The only reason there aren't more PC driving games blowing away Gran Turismo is because the race game market on the PC is smaller than it is on consoles.
A high-end (read, expensive) PC is already way more powerful than a PS3 or 360. Well, the "expensive" part isn't even totally true; the PS3 GPU is similar to a GeForce 7600, a $150 videocard. The 360s is a similar, now mid-range ATI card.
Consoles have huge advantages by having minimal OS overhead, and developers can write to a single GPU. But even a low-end $250 Core 2 Duo smokes the Cell or the 360 CPU in most tasks, and on the GPU front it isn't even close.
Windows Vista also uses the GPU to accelerate the interface--something OS X already does--so a good videocard will help more than gaming now.
The 8800GTX is ridiculously fast, and ridiculously expensive. It isn't for general consumers. It's for people who overclock their PC and run 30-inch LCDs that run at 2560x1600 resolution. In fact, it's only at 1920x1200 and beyond that the 8800 even starts to break a sweat versus anything currently on the market.
Pimliconite @ Nov 9th 2006 9:50AM
Great. They're finally climbing their way out of the uncanny valley. GeforceEIGHT is what it took to pull of ultrarealism. God forbit anyone try any creative use of GPUs outside of realism and cellshading (the latter having gone out of style). So woopee, time for more football-player heroes and supermodel women. Let us further embrace our inner (or current) 16-year-old.
Can we stop now, and make the games better and more mature? There hasn't been a new genre since the early 90s.
I've got it! We'll have another Spacemarinesandaliens game, but with COVER! oh wait...