Nvidia's 'Nalu' vs ATI's 'Ruby'

John Lewis wrote:

 > Both should
 > sink like rocks if not 100%backward compatible with existing
 > non-Next software.

Like the SNES was backwards compatible with the NES? Like the Dreamcast was
with the Saturn? Like the Gamecube was with the N64? Like the PSX was with
anything?

The PS2 is the only mainstream backwards compatible console, and if you ask
PS2 owners how many of them actually PSX games on their machines, you'll
find the answer is very few.

Besides, I you're actually allowed to KEEP your current console after you
buy a new one! Seriously! I know, too bizarre to be true.

 > Liike multiple generations of video camera formats scrapped,
 > now we have multiple-generation consoles and software scrapped.
 > The wily consumer will eventually say enough is enough.

The "wily consumer" would probably love to have more electronics that are
exactly as functional and relevant and non-obsolete fives years after their
launch as they were the first day they came out. A PS2 game you buy next
year will play on the exact same hardware as the PS2 game you bought three
years ago, and it will run exactly as intended by the developers. How many
other pieces of consumer electronics have a five year lifespan during which
time owners don't need to worry about a better version of the hardware
coming out? Certainly not PC components.

 > For the consoles, no hope,
 > unless it is designed in.

Backwards compatiblity looks good on paper, but in reality it's a
non-feature. Why buy that next-gen hardware and then waste it on crappy
looking old-gen games? As soon as there's a large enough library of next-gen
games, nobody who buys a new console is going to care or even necessarily be
aware about the last generation's games. As sales figures clearly show, the
vast majority of people do not buy a new console the first day (or even the
first year) it comes out, and a huge number of people who bought PS2s never
owned original Playstations. So why build in a feature that most owners
aren't going to want or need?

-Z-<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Nvidia's 'Nalu' vs ATI's 'Ruby' 

 > Nvidia's GeForce 6800 (NV40) 'Nalu' demo consists of 300,000 polygons.
 > very very impressive shit!
 >
 > ATI's Radeon X800 (R420) 'Ruby' demo consists of only 80,000 polygons.
 > however it is also rendering a background with other elements. closer
 > to what would be in an actual game.

I like the Ruby demo much better As for Nalu, that same character can be
made with 50000-90000 polygons without sacrificing any quality. So just to
showoff nv40, nvidia should have made the scene more complex, or the Nalu a
bit different.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Nvidia's 'Nalu' vs ATI's 'Ruby' 

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 02:20:58 -0400, "Zackman"
<zackman.DeleteThis@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote:

 >The PS2 is the only mainstream backwards compatible console, and if you ask
 >PS2 owners how many of them actually PSX games on their machines, you'll
 >find the answer is very few.

Sorry but you forgot Gameboy. GBA is backward compatible with every
GB games ever made and GBC is also backward compatible with older GB
games.

Also Atari 7800 can play 2600. (5200, Colecovision, and
Ilntellivision also plays 2600 via adapter but that's not the same
thing)

Sega Master System also worked with Mark III, SG-1000 and SC-3000 with
an adapter as the cart slot is different but the hardware is the same.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Nvidia's 'Nalu' vs ATI's 'Ruby' 

"Zackman" <zackman DeleteThis @SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote:

 >Backwards compatiblity looks good on paper, but in reality it's a
 >non-feature. Why buy that next-gen hardware and then waste it on crappy
 >looking old-gen games?

While I think that all of your points have merit, I don't agree that
it's a total non-issue. For example, the consumer whois making a
choice between, say, the fading but game-rich N64 or the new-fangled
GameCube. If the new machine is backwards compatible, it's a
no-brainer. If it's not, some will opt for the older machine, denying
the new machine of some of those critical first-year sales.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Nvidia's 'Nalu' vs ATI's 'Ruby' 

ZackCryBaby wrote:

 > [W]hy build in a feature that most owners aren't going to want or need?

I think I've played less than five PSX games on my PS2 since launch day.

And I've kept my modded PSX for *one* reason only: To play Internal
Section (and maybe Vib-Ribbon).

--
What would Jeremiah say if he knew
what they¹re doing to his wife today?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Nvidia's 'Nalu' vs ATI's 'Ruby' 

"John Lewis" <john.dsl RemoveThis @verizon.net> wrote in message
news:407e1d38.26175864@news.verizon.net...
 >
 > Liike multiple generations of video camera formats scrapped,
 > now we have multiple-generation consoles and software scrapped.
 > The wily consumer will eventually say enough is enough.
 >

No they won't, consumers want better hard/software.

 > At least, with the PC there is some hope of backward compatibility
 > with older (favorite, classic, nostalgic ) software if not directly,
 > then with emulators such as DosBox. For the consoles, no hope,
 > unless it is designed in.

I hope that there is very limited hardware compatibility for future pc
standards, holding onto isa, pci and irqs for compatibility has held the pc
back a lot more than most people realise. I agree with your point about
emulation, I still play Mario on a snes emulator, but compatibility really
does cripple the development of hardware, the pci bus should be dead
already, for example.

--
Ian<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Nvidia's 'Nalu' vs ATI's 'Ruby' 

 > Ati can't even write drivers
 > that work well with legacy software on the PC.

Hell, ATI can't even write drivers that work well with current software!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Nvidia's 'Nalu' vs ATI's 'Ruby' 

John Lewis wrote:
 > On 14 Apr 2004 21:33:15 -0700, nvidianv55.RemoveThis@mail.com (NV55) wrote:
 >
 >
  >>http://karpo.org/images/Dunno/Ruby.jpg
  >>
  >>Nvidia's GeForce 6800 (NV40) 'Nalu' demo consists of 300,000 polygons.
  >>very very impressive shit!
  >>
  >>ATI's Radeon X800 (R420) 'Ruby' demo consists of only 80,000 polygons.
  >>however it is also rendering a background with other elements. closer
  >>to what would be in an actual game.
  >>
  >>now, console gamers: keep in mind, whatever ATI has been able to come
  >>up with at this point (re: the R420 / Radeon X800) is a stepping stone
  >>to what they'll be able to have in 2005 for Xbox Next, and in 2006 for
  >>GCNext
 >
 >
 >
 > Wow............. I am impressed !! Must ask for an advanced
 > payment of my Social Security to buy these consoles. Both should
 > sink like rocks if not 100%backward compatible with existing
 > non-Next software. Also, a huge marketing problem for new software
 > for the existing consoles after pre-anouncement of the new consoles
 > if not 100% backward compatible. Let's see Ati and PPC 100%
 > emulate nVidia Audio/Video and i86. Ati can't even write drivers
 > that work well with legacy software on the PC.
 >
 > Liike multiple generations of video camera formats scrapped,
 > now we have multiple-generation consoles and software scrapped.
 > The wily consumer will eventually say enough is enough.
 >
 > At least, with the PC there is some hope of backward compatibility
 > with older (favorite, classic, nostalgic ) software if not directly,
 > then with emulators such as DosBox. For the consoles, no hope,
 > unless it is designed in.
 >
 > John Lewis
 >

Maybe so, but...
Take the latest drivers from nVidia for the nForce2,
the very same chipset used in the XBox now. The newer
versions of these drivers, ARE worse than the drivers they had out in
2002! The bugs are jumping out at me here, BSOD's from the Memory
Controller Driver in XP, DD 5.1 audio is broken, etc.
Not happy at all and it isn't a operator error * You think nVidia
would have this sorted by now. All they have to do is place each bit
that worked from each set of drivers, into one 'working set'. But guess
I am going to have to do it manualy still...<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Nvidia's 'Nalu' vs ATI's 'Ruby' 

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:11:21 +1000, Minotaur <antnel RemoveThis @hotmail.com>
wrote:

 >John Lewis wrote:
  >> On 14 Apr 2004 21:33:15 -0700, nvidianv55 RemoveThis @mail.com (NV55) wrote:
  >>
  >>
   >>>http://karpo.org/images/Dunno/Ruby.jpg
   >>>
   >>>Nvidia's GeForce 6800 (NV40) 'Nalu' demo consists of 300,000 polygons.
   >>>very very impressive shit!
   >>>
   >>>ATI's Radeon X800 (R420) 'Ruby' demo consists of only 80,000 polygons.
   >>>however it is also rendering a background with other elements. closer
   >>>to what would be in an actual game.
   >>>
   >>>now, console gamers: keep in mind, whatever ATI has been able to come
   >>>up with at this point (re: the R420 / Radeon X800) is a stepping stone
   >>>to what they'll be able to have in 2005 for Xbox Next, and in 2006 for
   >>>GCNext
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> Wow............. I am impressed !! Must ask for an advanced
  >> payment of my Social Security to buy these consoles. Both should
  >> sink like rocks if not 100%backward compatible with existing
  >> non-Next software. Also, a huge marketing problem for new software
  >> for the existing consoles after pre-anouncement of the new consoles
  >> if not 100% backward compatible. Let's see Ati and PPC 100%
  >> emulate nVidia Audio/Video and i86. Ati can't even write drivers
  >> that work well with legacy software on the PC.
  >>
  >> Liike multiple generations of video camera formats scrapped,
  >> now we have multiple-generation consoles and software scrapped.
  >> The wily consumer will eventually say enough is enough.
  >>
  >> At least, with the PC there is some hope of backward compatibility
  >> with older (favorite, classic, nostalgic ) software if not directly,
  >> then with emulators such as DosBox. For the consoles, no hope,
  >> unless it is designed in.
  >>
  >> John Lewis
  >>
 >
 >Maybe so, but...
 >Take the latest drivers from nVidia for the nForce2,
 >the very same chipset used in the XBox now.

Sorry to be picky, but I believe that the Xbox uses an Intel P3
733MHz, not an AMD processor.

 > The newer
 >versions of these drivers, ARE worse than the drivers they had out in
 >2002! The bugs are jumping out at me here, BSOD's from the Memory
 >Controller Driver in XP, DD 5.1 audio is broken, etc.
 >Not happy at all and it isn't a operator error *

Which motherboard ? It is a nForce2 motherboard, not a nForce ?
The original nForce did have some bad problems.

John Lewis


 >You think nVidia
 >would have this sorted by now. All they have to do is place each bit
 >that worked from each set of drivers, into one 'working set'. But guess
 >I am going to have to do it manualy still...
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Nvidia's 'Nalu' vs ATI's 'Ruby' 

I think he meant, "GForce". I have a GForce FX5900 and once I installed all
my BIOS updates and motherboard drivers (Intel chipset), my system is
rock-solid! What a machine.

But now after re-reading Minotaur's post, I am totally confused!

--
malberto - XBL: "Art Vandolay"


"John Lewis" <john.dsl.RemoveThis@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:407e3c6e.34167783@news.verizon.net...
 > On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:11:21 +1000, Minotaur <antnel.RemoveThis@hotmail.com>
 > wrote:
 >
  > >John Lewis wrote:
   > >> On 14 Apr 2004 21:33:15 -0700, nvidianv55.RemoveThis@mail.com (NV55) wrote:
   > >>
   > >>
   > >>>http://karpo.org/images/Dunno/Ruby.jpg
   > >>>
   > >>>Nvidia's GeForce 6800 (NV40) 'Nalu' demo consists of 300,000 polygons.
   > >>>very very impressive shit!
   > >>>
   > >>>ATI's Radeon X800 (R420) 'Ruby' demo consists of only 80,000 polygons.
   > >>>however it is also rendering a background with other elements. closer
   > >>>to what would be in an actual game.
   > >>>
   > >>>now, console gamers: keep in mind, whatever ATI has been able to come
   > >>>up with at this point (re: the R420 / Radeon X800) is a stepping stone
   > >>>to what they'll be able to have in 2005 for Xbox Next, and in 2006 for
   > >>>GCNext
   > >>
   > >>
   > >>
   > >> Wow............. I am impressed !! Must ask for an advanced
   > >> payment of my Social Security to buy these consoles. Both should
   > >> sink like rocks if not 100%backward compatible with existing
   > >> non-Next software. Also, a huge marketing problem for new software
   > >> for the existing consoles after pre-anouncement of the new consoles
   > >> if not 100% backward compatible. Let's see Ati and PPC 100%
   > >> emulate nVidia Audio/Video and i86. Ati can't even write drivers
   > >> that work well with legacy software on the PC.
   > >>
   > >> Liike multiple generations of video camera formats scrapped,
   > >> now we have multiple-generation consoles and software scrapped.
   > >> The wily consumer will eventually say enough is enough.
   > >>
   > >> At least, with the PC there is some hope of backward compatibility
   > >> with older (favorite, classic, nostalgic ) software if not directly,
   > >> then with emulators such as DosBox. For the consoles, no hope,
   > >> unless it is designed in.
   > >>
   > >> John Lewis
   > >>
  > >
  > >Maybe so, but...
  > >Take the latest drivers from nVidia for the nForce2,
  > >the very same chipset used in the XBox now.
 >
 > Sorry to be picky, but I believe that the Xbox uses an Intel P3
 > 733MHz, not an AMD processor.
 >
  > > The newer
  > >versions of these drivers, ARE worse than the drivers they had out in
  > >2002! The bugs are jumping out at me here, BSOD's from the Memory
  > >Controller Driver in XP, DD 5.1 audio is broken, etc.
  > >Not happy at all and it isn't a operator error *
 >
 > Which motherboard ? It is a nForce2 motherboard, not a nForce ?
 > The original nForce did have some bad problems.
 >
 > John Lewis
 >
 >
  > >You think nVidia
  > >would have this sorted by now. All they have to do is place each bit
  > >that worked from each set of drivers, into one 'working set'. But guess
  > >I am going to have to do it manualy still...
  > >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Nvidia's 'Nalu' vs ATI's 'Ruby' 

Impmon wrote:

 > Sorry but you forgot Gameboy.

I was talking about home consoles, not handhelds.

 > Also Atari 7800 can play 2600. (5200, Colecovision, and
 > Ilntellivision also plays 2600 via adapter but that's not the same
 > thing)

True, but I said mainstream consoles. I know there were some old consoles
that had backwards compatibility, but the Atari 7800 was barely more than a
blip in the history of game machines. And it sure as heck didn't do anything
to help the 7800, did it?

-Z-<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Nvidia's 'Nalu' vs ATI's 'Ruby' 

 > I think he meant, "GForce". I have a GForce FX5900 and once I installed
all
 > my BIOS updates and motherboard drivers (Intel chipset), my system is
 > rock-solid! What a machine.

No he meant Nvidia's "nForce" brand. Its a chipset embedded on to the
motherboard that uses a AMD processor.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Nvidia's 'Nalu' vs ATI's 'Ruby' 

"John Lewis" <john.dsl RemoveThis @verizon.net> wrote in message
news:407e3c6e.34167783@news.verizon.net...
 > On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:11:21 +1000, Minotaur <antnel RemoveThis @hotmail.com>
 > wrote:
 >
 > Sorry to be picky, but I believe that the Xbox uses an Intel P3
 > 733MHz, not an AMD processor.

You are indeed correct, but the XBox still uses the NForce chipset.

--
somnambulist<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Nvidia's 'Nalu' vs ATI's 'Ruby'