Hi Shaping,
Shaping wrote:
>
> I haven't yet developed a fondness for multiple cards, though I like
> what AMD have done with two GPUs on one card in the HD 3870 X2.
Well, yeah, that's easy to use, but the performance increase is somewhat
limited. Unless you have apps that fit the model well, you won't get alot of
benefit.
> ...socket pairs connecting processes on one machine at unique port numbers?
Basically, yes.
>> Not sure, you'll have to ask them. :-) The one thign they will harp on
>> is the larger community, which is true, but I;m not aware of any
>> technical superiority.
>
> If I do that, I'll let you know what they say.
I'll be curious.
> Is there a link to a description of the philosphical differences?
Not really, sorry.
>> That sounds simple enough. You might want to think about textures
>> anyway. They are essentially free on graphics hardware these days, and
>> they allow you to specify the interpolation order between different
>> colors, and not have to depend on an RGB interpolation to make sense.
>> Just a thought.
>
> I will add texturing when I get the new card.
Highly recommended. They really help in many, many ways.
> BTW, I'm going all the way this time for a graphics card. The decisioin
> has come down to a Quadro 5600 or FireGL 8650. Based on
> 3dProfessor.com's review, I'm leaning toward the FireGL. It has 2 GB
> versus 1.5 GB for the Quadro, and the benchmarks are superior in several
> ways. Does everyone agree? I'm not sure, because another review of the
> same two cards favored the Quadro in all tests, save two (Maya and
> Perview). Also, this second review complained about fan noise in the
> FireGL. Does anyone have an opinion on high-end graphics cards?
I haven't used ATI cards in a long time, so take the following with a grain of
salt (I just won a little one at GDC, so I might give them another try when I
find some time ;). The main problem with ATI cards used to be the drivers.
Their
OpenGL support was noticeably worse than nVidia's, especially on Linux. The
performance was pretty good, last time I tested, but stability and bugs were
issues.
I don't know your models, but 1.5G is a lot of memory. If you fill that up
(especially if you don't have large textures), you're pushing the capabilities
of the card for interaction already, and I don't think the additional 500 MB
are
going to make a big difference.
> I could save a lot a money and go with an 8800 Ultra or HD 3870 X2, but
> I think the texturing and AA accuracy would suffer in favor of the
> speed, and I'm not really looking for high-frame rates, if I cannot also
> produce frames of cinemagraphic quality. I'm making high-quality
> simulations and movies. I don't understand why the driver can't be
> configured or changed so that the workstation versions of these cards
> can go faster but at lower graphical detail/rendering accuracy.
> Reversely, I'm not convinced that an 8800 Ultra can be made to perform
> like a Quadro 5600 with some driver tweaks, but I'm willing to learn how
> to do this if it is possible. Does anyone here do this?
IMHO, the professional cards don't really make better pictures than the gamer
cards. The main difference on nVidia is performance for lines, and the ability
to run stereo/genlock/sync.
If you want cinematic quality at the cost of speed you can always combine
multiple images for more samples.
> Do most of you on Windows (XP Pro SP2/3) prefer to use Visual Studio
> .NET for your code development? I'm going to wait for the new machine
> before I put VS back on. So, I'll wait until then (two weeks or so)
> until I begin looking at source.
Can't comment on that one, I don't use Windows on a daily (or monthly ;) basis.
Hope it helps
Dirk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Opensg-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users
