3D Vision Surround: NVIDIA’s Eyefinity
During our meeting with NVIDIA, they were also showing off 3D Vision Surround, which was announced at the start of CES at their press conference. 3D Vision Surround is not inherently a GF100 technology, but since it’s being timed for release along-side GF100 cards, we’re going to take a moment to discuss it.
If you’ve seen Matrox’s TripleHead2Go or AMD’s Eyefinity in action, then you know what 3D Vision Surround is. It’s NVIDIA’s implementation of the single large surface concept so that games (and anything else for that matter) can span multiple monitors. With it, gamers can get a more immersive view by being able to surround themselves with monitors so that the game world is projected from more than just a single point in front of them.
NVIDIA tells us that they’ve been sitting on this technology for quite some time but never saw a market for it. With the release of TripleHead2Go and Eyefinity it became apparent to them that this was no longer the case, and they unboxed the technology. Whether this is true or a sudden reaction to Eyefinity is immaterial at the moment, as it’s coming regardless.
This triple-display technology will have two names. When it’s used on its own, NVIDIA is calling it NVIDIA Surround. When it’s used in conjunction with 3D Vision, it’s called 3D Vision Surround. Obviously NVIDIA would like you to use it with 3D Vision to get the full effect (and to require a more powerful GPU) but 3D Vision is by no means required to use it. It is however the key differentiator from AMD, at least until AMD’s own 3D efforts get off the ground.
Regardless of to what degree this is a sudden reaction from NVIDIA over Eyefinity, ultimately this is something that was added late in to the design process. Unlike AMD who designed the Evergreen family around it from the start, NVIDA did not, and as a result they did not give a GF100 the ability to drive more than 2 displays at once. The shipping GF100 cards will have the traditional 2 monitor limit, meaning that gamers will need 2 GF100 cards in SLI to drive 3+ monitors, with the second card needed to provide the 3rd and 4th display outputs. We expect that the next NVIDIA design will include the ability to drive 3+ monitors from a single GPU, as for the moment this limitation precludes any ability to do Surround for cheap.
GTX 280 with 2 display outputs: GF100 won't be any different
As for some good news, as we stated earlier this is not a technology inherent to the GF100. NVIDIA can do it entirely in software and as a result will be backporting this technology to the GT200 (GTX 200 series). The drivers that get released for the GF100 will allow GTX 200 cards to do Surround in the same manner: with 2 cards, you can run a single large surface across 3+ displays. We’ve seen this in action and it works, as NVIDIA was demoing a pair of GTX 285s running in NVIDIA Surround mode in their CES booth.
The big question of course is going to be what this does for performance on both the GF100 and GT200, along with compatibility. That’s something that we’re going to have to wait on the actual hardware for.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
115 Comments
View All Comments
SothemX - Tuesday, March 9, 2010 - link
WELL.lets just make it simple. I am an advid gamer...I WANT and NEED power and performance. I care only about how well my games play, how good they look, and the impression they leave with me when I am done.I own a PS3 and am thrilled they went with Nvidia- (smart move)
I own and PC that utilizes the 9800GT OC card....getting ready to upgrade to the new GF100 when it releases, last thing that is on my mind is how the market share is, cost is not an issue.
Hard-Core gaming requires Nvidia. Entry-level baby boomers use ATI.
Nvidia is just playing with their food....its a vulgar display of power- better architecture, better programming, better gamming.
StevoLincolnite - Monday, January 18, 2010 - link
[quote]So why does NVIDIA want so much geometry performance? Because with tessellation, it allows them to take the same assets from the same games as AMD and generate something that will look better. With more geometry power, NVIDIA can use tessellation and displacement mapping to generate more complex characters, objects, and scenery than AMD can at the same level of performance.[/quote]Might I add to that, nVidia's design is essentially "Modular" they can increase and decrease there geometry performance essentially by taking units out, this however will force programmers to program for the lowest common denominator, whilst AMD's iteration of the technology is the same across the board, so essentially you can have identical geometry regardless of the chip.
Yojimbo - Monday, January 18, 2010 - link
just say the minimum, not the lowest common denominator. it may look fancy bit it doesn't seem to fit.chizow - Monday, January 18, 2010 - link
The real distinction here is that Nvidia's revamp of fixed-function geometry units to a programmable, scalable, and parallel Polymorph engine means their implementation won't be limited to acceleration of Tesselation in games. Their improvements will benefit every game ever made that benefits from increased geometry performance. I know people around here hate to claim "winners" and "losers" around here when AMD isn't winning, but I think its pretty obvious Nvidia's design and implementation is the better one.Fully programmable vs. fixed-function, as long as the fully programmable option is at least as fast is always going to be the better solution. Just look at the evolution of the GPU from mostly fixed-function hardware to what it is today with GF100...a fully programmable, highly parallel, compute powerhouse.
mcnabney - Monday, January 18, 2010 - link
If Fermi was a winner Nvidia would have had samples out to be benchmarked by Anand and others a long time ago.Fermi is designed for GPGPU with gaming secondary. Goody for them. They can probably do a lot of great things and make good money in that sector. But I don't know about gaming. Based upon the info that has gotten out and the fact that reality hasn't appeared yet I am guessing that Fermi will only be slightly faster than 5870 and Nvidia doesn't want to show their hand and let AMD respond. Remember, AMD is finishing up the next generation right now - so Fermi will likely compete against Northern Isles on AMDs 32nm process in the Fall.
dragonsqrrl - Monday, February 15, 2010 - link
Firstly, did you not read this article? The gf100 delay was due in large part to the new architecture they developed, and architectural shift ATI will eventually have to make if they wish to remain competitive. In other words, similarly to the g80 enabling GPU computing features/unified shaders for the first time on the PC, Nvidia invested huge resources in r&d and as a result had a next generation, revolutionary GPU before ATI.Secondly, Nvidia never meant to place gaming second to GPU computing, as much as you ATI fanboys would like to troll about this subject. What they're trying to do is bring GPU computing up to the level GPU gaming is already at (in terms of accessibility, reliability, and performance). The research they're doing in this field could revolutionize research into many fields outside of gaming, including medicine, astronomy, and 'yes' film production (something I happen to deal with a LOT) while revolutionizing gaming performance and feature sets as well
Thirdly, I would be AMAZED if AMD can come out with their new architecture (their first since the hd2900) by the 3rd quarter of this year, and on the 32nm process. I just can't see them pushing GPU technology forward in the same way Nvidia has given their new business model (smaller GPUs, less focus on GPU computing), while meeting that tight deadline.
chewietobbacca - Monday, January 18, 2010 - link
"Winning" the generation? What really matters?The bottom line, that's what. I'm sure Nvidia liked winning the generation - I'm sure they would have loved it even more if they didn't lose market share and potential profits from the fight...
realneil - Monday, January 25, 2010 - link
winning the generation is a non-prize if the mainstream buyer can only wish they had one. Make this kind of performance affordable and then you'll impress me.chizow - Monday, January 18, 2010 - link
Yes and the bottom line showed Nvidia turning a profit despite not having the fastest part on the market.Again, my point about G80'ing the market was more a reference to them revolutionizing GPU design again rather than simply doubling transistors and functional units or increasing clockspeeds based on past designs.
The other poster brought up performance at any given point in time, I was simply pointing out a fact being first or second to market doesn't really matter as long as you win the generation, which Nvidia has done for the last few generations since G80 and will again once GF100 launches.
sc3252 - Monday, January 18, 2010 - link
Yikes, if it is more than the original GTX 280 I would expect some loud cards. When I saw those benchmarks of farcrry 2 I was disappointed that I didn't wait, but now that it is using more than a GTX 280 I think I may have made the right choice. While right now I wan't as much performance as possible eventually my 5850 will go into a secondary pc(why I picked 5850) with a lesser power supply. I don't want to have to buy a bigger power supply just because a friend might come over and play once a week.