BRIGHT SIDE OF NEWS About | Advertise | Contact BSN USER Login
| Register 		SUBSCRIBE Newsletter | RSS Feeds
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Email this to a friend.
Your friend's e-mail:
Your Name:
Your e-mail:
Message subject:
Comments
@not real by: Anonymous on 3/10/2010
yes you can see blue slot. it's hardly visible because it is on the botom of the card so very small part is reflected.
Uhh, now we have benchies! by: Anonymous on 1/26/2010
And the NVIDIA benchies K F'in A !
I am really excited by this whole new modular architecture - man nvidia hit ANOTHER ONE out of the park !
Way to go nvidia !
You even played it smart and waited for tsmc to get their 40nm straightened around instead of blowing bazillions on 2 million red rooster chips while 8 million came out dead do-do's like ati the dipsquats did. DUHHH DUMMM ati !
Ya gonaa lose a fortune again ati - you bad business noobs!
Thanks for being the ginea pigs (err.. red roosters) with all the losses !
@not real by: Anonymous on 1/19/2010
sorry but you are wrong. the white reflection is the pci slot.
not real! by: Anonymous on 1/19/2010
dudes u can see its not real cuz of the reflection on the card! there is a blue pci-e thats reflected as white on the card! so shut up and dont argue about image file extensions!
Tesselation by: Anonymous on 12/28/2009
the fermi gpu's don't have a tessellation unit, it runs off the cuda programming sset in the gpu. Therefore tessellation can be faster, but detracts from the gpu's overall power.
Rumor by: Anonymous on 12/18/2009

Interesting rumor...

Fermi tessellation is 2 to 2.5 X faster than AMD's solution...
2 MBs by: Anonymous on 12/14/2009
Hey, have you all noticed the second motherboard on top? It has an Audigy2 sound card fitted ... tres bizzare!
by: Anonymous on 12/7/2009
I wish I could see the results of that bench
off topic. by: Anonymous on 12/5/2009
What is the picture on the monitor from. a game, a movie, a TV show/cartoon, or what? also what is the name of the game, TV show/cartoon, movie, etc? I'm sorry that this is off topic but when i don't know something i really want to know what it is for no reason other then to know.
by: Anonymous on 11/27/2009
1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7%
derp by: Anonymous on 11/27/2009
wood screws
by: Anonymous on 11/25/2009
It doesn't have to be photo-shopped to be fake. There could be a system with an HD 5850 or HD 5870 running off camera. Then a picture a motherboard with a fake video card on it, that might even have a real working fan spinning, just for realistic effect. This is proof of nothing.
by: Greg442 on 11/22/2009
Not getting into the whole fan spinning thing, but this photo was definitely photoshopped. I work with photoshop quite a bit and you can easily see this photo was altered as the pixels don't match when you zoom in on the center of the fan.
by: Anonymous on 11/22/2009
Oh god, get over debating the pictures authenticity, LOL...
by: Anonymous on 11/21/2009
Are you people seriously debating whether the picture is real or not?
Images by: Sean Kalinich on 11/20/2009
The image was shot RAW, converted to JPG by Adobe Photoshop CS4 then I reopened the RAW file using Canon's ZoomBrowser EX. From there I took a screen shot of the image in that browser so that you could see the settings used by the camera [this is saved by default to PNG]. The original converted JPG is here;

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29512214@N04/4117954941/
RAW, jpg and png by: Gipsel on 11/20/2009
"on a side note, any JPG is compressed. There is always a loss of image information. Otherwise the file sizes would be the same. a 10.1 MP JPG is around 5-8MB while a RAW file is up to 15MB. There is information that is not present."

Of course is a jpeg compressed (there is even a rarely used lossless variant). But I understood your original post that you trimmed down the picture (still as RAW; side note: if a 10MP RAW file is only 15MB, it uses already [lossless] compression) and uploaded it as a ~1.8MB file to Flickr. But it looked to me you uploaded it actually as png, not as jpg. So if you haven't saved it as jpg in some intermediate step, the png file should introduce no compression artifacts as it features lossless compression. Or does Flickr some automatic conversions internally to save storage space?

PS:
It gets more and more off topic. We should really stop ;)
by: Kyocera on 11/20/2009
You two sound like a long time married couple.

:D :D
Just to end it by: Gipsel on 11/20/2009
Thanks for the description. But in fact my most explicit statement regarding the shot was:
"You definitely didn't use a continuous light source for the shot. What one sees "through" the black fan blade (blown up a bit in the linked picture) is the shot taken with the full exposure time but just the background light."

And that is entirely true. You have only used also artificial light for the background and triggered only the main directed light with the shutter (so most of the picture was taken just in the last moment of the open shutter). But as I said, only you could have known the exact lighting conditions.

With a flash it should look even less motion blurred (shorter light pulse), but that is something everyone can try at home with much simpler equipement than you used as I really doubt most people would make that effort or have your equipment to shoot a photo of a spinning fan ;)
artifacts by: Sean Kalinich on 11/20/2009
My comment on artifacts is not about the fan blades. I mentioned that because you said "By the way, some really crappy energy saving lamps are also flashing with double the line frequency. Something a studio light shouldn't be doing at all (can give quite some artifacts)." Where this was in your comment sounded like you were saying I was using them.

I looked at the image and saw where the tops of the copper tubes were washed out and thought you meant that as an artifact.

on a side note, any JPG is compressed. There is always a loss of image information. Otherwise the file sizes would be the same. a 10.1 MP JPG is around 5-8MB while a RAW file is up to 15MB. There is information that is not present.

Coming from an standard film back ground [35mm Canon EOS 1V HS and Mamiya Medium Format] I found that out the hard way when converting my film to digital format. I made the mistake of saving to JPG instead of Tif and could visibly see the loss of quality later when I looked at them. I spent a ton of money to correct that mistake.
We should stop at some point! by: Gipsel on 11/20/2009
"As for your question about the fan it is not relevant. You said it could not be done and I did it. Seems like you are nitpicking the image that was presented instead of admitting it is possible.

It does not matter how I did it, I did it and the photo was not altered in any way."

To be correct, I said how it can be done before you even had the idea to do the shot (in my very first comment here).

And if I remember right, your first try to explain that one sees the cooling fins through the fan blade was some rescaling or compression artifact until I pointed out you used a lossless compression.

I see no reason to backtrack any comment here, I just tried to put it into context as you apparently misunderstood some of them. A very clear example is the side note about the energy saving lamps, how about backtracking your claim that I wrote you used such lamps?

I guess we could agree that one should take each others words with a pinch of salt as we speak different languages and also the motivation of the winks and smileys may not come across as intended (trying to build bridges here ;).

But you are correct in one point, the whole discussion gets largely irrelevant (as I said already some time ago).
But since you want to know by: Sean Kalinich on 11/20/2009
The shot was obtained with four lights two facing the front one pointed at the back these are open lights that fire into reflectors but they provide quite a bit of light.

The fourth light is behind and over the left side of the camera. It has a defuse cloth filter on it. It is tied in with the shutter release cable I use. It turns the light on in time with the shutter. But leaves it on.

As 99% of digital cameras do not have anything resembling back fill flash of a method of delaying the flash I find this useful for in studio shots of people and product.

It is not using a pulse flash at all.

Four directed lights were used.
Back tracking by: Sean Kalinich on 11/20/2009
Smilies and winks do not come off the way you think they do.

Instead now you are back tracking on comments that you directly made.

As for your question about the fan it is not relevant. You said it could not be done and I did it. Seems like you are nitpicking the image that was presented instead of admitting it is possible.

It does not matter how I did it, I did it and the photo was not altered in any way.
Sean likes to nitpick? by: Gipsel on 11/20/2009
Putting things into the context may help.

"But that should not be the topic as the photo was done with a cellphone and likely 1/30 s exposure time or even longer ;)."

Do you see the smiley at the end? I wanted to express that the whole discussion about exposure times and such are mostly not to the point. Above citation continues "Again, we need performance figures!", referring to a similar statement ("But I'm not saying the picture is fake, only that without some performance figures it is meaningless either way ;)") I wrote in my previous comment.

And before may cited statement from the top I written it "LOOKS LIKE" as done with a cell phone, referring to the bad quality of the shot. In another comment I got more specific and stated: "I really doubt it was done using a good camera. Do you see any area the image appears to be focussed and sharp? My 4 years old small Exilim [a pocket camera] does way better pictures even indoor."


"Btw., where did you get the 32 FPS for the benchmark from? If it is more or less a still image (i.e. bad performance, the part with the dragon can get quite slow ;), "

Do I really have to explain the concept of a relative statement? If something runs with 10 or 15 frames per second it is "more or less a still image" when you use a 1/30 s exposure (it doesn't change during exposure). It isn't rocket science. Compare that with your claim that some fast spinning object like a fan running 125 revolutions per second is practically a still image for your camera with a 1/125 second exposure. The fan does a full revolution during exposure, nothing I would call "more or less a still image" ;)


"By the way, some really crappy energy saving lamps are also flashing with double the line frequency. Something a studio light shouldn't be doing at all (can give quite some artifacts)."

As I said, it was a side note evident by the introducing "by the way". Where did I claim you used it?

And did you find a reason why one can see the cooling fins "through" the fan blade in your shot in the meantime? I think there is one and a half ;)
http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=fan_zte32.png
some quotes by: Sean Kalinich on 11/20/2009
"But that should not be the topic as the photo was done with a cellphone and likely 1/30 s exposure time or even longer ;)."

-Gipsel

"Btw., where did you get the 32 FPS for the benchmark from? If it is more or less a still image (i.e. bad performance, the part with the dragon can get quite slow ;), "

-Gipsel

"By the way, some really crappy energy saving lamps are also flashing with double the line frequency. Something a studio light shouldn't be doing at all (can give quite some artifacts)."

-Gipsel
@Sean by: Gipsel on 11/20/2009
"The problem I have with the posts that you have made here is that they include very specific yet unbacked claims.

You claimed it was a Cell Phone, you claimed the image on the monitor was near static, you claimed that I am using energy saving bulbs."
I said the overall quality is quite bad which makes in unlikely it was done with a good camera (mabe the focus is just off). Quite sure there are cellphones out there than can manage such shots.

And I never claimed that you have used energy saving bulbs (technically: gas discharge lamps) for your shot. I just made a side note that those are not necessarily continuous light emitters. Big difference. Only you know what you have used.

"I will leave this debate with one last comment made by a physicist a long time ago [I am quoting from memory here]

The "Laws of Nature" are nothing more than arbitrary rules imposed by man to account for things we do not and can never really understand."
That is a quote quite some physicists won't accept as that is actually what they strive for ;)
@Theo by: Gipsel on 11/20/2009
A longer exposure didn't meant several seconds, but maybe 1/15 or 1/30 second. Likely one wouldn't see any blurring on the screen in that case given the framerates and the performance where one can see the dragon.

Btw., simple math works everytime. One only has to put in the right assumptions ;).

If you read my comments, you will find that I explicitly stated that I don't say it is fake. I furthermore said that one cannot discern any detail of the fan of the graphics cards. That means the picture is either too blurry in general or the fan is spinning.

I was more commenting on the general thing what exposure one needs for a fast spinning object. And I still stand by my comments.

But if you want me too look a little bit more to the photo in the article, I can do that, too ;)
One sees some strange distortions just above the SLI connectors of the card extending through the bezel of the screen into the scene. Doesn't look like jpg compression artifacts to me ;)
http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=nvda_nv100_gf100_dx11_djk6.png

By the way, any idea why the cooling fins shine through the fan blade in the picture Sean has taken?
http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=fan_zte32.png
@Gipsel by: Sean Kalinich on 11/20/2009
The problem I have with the posts that you have made here is that they include very specific yet unbacked claims.

You claimed it was a Cell Phone, you claimed the image on the monitor was near static, you claimed that I am using energy saving bulbs.

These come off as less factual and more you trying to prove you are smarter than everyone else. Maybe this is not the case but that is the way your comments read.

I have been a photographer for some time [well over 10 years] and have shot everything from sports to models to musical concerts and events [I wont shoot weddings though].

I will leave this debate with one last comment made by a physicist a long time ago [I am quoting from memory here]

The "Laws of Nature" are nothing more than arbitrary rules imposed by man to account for things we do not and can never really understand.
@Gipsel - Photo exposure... by: Theo Valich on 11/20/2009
Gipsel, with all the credit to your math skills and all, sometimes math just doesn't work out.

When I say I took a picture at 1/250 and didn't record any motion of the blades, the motion of blades didn't exist, regardless of what RPM the engine was running on. It has nothing to do with math, but as you noticed, with the angle as well.

Btw, the theory that this picture was taken with long exposure simply does not hold up, since you would have blurry image of the screen - i.e. there would be several seconds of Unigine benchmark fit in one picture, and we all know how that would look ;)

the picture looks genuine to us, and if you want to see the backside of the card, you can see GeForce card with Quadro Vendor ID here...

http://images.vizworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/NVidia-SC09-Fermi.jpg
by: Kyocera on 11/20/2009
The photo was made by Raymond Yuen, using a wide angle lens.
@Sean by: Gipsel on 11/19/2009
"Are you sure about your laws there?"

These ar not my laws but the laws how our world (including your camera) works. And I am sure.

"As for your comment on the "energy saving lights" that is interesting. You are quite observant."

If you got bitten by such a lamp on one occasion, you remember that ;) And I only mentioned it as I've seen that some studio lights started to use them. But the quality can be signicantly lower (especially if they do not emit the light continously but flicker with line frequency or double that).

"I suppose that reducing the image down from a 10.8MB (10.1MP) RAW file to a 1.6MP JPG would have nothing to do at all with those artifacts you see now would it."
No, it would not. And after downscaling you uploaded it as a png file which features lossless compression, so no artifacts should be introduced by this process ;)

Do you have any explanation for the cooling fins shining through the fan blade here?
http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=fan_zte32.png
I would have one ;)

By the way, care to upload a photo of the fan (especially the sticker on it) when it is not spinning?

"For someone that can tell that there are different types of bulbs present in a photograph I am surprised you cannot see the fan blades. I can, if you look you can see the edges of the squirrel cage fan around the rim of the opening."

What are you trying to tell me here?
You sure? by: Sean Kalinich on 11/19/2009
Are you sure about your laws there?
I used four continuous light sources.

Nothing more.

As for your comment on the "energy saving lights" that is interesting. You are quite observant. I suppose that reducing the image down from a 10.8MB (10.1MP) RAW file to a 1.6MP JPG would have nothing to do at all with those artifacts you see now would it.

But it was a nice effort.

For someone that can tell that there are different types of bulbs present in a photograph I am surprised you cannot see the fan blades. I can, if you look you can see the edges of the squirrel cage fan around the rim of the opening.








Sure! by: Gipsel on 11/19/2009
@Sean:
"You seem to doubt even when something is put in front of you.

Sorry but that was shot with normal photo lights. Like the kind used in a studio or light box (daylight quality). Your comment was that you would not stop motion at that shutter speed yet as you can see it was done.

I could produce the same effect with a flash and a diffuse filter but why bother, it was easier to do it with directed lighting."

Okay, than it must be for another reason why one can see through the fan blades:
http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=fan_zte32.png
Or that the main light source for the shot is just a few centimeters above the lens (maybe slightly shifted right). You definitely didn't use a continuous light source for the shot.

What one sees "through" the black fan blade (blown up a bit in the linked picture) is the shot taken with the full exposure time but just the background light.

By the way, some really crappy energy saving lamps are also flashing with double the line frequency. Something a studio light shouldn't be doing at all (can give quite some artifacts).

Ah, and a diffuse filter in front of the flash won't do much for the illumination time, it just scatters the light so you don't have such a directed illumination, but the result (that it defines the effective exposure time when it is the main light source) will be the same.

So the fact remains, with a continous exposure (not using flash) of let's say 1/125 s one has significant motion blur for fast spinning objects (more than a few revolutions per second). There is simply no other way it can be. Just from simple logic and laws of nature.

But that is VERY off topic here. By the way, did you read the last two lines of my last comment?
funny by: Sean Kalinich on 11/19/2009
You seem to doubt even when something is put in front of you.

Sorry but that was shot with normal photo lights. Like the kind used in a studio or light box (daylight quality). Your comment was that you would not stop motion at that shutter speed yet as you can see it was done.

I could produce the same effect with a flash and a diffuse filter but why bother, it was easier to do it with directed lighting.
Fan is spinning by: Gipsel on 11/19/2009
"On or Off?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29512214@N04/4117954941/"

Fan is spinning. I see motion blur even as it appears you have used flash light (which is likely not the case on the photo in the article, looks more like a desk light was directed at the setup almost from top to improve the lighting situation or the ceiling light was quite bright). If you look carefully, you can even see the fins of the cooler through the blades of the fans as the actual exposure was significantly longer than the flash ;) And do you see how well the blades are illuminated with the well defined flash light compared to the article picture?

I could try to deduce the fan speed from the blur. But I would need to know what flash you used, as the duration depends quite a bit on the model. Frankly, I don't know right now where to look it up, I would have to measure it in my lab ;)

Btw., where did you get the 32 FPS for the benchmark from? If it is more or less a still image (i.e. bad performance, the part with the dragon can get quite slow ;), your whole argumentation falls to pieces. And I really doubt it was done using a good camera. Do you see any area the image appears to be focussed and sharp? My 4 years old small Exilim does way better pictures even indoor.

But to save the day, one can't really see the fan in the photo of the article. So it is either too badly focussed or blurred by the motion ;)
Is this.... by: Sean Kalinich on 11/19/2009
On or Off?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29512214@N04/4117954941/
The actual picture proves my point by: Sean Kalinich on 11/19/2009
I do not know why I did not think of this before. The image actually proves my point all on its own.

Ok, here is the logic;

The image on the screen is frozen complete stop motion. this image is running at roughly 32 FPS @ 60Hz. that means that the cycle on that is over 60 pulses per second and the frame is changing 32 times inside that. the possible number of changes (color and image changes visible on the monitor) is upwards of 1920 possible changes per second.

Now the camera that took that was able to stop those without any aberrations in the image due to not being able to capture the changing of the pixels on the monitor.

This means without a doubt it was not a cellphone camera but was a higher end camera capable of stopping that motion on the LCD properly. Any camera capable of that is more than capable of stopping the fan in motion.

However I will still post links to show my point about shutter speed and fan rotation.
@Gipsel by: Sean Kalinich on 11/19/2009
Yes I know how the flash works on a camera.
However you do not need to double the shutter speed to stop an object in motion.

The image that NV posted is much cleaner and has none of the typical "noise" from the small CCD or CMOS sensors used in cell phones.

The image posted by NV looks nothing like the cellphone image I posted. Now the image they have up of playing L4D2 on the new 3D Vision laptop from Asus does.

Also the biggest issue with motion photography is speed of focus. however, with that static object it would not be an issue as the focal point could remain constant. Aperture matters in the larger the f number the smaller the aperture and the lower the shutter speed needed to let in the same amount of light. If you shoot at f1.8 or 2.8 you can have a higher shutter speed to do the same thing. All you are doing is getting light onto your Film, CCD or CMOS sensor. The faster you can do that the better but light is not everything, even with a light box and 600 watts of light I use low shutter speeds to have the smaller aperture and better focal coverage.

I will shoot images tonight and post the flickr links to show my point.

photographs taken with flash by: Gipsel on 11/19/2009
@Sean:
Read what I wrote about using a flash. The exposure time you set will be almost irrelevant in that case (flash has a duration of <100µs = 1/10,000 s), at least for close objects if it is the main source of light for the picture. But the photo of the article was done without flash (I wrote that already :rolleyes:).

And I guess you need to explain how the f number and sensitivity has a direct influence on motion blur. That is entirely governed by the exposure time (and construction of the mechanical shutter if there is one). Maybe you should talk with Theo about it as he said he has some experience.

Btw., the cell phone picture you posted clearly supports my point ;)
Cell Phone by: Sean Kalinich on 11/19/2009
Here is a cell phone image.
I doubt it would be look as sharp as it does if they used a Cellphone ;)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29512214@N04/4117882652/

Note that in indoor lighting it only gets 1/10 and f2.8 with an ISO 1016 [one I have never heard of].

On the other side I imagine that real performance numbers will hit around mid December.
@photo of a spinning object by: Sean Kalinich on 11/19/2009
That is not entirely true, I can stop motion at 1/60 @ f4.5 with a flash powered back by 1/3f. this is with an ISO film of 1600 pushed to 3200.

Photography depends on too many factors for your logic to play out. Exposure is not simply about the motion [but for the most part my math is correct] but is about a lot of factors.

My calculations were with an aperture of f13, ISO 400. at 1/120 you are getting quite a bit of light on the CMOS sensor and the image can be stopped quite easily. for example in the photo that I linked it was shot at 1/640 [ISO 800] f9.0 at 300mm. everything was nicely frozen. There are also images shot at 1/60 f5.6 ISO 1600 during the night truck race. Again motion is frozen.

But you are right in respects to the fact that we do need hard performance numbers.

by: Kyocera on 11/19/2009
I was speaking about my home PC; and the current SSD solutions are a horror story in home usage, not great.

What enterprise goes it's certainly already from the form-factor point of view preferred to take 2,5 inchers. Toshiba-Fujitsu even plan to drop the bigger HHDs; and they are the second by shipment (first is WD).
photo of a spinning object by: Gipsel on 11/19/2009
@Sean:
Some simple logic:
If you have something spinning 120 times a second around its axis and you take a photo with 1/120 s exposure time, the object will be smeared out over a full revolution as the exposure time equals the time for a full revolution. You need significantly less exposure to see something unblurred, even a 5° rotation during exposure can be seen. That means something with 120rps appear sharp only with exposure times 1/10,000 seconds (not possible with most consumer SLRs but attainable as effective exposure when using a flash).

And believe me, I've already taken shots of turbines running at 60,000 rpm (1,000 revolutions per second) with 5 microsecond illumination (1/200,000 s) and one can still see a bit of blur ;)

But that should not be the topic as the photo was done with a cellphone and likely 1/30 s exposure time or even longer ;).

Again, we need performance figures!
@ Exposure timesq by: Sean Kalinich on 11/19/2009
I am not sure where you get those numbers

Your exposure time does not need to double the speed, at 120RPS {revolutions per second] you only need 1/120 shutter speed on a decent DSLR [or SLR].

To give a perfect example... take a NASCAR car in a typical race. At 180MPH [that is 264 Feet Per Second] a shutter speed of as little as 1/250 can stop one in its tracks for the shot.

I know this as I have shot the Daytona 500 several years running.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29512214@N04/2757826658/

The shutter speed needs to equal or slightly exceed the forward motion of the object for full stop motion photography.
just to show something working by: Anonymous on 11/19/2009
IMO they just want to show us working sample and not the detail or performance of the card itself. also they run DX11 benchmark just to tell us that their hardware are capable of using DX11.
exposure time and such things by: Gipsel on 11/19/2009
@Theo:
As a professional photographer you may have a feeling for such things, but a little math can't hurt either.

The Dash8-Q400 engines you spoke of have a maximum rating of 1020 rpm (the larger the fan, the slower they spin). In normal level flight they run most likely not much faster than about 800-900 rpm. That equals about 13 to 15 revs per second and with 1/250 s exposure, you should see a blurring of the propeller over an angle of about 14/250*360° = ~20°. So it should be significant and discernable.
As a professional photographer, you should also know that there may be some distortions depending on how the mechanical shutter of the specific camera works ;)

For the specific picture it should be safe to assume the fan is spinning faster (at least 1500 rpm, more likely 2500 rpm) and it was definately taken without a flash (the light shining through the fan would be much darker as there should be a shadow behind the card, but with flash it would be sharp either way as the flash has a sub millisecond duration).

To sum it up, that means one would need an exposure of 1/500 second more likely 1/1000 second to get such a picture. Even with a good camera that gets hard with a typical indoor illumination. Furthermore the picture looks like taken with a cellphone, which use quite long exposure times.

But I'm not saying the picture is fake, only that without some performance figures it is meaningless either way ;)
nvidia by: Anonymous on 11/19/2009
Currently I'm running a gtx 280 in my rig,(still, my first high-end card was a Creative TNT 2 Ultra with 32 megs :) ... but as far as the things are looking at the moment, I think a change of nividia's logo is in order, like that:

THE WAY IT'S MEANT TO BE D-LAYED

Joking aside, I will wait for Fermi before upgrading. And they better deliver.
@Kyocera & Theo by: Sean Kalinich on 11/19/2009
The big issue with SSDs is the lack of any accepted standards.

Every company does their own thing and it makes it hard to find the right combination.

The issue with the way Flash memory degrades over time is also a problem, under "consumer" usage the current solutions are great. As there is considerable idle time. In an enterprise application where you need high-availability SSDs are not there yet.

They do not have the down time to run their internal defragmentation routines and as such their performance drops dramatically over time and use.

Smaller 2.5 and 1.8-inch SAS drives are actually better in the long term for sustained performance in an enterprise application. Just as SCSI was better than IDE for many years.

Until all companies can agree on a set standard and overcome the inherent issues with flash memory I do not see SSDs working in an enterprise environment.
by: Kyocera on 11/18/2009
The SuperMicro 2U looks as a nicely balanced solution.
The RAM prices are going, against predictions, down again, however they are still an extremely expensive solution in this market conditions.

The SSD story is an incredible marketing chapter. However very few solutions are really worth buying.
Most are selling high speeds, that plunge on HDD level just after few months of use; than it is necessary to perform secure erase. OCZ had a whole novel of super solutions with their Indilinx, that were to no avail, now they are moving towards SandForce.
I took for my PC Intel G2 Postville and I must say that it holds the promised in a realistic way (as opposed to hyped specifications from the competition); two of them in RAID 0 are a bomb and even affordable since MLC.
For the rest of the SSD company right now on the market, I would prefer to take a WD Caviar Black 2TB; till 400GB under "occupation" it surpasses most SSDs with only 3 months of PC home usage behind them.

What you need right now is a business model; you're generating no revenue. Enthusiasm is one thing, spending free time might be a hobby, making holes in the budget completely another. Some graphic re-design to include selected adds would do wonders.
@Kyocera by: Theo Valich on 11/18/2009
Things finished in quite a positive manner... for us. Small claims court saw the bright side ;)

We're now hosted probably at world's best host, they're really taking good care of us and giving us advices what steps to do as we're progressing onward. We are looking at dual SuperMicro 2U rack for the forum launch.

Also, our SSD is getting tired after seven months - the technology still isn't there, so we are going to further optimize the site.... and just load as much into RAM as possible.

Ed.
Go for quality by: Anonymous on 11/18/2009
I'm saying this as an ATI fan....

GO NVIDIA!
I want nVidia to do awesome! Who wins with two companies cranking out amazing chips constantly? Gamers, of course! I like both companies it just so happens I've had mostly ATI but I'm not bitter for the years of nVidia doing so well. I want nVidia to bring their best to market and if that takes another revision, so be it.
by: Kyocera on 11/18/2009
Well, Monsieur Valic,
the guys here are serious folks; you might get indicted with terrorism...for such airplane sabotage (or spreading the panic (and we know that we have enough of the last comodity, that is panic from Nvidia tech-lead, right now)).


You better tell us, how did the things finish in court with that site-host you had in the spring.
RE: Fan not spinning - Are You Serious? by: Theo Valich on 11/18/2009
Being a professional photographer, I just couldn't pass this up.

Are some people really getting desperate? Would you like me to update the story showing the blades not spinning on a Dash-8 Q400 plane whist being at 28,000 feet? Really, no problem - picture taken using my Canon Digital Rebel XTi with 1/250 delay.

My friend "Delta Hotel Lima" has a picture of a B747-400 with zero engines spinning [Engine 3 and 4, starboard]... at flight level 40000.

Seriously, please keep the discussion serious. This was quite a ridiculous comment.

Ed.
Fan not running? by: Greg442 on 11/18/2009
lol, theres no way to tell that from this picture, thats just crazy.
by: Kyocera on 11/18/2009
I have an indistinct feeling that even if somebody would be allowed to stuck his fingers in the running fan, some people would claim that he was only bitten by mosquitos. :)) :)) :))
Another fake picture. Wow Nvidia ! by: Anonymous on 11/18/2009
The fan is not running.... wtf ? Another fake picture? good job Nvidia !
@Fan not running by: Sean Kalinich on 11/18/2009
Depends on lighting, If your shutter speed is fast enough to capture an image on a display without a scan line (over 1/60th of a second)then you are probably fast enough to catch the fan in motion (say 100-200th of a second). Not a big deal really even for a high RPM fan, say a 7200RPM fan (120 revolutions per second) you would only have to have a shutter speed of 120 (any aperture would do but call that one f13 or so due to general focus) and you have full stop motion.

Also you can tell it is DX11 by the spikes on the dragon
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/11/17/amds-radeon-hd5970-hemlock---is-wickedly-fast.aspx?pageid=3

Take a look at the DX10 and 11 comparison shots on that page.
Fan not running? by: Anonymous on 11/18/2009
Take a close look at the nVidia photo. Does it look like the fan is running on the Fermi card? I expect a lot of heat for a 200W card while running a demo, and expect the fan to be running.
hahaha by: Anonymous on 11/18/2009
wow. "we've taken a picture that tells you nothing, but believe us guys!"

Since that benchmark can be run DX10 and so forth, and they don't have any of the measurements/info on screen, I'll try not to hold my breath too hard at a DX11 nvidia card.
Launch 2010 by: Greg442 on 11/18/2009
Geforce Q1 2010, from Nvidia see Editors
Note:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1258360868914.html
ASIC Debugging by: Anonymous on 11/18/2009
nVidia tapped out A2 silicon with know bugs and timing issues. The best that they can hope for is A3 will be good enough to go to production with.

Assuming the photo is not another fake and is running A2 silicon, there are still a lot of debugging to do and at least another silicon spin. ASIC debugging is like peeling layers of an onion. You won't find the next layer(s) of bugs until you have fixed the bugs that you can see on the outermost layer first. After that you get to have more fun with physical design to meet the timing requirements. Then you repeat the process... That's why no one including nVidia knows when the actual Fermi launch date will be.
Professional Products by: Sean Kalinich on 11/18/2009
NV usually launches pro products either at or just before Siggraph. There is nothing out of the ordinary about them waiting to launch until then.

by: Anonymous on 11/18/2009
"the GPU and memory can suck up to 300W, giving a very healthy overclocking headroom" Pity i think it's the other way round. To achieve even this, they tell you to buy a better PSU, cause with any normal juice supply you aint gonna cut it. Making a big chip like this one has its problems, and now we're slowly drifting towards lower power consumption, that might well be a serious issue.

"At the end of the day, it is important what this DirectX 11-class GPUs are doing and are they working properly or not." This one won't work until Q2 2010 (at least not in any way i can buy one. A launch in late Q1 means general availability will be some weeks later). /Notsobrightsideofthenews
RE: GeForce launch by: Theo Valich on 11/18/2009
We know when nVidia is going to show the card to the press.

The date is not in 2010. Given the "volume launch" of HD5970 and what happened to many partners [we will probably have a separate story on this - went to bed at 8:24AM after talkign with AIB/SI/OEM], there should be no issue for nVidia to launch the card in 2009 with 1000 units and still claim a hard launch.

Ed.
by: Kyocera on 11/18/2009
A month up or down on such rich technological content is of no consequence.
The most important thing is that the job is done right; therefore I fully support their decision to make a third revision to their chip.
I'm holding back with my new GPU purchase till their new card.

What worries me, is their plan to postpone the professional line considering the money they earn per single chip there (money rain).
I have a very profound suspicion, that they plan to push worse (inferior and semi-defective) chips to consumers and make a nice pile-reserve of fully functional chips for their Professional line till May.
(ATI did something similar albeit less pronounced with the 5890; one of the shortage reasons of the 5870).
lol by: Anonymous on 11/18/2009
This is only a press response. Fermi will likely be late q1/q2 at the earliest.

NV might have a paper launch in Late Dec but
no real quantity for a long time. Their yields at TSMC are abysimal and NV are scrambling to find out why they missed their clock targets.
by: Anonymous on 11/18/2009
Running the benchmark but not showing the results? what's the matter? too embarrassed?
Launch by: Sean Kalinich on 11/18/2009
Originally it was slated for late November (around Black Friday) but now I am hearing early December.. At this point we do not really know a firm date but still hear the launch of the GF product will be in 2009.
Tesselation by: Anonymous on 11/18/2009
The tessellation is present on that screen. The Dragon's spikes indicate that.

Still I could reproduce this same screenshot with a ATi card hidden out of the photo.

Really pointless!

How long before they actually launch the product?
Tesselation by: Anonymous on 11/18/2009
I can't see any hardware tesselation going on in that screenshot - or it that my eyes?
by: Anonymous on 11/17/2009
They hid the fps counter just like they hid the wood screws.
© 2009 - 2010 Bright Side Of News*, All rights reserved.
Top Stories
Most commented
Highlight
  • GlobalFoundries produces zero defect wafers
  • EVGA Launches New SR-2 Motherboard and a dedicated Power Supply
  • ATI Radeon HD 5970 is the king of iPhone, Wi-Fi password cracking
  • Award your favorite video game with your vote
  • Award your favorite video game with your vote
Recent news
March 20, 2010, 20:00 UTC

Dear Readers,

In order to enable new features for the site, we'll be temporarily offline on Saturday, March 20th 2010 at noon Pacific, 3PM Eastern or 8PM/20:00 GMT/UTC. We should be offline for 15-25min, after which you should be able to see new features.

Thank You for understanding,

The BSN* Team
© 2009 - 2010 Bright Side Of News*, All rights reserved.