So is anyone planning on purchasing one of those ASUS XGs?

I am as my notebook could use alot more graphical horsepower. Only thing that could disway me is the price of the package. If it's under $400, I'll most definetly get my hands on one on day one and of course more money will have to be spent on a monitor. I don't about you other guys, but the Asus XG just might be a God send

For those of you who don't know about this wonderful new device:
http://http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/08/hands-on-with-the-asus-xg-station-external-gpu/


Now of course, this solution to the gaming capabilities dilemna of laptops isn't the best one, but it's certainly a developement of great note considering very few notebook manufacturers have picked up on MXM or AXIOM GPU module technology. The XG connects to a notebook via the Express Card slot, which definetly isn't as fast as a PCI-E x16 bus, but considering I've seen articles that stated the XG with it's EN7900GS was delivering 9 times the graphics performance of Intel's GMA945, that's something for people to be excited about. Price is the only real mystery for me as of currently. Only other thing to really be concerned about is that this solution REQUIRES an external monitor to output to, which isn't so bad.

To all the naysayers that say this defeats the point of a laptop: this is an at home solution, not for on the go. When taking your laptop places for business, work, school, or whatever, you can just take your laptop. But when you get home, just plug into the XG and you have a decent gaming machine. Hopefully the XG will be as easy to upgrade as a normal desktop card, even if it requires an Asus-made card (proprietary or not). Either way I'm very excited and looking forward to getting my hands on it.

 

Its gonna be $600 for the 7900GS version.

So no.

 

Yes if it will ship with a 8800GTX lol.

 

to expensive for me otherwise i would totally get it

 

they should offer just the module so you can choose your own card.

 

Link?

Considering some people would have to buy a monitor to go along with it, I doubt they could get away with that kind of price.

 

From speculation it'll be $600-$700 for the XG with the 7900GS, and a few hundred, about $400-$500 without. A tad expensive, but it's the only thing out in the market without a competition, they can mark it up all they want(And not it's quite new, exciting and revolutionary technology, marked up for all the R&D perhaps? ).

 

You know that other parts manufacturers are looking at this right now and drawing up plans to create similar devices. IDK maybe even expansion bays with GFX cards, as I heard one or two expansion bays over the years did have a GPU built into it.

 

If they ever do an empty one that you can put your own card in I might. That and I get a laptop with expresscard!

 

I definitely like the door that this device has opened. And hearing that others are also looking into similar devices is indeed encouraging for notebook gamers.

I am particularly interested in the possibility of seeing some external PCI-E connections via the cable specifications that Chaz mentioned in his latest News Bits.

Although whether or not I would buy one depends on what system I have at the time I guess. If it's a gaming system--probably not. I'd likely just get a new card (along with all other technologies) when I get a new system every 2 years or so. But if I went Ultraportable, I would love to have something like this incorporated into its docking station.

 

i will get it as soon as the price goes down
and when i find out if i can put an 8800 gts inside

 

I would probably get it if there was one where it was just the thing, and you put your own video card in.

 

Like Chris said...as soon as an ultraportable (or Tablet PC) becomes available with this technology (the external PCI and not just the XG station) I'll probably be all over it. It would be a dream come true.

 

I might consider buying one, because it allows you to have a better graphics card connected to your notebook then you can normally have, but it's very expensive, and i'm just wondering, how fast is the connection with your expresscard slot?? When you put in a graphics card like a 8800GTS/GTX, is the connection quick enough to handle that power or will it just be one big bottleneck?

 

The connection is PCIe x1, with a transfer rate of 2.5 Gbit/s. This is the primary reason many people didn't think an external video card would be feasible. As I've not seen the XG in action myself, I don't know how or how well it overcomes this obstacle. Be interesting to see how well DX10 cards work in this format.

P.S. MGW I actually used that pic in your avatar as my profile picture once, until I realized that either 1) it's saying you're an idiot for using Intel (which is "inside" your computer) or 2) it's saying that people using Intel are on the inside and everyone else are idiots---course your 80 yr old grandmother probably doesn't know what computers are and you're calling her an idiot. So I realized it wasn't a very nice avatar to have regardless

 

Guess it probably will be case 356972101 of Wait and see... Hope some reviews come out soon..

P.S. LOL It could also be the fact that an Intel CPU is so good that everybody else just is an idiot... But i think i'll go with point 2 that you mentioned since a haven't got a grandmother anymore... If you wanna know.. was looking for a new avatar a while back but just couldn't find a good one...(except for 1 animated .gif that i can't use)

BACK ON TOPIC NOW

 

Read here: http://techgage.com/article/asus_at_ces (when googling on the XG station) that 8800GTX card could not be used due to it's size and heat production... And isn't the GTS about the same size as the GTX?

 

Well the GTS I think is 9 inches, as opposed to 11 inches on the GTX. The GTX needs two power connectors as well. Yeah, it freaking eats electricity.

On note of the connection speeds with the Express Card, despite being no where near PCI-E x16 speeds, it's still better than nothing, as the bottleneck is still not so much a problem if done right. Asus was showing off two exactly same laptops at CES: one connected to the XG with it's 7900GS outputing to an external monitor and the other used only it's Intel Media Accelerator 950 GPU. From what I heard, the XG 7900GS was still out rendering the 950 by nine times. The data bottleneck isn't so much a concern when I think about that. Maybe for the future it concerns me, but by 2008 or 2009, I'll be expecting laptops to be equiped with PCI-E x16 cable ports for external graphics modules or perhaps MXM/AXIOM modules will finally gain stride.

Either way I'm giddy like a school girl

 

Its a neat idea, though I think if it does take off and the tech evolves to standard speeds, it will be much more useful in the desktop arena than laptops, having an independant power supply for the vid card would be a wonderful thing, not to mention the free space and lower heat output in the PC case.

 

the only thing i don't like about you have to use a external monitor

i really wish they let you use it on laptop monitor..

 

Same thing here. The fact that you have to buy an external monitor to be able to use it, kills me. It had me excited for a second. I'll buy one the day they make it portable.

 

If the benchmarks are nice, i'll get one ASAP

 

well i think i read somewhere that ati x1400 is 7 times more powerful than a 950. if the computer demostrated has the intel 950 and the other pc is 9 times more powerful due to the asus xg (sry if im wrong about the x1400 and the xg). im wondering if it would be worth it to upgrade if you have an average graphics card. i guess when it comes out we will all know the real benchmarks.

 

For that price I will get a console instead.

 

I'd suggest you wait for the benchmarks before getting a console. Who knows? The results might change your mind.

 

7 times? No way. A 7900GS (not taking bus connection to account) is around 4.5 tims as powerfull in terms of texture fillrate as compared to the X1400. Basically ~9000 MTexels/sec @ 450 MHz (7900 GS) versus ~1800 MTexels/sec @ 450 MHz (X1400). That doesn't take into account memory speed and timings either, just pure theoretical GPU texture fillrate. Intel Media Accelerator 945 isn't even equal to ATi Radeon Xpress 200M.