[[maven]]

Rev, I think you're getting a bit out of line...

Originally Posted by Reverend

I do however tend to speak what's on my mind without thinking I should be polite.

But then don't expect anyone else to stay polite when you're telling them (indirectly) to STFU.

What irks me about some of the postings by your fellow ATI'ers is that they feel the need to be defensive (the "I feel we design to a sweetspot" or "We believe we did the right engineering decision" or a sarcastic "Anyway, I’m glad you think R300 is a “Fine” part." when I paid one of your hardware with a compliment deemed not high enough).

I think you're mistaking simple, factual explanations for defensiveness.

Your fellow ATI'ers should address my (usually valid) complaints and not defend your company.

Disagree.

[Reverend]

But then don't expect anyone else to stay polite when you're telling them (indirectly) to STFU.

Hey, that's fine with me!

I think you're mistaking simple, factual explanations for defensiveness.

Oh, I think the ATI'ers provided good explanations for why they disagree with some of the things I wish for. For example, everyone knows my arguments for FP32. The ATI'ers have provided good explanations why this wasn't good for their current (and perhaps near-future) products for various valid reasons. But they spoil it (for me, and me only) with persistent "last comments" (that has nothing to do with the technical or business decisions) by defending their company. Now, they're allowed to do that here of course but I tend to dislike company-defending comments in a technical discussion. For example, I really enjoyed the debate I had with sireric in that DX9-vs-IEEE32-regarding-FP32 thread... until he threw in his marketing and defend-my-product/company comments (although I should blame myself for using the R300 as the basis for my comments). Again, they can continue to defend their company and/or products here but it's not something I care for. I treasure their knowledge (and would like to thank them for providing valuable insights into some of the things that happen at ATI), I just don't like marketing pieces. However, just as they're allowed to do so, I am allowed to voice my (very personal) dislike for such practice.

Disagree.

That's fine and okay (although I believe every single argument I've made for FP32 -- which is usually the topic of arguments between me and the ATI'ers -- are factually correct). That's what makes discussions lively.

And to address your first comment last :

Rev, I think you're getting a bit out of line...

I believe I am although I do not feel I need to treat IHVs participating here any differently nor with greater respect than Tom, Dick and Harry, and that's why I'll STFU myself about this as it's just my opinion. Later on, I'll PM the ATI'ers to clarify my position.

Now, lets' get back to being on-topic or this thread will be locked.

[Dio]

Originally Posted by andypski

My immediate concern would be - do you end up in one or more of these cases:

- The VPU system goes relatively slowly with random access anyway, so it wasn't worth the extra area for the cache, and a CPU ends up just as quick for the algorithm in question.
- The cache slows down the maximum throughput of the device when rendering simple pixels to consecutive memory locations, and thus impacts the basic performance of the device when it's working on its most standard function.
- The cache can't support the full speed transactions of the VPU per-clock and thus is bypassed in some way for simple rendering, effectively becoming a big chunk of wasted area in this case (ie. when rendering typical non random-access applications).

I didn't think it through in that kind of detail either

I'd have said ordering and coherence might be a bigger issue than the second of those. The first I already covered. The third is simply a cost/benefit issue, if there are scenarios where it helps significantly then the cost might be worthwhile even if it isn't worth it for 'rendering' cases.

[Dave Baumann]

For example, I really enjoyed the debate I had with sireric in that DX9-vs-IEEE32-regarding-FP32 thread... until he threw in his marketing and defend-my-product/company comments. Again, they can continue to defend their company and/or products here but it's not something I care for. I treasure their knowledge (and would like to thank them for providing valuable insights into some of the things that happen at ATI), I just don't like marketing pieces.

What marketing pieces?

[nelg]

Originally Posted by DaveBaumann

What marketing pieces?

You know how those ATI guys bedazzle us with technical mumbo jumbo and then slip in “ Act now and we will include free shipping. Quantities are limited, operators are standing by." Sleazy bastards.

[Reverend]

Originally Posted by DaveBaumann

What marketing pieces?

I agree they're not immediately obvious.