Recent content by bgassassin

Gipsel's post finally made it click. And yeah the only thing I could think of was to increase the pixel fillrate.

Thanks for the link FS. So keeping in line with what I was originally saying along with your explanation, would Latte be limited to 160 concurrent wavefronts? I don't know if it was intentional, but the first thing I picked up on was the old terminology. I remembered most of them being in...

Probably due to some recent explanations that amounted to 1 thread:1 shader. I have a limited understanding of threads and even that was from a long time back. So thanks for the clarification. :grin: So what would be your explanation as to why Nintendo is listing the numbers in this manner...

The multiples of four only work for when GS are enabled (look back to the post I linked to from GAF to see the totals for that), though your total max for VS and PS isn't that far off when GS are disabled. An example based on your guess would look like this: GS = 9, VS = 38, PS = 145. That...

It's just the way Nintendo is adding the threads. The max number of threads for the Pixel and Vertex shaders when Geometry Shader threads are disabled, plus the max GS threads equals 192. In other words Nintendo took the highest number for each one, added them, and got 192. It's a weird math...

Here is the piece that I have about that. GPRs per SIMD - 256 vec4s (4 x 32-bit components) Also for those interested here is another post I made elaborating a little more on the 192 threads. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=89811956&postcount=699

Sweetvar also mentions his friend's lack of interest/knowledge in gaming, so his perspective about the hardware is going to be different than most of us would see it. They probably are looking at the overall picture to make that assessment. We OTOH tend to hone in on the CPU/GPU/memory to make...

Yeah I found the original quote (I think) as I never really saw it myself and only remembered people talking about it. It seems that Sony's delay is open to interpretation as to why it happened.

I believe it was one of the things that came from Sweetvar that was deleted. I can't quite remember. I guess you could call it an old rumor, but I think that was based on my initial impressions on limited info so I'd call it an old opinion. What's your hang up with Wii U? You seem to find...

As it stands with what I know, that's pretty much it. It seems there maybe something akin to VMX128 with Durango's version. Still not quite sure. It could explain why Sony got "put to the side" by AMD for MS.

I think the issue here is that Xbox 3's CPU was never called Jaguar on VGLeaks. It sounds the same on the surface because both are 8-core CPUs clocked at 1.6Ghz. But they aren't as I understand it from a performance perspective. Am I one of the two? Nintendo *check* Microsoft *check*...

I was coming back in regards to this as I had some extra info. This does after all seem to be the case for Xbox 3's CPU. I'm not sure on the exact details, but from a FLOPs perspective it seems it may have as much as double the performance of "vanilla" Jaguar cores.

No gone down for me, but trying to rectify the "comparable" comments. The perspective of this view is based on the "hardware balanced at 14 CUs". This to me would indicate the hardware is designed around 14 CUs for rendering. I'm sure someone could put a more technical explanation around...

Yeah though there maybe more to modifications on the CPU side for Xbox 3 as pointed out by McHuj, because like Proelite mentioned everything detailed seems to only be about efficiency for Xbox 3, not some missing CUs that aren't being talked about. And my take based on everything so far, these...

Ahead I agree with, but I don't know about far ahead. Though I'm also trying to take it from a multi-plat devs perspective. Without shifting around the usage of the 4CUs, 14 CUs vs 12 CUs is only a 128 ALU difference. And maybe a heavy amount of focus was given to that when comparing the two...