Recent content by Neeyik

PMMs? The first one is clearly not - apply any load to the moving part and it'll become painfully obvious; the man hasn't actually 'discovered' anything new (other than his need to see a psychologist). The second video doesn't tell us anything of the machine itself so one can't say anything...

But if that was the case, why would that automatically make it a better theory? And yes, I do know about Occam's razor, the scientific method and so on - I make the point because there's always the possibility that the clumsiest, most-factor-laden theory ultimate is the right one, even if it...

Strictly speaking that should be "go for the most complete working theory that has the fewest hypothetical entities" - is it known for certain that following the MWI will eventually produce a more accurate model of nature than, say, CI would?

This rings remarkably similar to how the inner workings of the Larabee were explained to me via somebody who has regular meetings with Intel, but isn't an architectural engineer. I won't repeated the exact words said to me but I think my responses was along the lines of "you must be f&%*ing...

Vista Ultimate x64 with WHQL 175.19 drivers. It would be interesting to see how a GPU with single cycle blending per ROP compares to the G80, given that the 3DMark06 ST is really an alpha blending test first, then a fill rate/bandwidth one. I'd also like to see the same done with Vantage's ST...

The bandwidth "requirement" for the 06 ST fill rate test is pretty clear cut, if you test it out: G80 @ 1280 x 1024 Core/RAM ST Theor %Diff 576 / 1000 6905 6912 -0.1% 576 / 950 6905 6912 -0.1% 576 / 900 6905 6912 -0.1% 576 / 850 6903 6912 -0.1% 576 / 800 6898 6912 -0.2% 576 / 750 6883...

There shouldn't be a reason as why higher resolution textures stress the TF units more, as the filtering instructions will still be same, as will the number of texels fetched and blended, regardless as to what size textures are being sampled. It's texture cache hits/misses that're probably...

I'll give doing the 06 tests again a miss (mostly because I'm rather tired of looking at those tests now!) - I should have realised what was going on at 640 x 480 though: I'd mistakenly assumed that, because dropping the core clock resulted in such a notable change in frame rate, the test was...

On the pure fill rate figures alone, something like a GeForce 6200 TurboCache.

Ah, I see what you're getting at now (it would have been much clearer if you had specifically referred to the resolution I was using) but look at the third batch of 3DMark06 results I posted - halving the core speed still results in a 33% drop in frame rate (due to the polygon loads). I've no...

It's not for most GPU configurations - the CPU plays a role in the overall score but it's not as significant as the graphics card: 2.67GHz Q6600 + stock G80 - 12309 3GHz Q6600 + stock G80 - 12616 2.67GHz Q6600 + 9.9% more core + shader speed G80 - 12707 Note that a 12% increase in CPU...

Well, at least that's better than the P650 I used to have: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8696029 Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 287.89 MTexels/s Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 800.34 MTexels/s High Polygon Count (1 light) 13.3 MTriangels/s High Polygon Count...

Relatively speaking, yes - I don't think anybody is claiming that bandwidth is never important nor that it's the sole factor in the overall performance of a graphics card but as the resolution increases relative performance hits decrease with respect to bandwidth. I've run a couple more...

I'll join in the fun in this great thead too. Yes, I know 3DMark isn't a game but I can't be bothered with FRAPS these days! Q6600 @ 3GHz (9 x 333) 4GiB DDR2-666 GeForce 8800 GTX 175.16 ForceWare Vista 64 Core / Shader / Memory 3DMark06 - Graphics Test 1: Return to Proxycon 1680 x...

That's what Tech Report are saying is from NVIDIA.