Recent content by rAvEN^Rd

So the loopbacks allow the pixel to be resent to the texture unit so that another texture may be applied? This would mean taking additional clock cycles and would stall the pipe (the other pixels in the pipe go on a coffee brake unless the have loops of their own to go throw at a previous...

Someone just argued in another forum that a Ti4200 with 128 MB would be better than 64 MB in the long run. He argued that no games today would use 128 MB of memory but that the would in the future. Some of you helped me understand the thing with memory last week and based on that the argument...

I agree with Russ that NVNews would be a better place to post this thread but they are currently offline so I thought I'd try this place out. I didn't take offence from Russ' post but then again if someone, for some reason, would know something about my problem I would be grateful for a reply...

I recently had a strange experience. I've been enjoying a G4Ti4400 from MSI for the past week. I wanted to try out the VIVO-features of the board and it turned out that the 9-pin adapter won't fit in the output. The output seems to be a regular S-VHS connector but it doesn't seem to work to...

How do I know when I have a problem with memory quantity? Suppose I can, somehow, calculate that 1280x1024x32 4 sample FSAA needs 60 MB (or whatever) to work. Does this mean that 64 MB of memory on the board will suffice (since I have more memory than that) or is it like a Windows installation...

I though this would be an easy question to answer. Now look what I stirred up! ;) Are images rendered in the back buffer (and thus need Z-buffer and stencil buffer) and are then stored in the frame buffer(s). And then multiple framebuffers are used to keep the screen from flashing at high...

Help me do the math guys! I snatched this in another thread. "Well even 1024x768x32 w/4X takes up 40.5MB for the framebuffer." How is this calculated?

Gunhead: I'm well aware that two samples from the same manufacturer will not be identical. That's part of my problem btw since that makes predictions so much harder. Please elaborate on this one. I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

I have had the opportunity to tamper with a couple of GF4 cards for the last couple of weeks. This has raised a couple of questions regarding overclocking of memory. When I overclocked memory on these cards I though that hitting the theoretical max frequency would be a good goal to shoot for...

So I don't get a million bucks and the Nobel price for my amazing discovery? I have already started making T-shirts and posters with my face on it...

The computer wasn't rebooted just before the first test. We must also remember that there is a matter of insecurity with these tests. It may be coincidense that the second set is somewhat slower than the first.

Yes, it was MSI GeForce4 Ti4400 with Detonator 29.42 I believe I have just seen similar results with POV Ti4200SE (3,3 ns) on the same platform with the same drivers. I don't have time to run another 20 benchmarks so I can't tell for sure.

Yeah. But is this my problem or our problem? Does everyone experience this or is it just me and my platform?

I wanted to calculate the standard deviation of some runs with 3DMark 2001 (build 330) to gain some knowledge about the insecurity of my benchmarks. After a few runs I noticed a disturbing pattern. It seems like performance degrades with every consecutive run. I have run 10 consecutive...

That would be 4.5 right? What about VIVO. They can choose not to add this function at all can't they? They can naturally choose to include adapters and cables too.