'8 rendering pipelines' + '4 Pixel Shaders' = Volari V8?

arjan de lumens said:
The interconnect between the V8 chips has a bandwidth of only 2.13 GB/s, which shouldn't add more than ~40-60 pins to the total,
Actually the linked pdf says 38 pins but I suppose once you factor in the additional Power and Ground pins (IIRC, a pair each for every few data pins) then I guess you'd get closer to 60. <shrug>
 
arjan de lumens said:
Noise and heat may be more valid concerns though, given how large the power supplies and heatsinks of the Volari Duo are.

Strangely, heat doesn't seem to be a problem at all.
Makes me wonder why they chose those extremely loud fans.
 
There are a few undisputable facts that I have become aware of in my lifetime:

- The Vikings will never win the Super Bowl
- Black licorice will never taste good
- SiS will never make a video card worth buying
 
Crusher said:
There are a few undisputable facts that I have become aware of in my lifetime:

- The Vikings will never win the Super Bowl
- Black licorice will never taste good
- SiS will never make a video card worth buying

Maybe, but we're not talking about SiS now...

I just got one myself and it lives up to my expectations so far (it's even better than I initially thought), but I have to admit Hyp-X is right about the noise.
 
parhelia said:
Maybe, but we're not talking about SiS now...

I just got one myself and it lives up to my expectations so far (it's even better than I initially thought), but I have to admit Hyp-X is right about the noise.

What kind of expectations did you have though ;) I guess we'll (maybe) find out tomorrow...although I've been hearing that won't happen.
 
rwolf said:
If it was any good every reviewer would have one.
I'm tending to agree with that, but I'd make it "If it was any good every good reviewer would have one.".

I'm almost afraid that we're going to see only the HAT sites (Hard, Anand, Tom's) get 'em along with a few other very "friendly" sites. :(
 
digitalwanderer said:
I'm almost afraid that we're going to see only the HAT sites (Hard, Anand, Tom's) get 'em along with a few other very "friendly" sites. :(

I would have been a lot happier if the Big 3 had at least gotten some reviews up today.
 
Q: The Club3D card features a lower processor speed than the sample version Toms Hardware Guide tested a month ago. Are there any problems in the mass-production process that make such a step necessary? If so, will the resolution of these problems make higher-clocked version probable?

Answer:
The Club3D graphics board you referred to incorporates high speed DDRII technology, which consumes more power than regular DDR memory. Without suffering performance loss, the engine clock of graphics processors was reduced by 20 MHZ to enhance the stability of graphics board. This way, users who are using Club3D Volari Duo board can enjoy both fast and stable performance while playing heavy 3D applications.


Q: Are you testing smaller production-processes or developing other techniques to tackle the heat production of the processor?

Answer:
According to XGI(tm) product roadmap, we will have small fabrication process for our upcoming products in year 2004.
Moreover, our power management utility is under development for current version of Volari(tm) products to optimize power consumption.


Q: The first review of your card speaks of high vertex shader and raw fillrate speeds (even higher than ATi Radeon 9800 Pro in some cases) but lacking pixel shader and FSAA speeds. This would seem to point in the direction of driver-issues. Do you believe that drivers are to blaim for the staying behind of the processor? If so, on what term will drivers be released which tackle the problem?

Answer:
Indeed, Volari(tm) Duo(tm) has higher raw fill rate than ATi Radeon 9800 Pro.
Regarding the issues with FSAA and Pixel Shader speeds, we have made an improvement with driver version 1.01.05, which will be released next week

Source :
http://www.volarigamers.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=59
 
Ailuros said:
16 TMUs is the only thing that's "certain" at this point.

And how does that 'certain fact' correlate with the GL_EXT_reme result of a whopping 1,0xx GTex/s?

Let me guess: Dynamic Underclocking to about 66MHz as soon as at least one of the TMUs gets anyhting to do harder than idling. =)
 
Back
Top