AMD: R7xx Speculation
- Thread starter Unknown Soldier
- Start date
- Status
randomhack
Newcomer
I think you are misunderstanding their statement. They meant "Nvidia's suprise entry 9800GTX+" and not that Nvidia was surprised.
randomhack
Newcomer
fudzilla is reporting that sapphire and powercolor also release 4870.
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8058&Itemid=1
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8058&Itemid=1
I spoke to an nVidia representative about this matter and I was told that a faster G92 product was on the roadmap for months. I think they just planned to release it a few weeks later, since it won't be available till the mid of July, but then decided to spoil the Radeon launch.
Wouldn't that violate FMs rules also?
I haven't tried graphics and physics yet, but for one even the graphics in Vantage's CPU-test have to be rendered somehow, so that shows that it's at least possible without dedicating a whole GPU to physics and second, I am running Folding@Home on my GPU an forgot to turn it off once when i was playing a game. It was slower than normal, but still perfectly playable.
AFAIK context switches are not free between graphics and CUDA mode, but apart from that, CUDA apps are just another bunch of threads to be executed.
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
Looking at that, the 3DMark06 score is disappointing. Only 13037. I was expecting at least 14000+
Tell me, anyone else think it looks about 9.5" long? My box can't do 11" but can fit a 9.5" card, so hence i'm always looking for a 9.5" card.
That said, i'm hitting Europe tonight .. so will be on the look out for bargains when I get there.
US
Looks like 06 actually liked Texture Assigners more than pure ALU units (yes it could be bottlenecked, but looks like the TAs could have stayed at the same ratio)
Vantage however without a doubt, shows off the ALU power pretty much straightforward.
Is it me, or have post-R600 cards been chiming pretty close to the then-3DMark standard score design targets? D:
Vantage however without a doubt, shows off the ALU power pretty much straightforward.
Is it me, or have post-R600 cards been chiming pretty close to the then-3DMark standard score design targets? D:
Maybe because it's a direct x 10 only test?
At the chip level, at least for CUDA, I was under the impression that the number of kernels at a given instant was 1.
The current methodology is context switching between kernels.
The overhead of this looks like a future design's low-hanging fruit.
I was only thinking of juggling 2-4 such contexts.
The minimal granularity is per-SIMD, just by virtue of the fact that SIMDs run the exact same instruction over all their units, so nothing smaller can be done.
I'm not advocating that things be split down to one kernel per SIMD, just that the current setups are very coarse.
I was under the impression that the last time we checked that the threading hardware would only work from CUDA kernel at a time.
Running multiple kernels at the chip level was not simultaneous, rather there was a context switch and startup of the separate kernel.
Kernel types or thread types? The usage prior to this indicated that multiple thread types could be applied to a kernel.
I don't think the idea is that these cards consume less power. They just have increased performance without a similar increase in power requirements. Hence all the emphasis on performance/watt.
ChronoReverse
Newcomer
Did some more testing. Looks like the 4850 is still angle dependent in AF =/
- Status
Similar threads
