Hmmm when was that up? I didn't catch it....
They took it down shortly after it appeared, it was a couple hours ago.
Hmmm when was that up? I didn't catch it....
"Overall, the card is roughly fifteen percent faster than Radeon 4850, and it will sell for $329 in U.S. e-tail"
[*]All 800 SPs are fat. 1 FP32 MAD or 1 special or 1 FP<->INT or 1 integer op/clock each
There's still the 9800 GX2 and 9800 SLI for their loyal users to get a more competitive product near that price point.
Ahh that explains the int8 numbers... Test apps using the same coords for multiple textures shouldn't be showing this, though (are there any?)[*]FP16 filtering is half speed, and the samplers are limited by available interpolators (only 32 texcoords/clk) when processing INT8 at full speed
Not sure I follow this. Why would it be pad limited if it's larger than rv670? Shouldn't it have only a slightly larger pad count?[*]Chip was pad limited in the beginning***, so the last couple of SIMDs are value adds that weren't originally planned for. Explains the first point a little bit.
Really? Surprising to see AMD would get back to fixed function resolve (for basic modes) - with tons of shader alus what's the point?[*]ROPs are mostly 2x everywhere measured with MSAA and really help the chip go fast. ROP MSAA downfilter this time.
Hmm I find that hard to believe. The pics don't indicate that.[*]All 800 SPs are fat. 1 FP32 MAD or 1 special or 1 FP<->INT or 1 integer op/clock each
It is ~2MB for GT200?
- Over 5MiB of SRAM on-chip if you count every pool
All 800 SPs are fat. 1 FP32 MAD or 1 special or 1 FP<->INT or 1 integer op/clock each
Deeply impressive and really deserves to get ATI back on the map when it comes to performance 3D graphics.
Where the heck are the texcoords interpolated? Odd that it doesn't scale with SIMD count.FP16 filtering is half speed, and the samplers are limited by available interpolators (only 32 texcoords/clk) when processing INT8 at full speed
Why this wasn't always the case is beyond me...Huge focus on area efficiency and perf/watt
INT8 Z-only? What do you mean by that?Finding peak rates everywhere on the chip has been easy. I've seen 1Tflop FP32, full bilinear rates and peak INT8 Z-only (256 Zs/clock, yay!)
Ridiculous. We gotta see some GPUBench numbers.All 800 SPs are fat. 1 FP32 MAD or 1 special or 1 FP<->INT or 1 integer op/clock each
Is this partly due to 1 ROP quad per memory channel, like NVidia's products since G80?No ring bus MC, new controller nice and efficient due to new ROP design
That's some serious praise! I gotta agree with you, though, particularly when looking at ATI's recent track record. Before RV770, I honestly thought NVidia was just more talented.It's the single most impressive graphics processor (and pairing with a memory technology, nice one Joe!) I've ever seen, when looked at as a whole. I don't say that lightly either, there have been some winning chips over the years.
I think lots of apps do this, but I'm not sure about test apps.Ahh that explains the int8 numbers... Test apps using the same coords for multiple textures shouldn't be showing this, though (are there any?)
I guess it's the power/ground pins, and maybe some more for R700...Not sure I follow this. Why would it be pad limited if it's larger than rv670? Shouldn't it have only a slightly larger pad count?
Maybe the rate at which samples can be fed back to the shader is limited. Another reason could be that the shaders can do something else in the meantime.Really? Surprising to see AMD would get back to fixed function resolve (for basic modes) - with tons of shader alus what's the point?
Okay. So you still mean 256 Z/s per clock? Are you talking about reads/tests (i.e. z-rejection rate) or writes?INT8 blend, sorry about that. My specials rate is wrong, only the fatter unit can do that (corrected that too). Integer for them all though.
Let's pretend I didn't brainfart and x4 shall weOkay. So you still mean 256 Z/s per clock? Are you talking about reads/tests (i.e. z-rejection rate) or writes?
Does that mean 16xAA with almost no perf hit?
SureLet's pretend I didn't brainfart and x4 shall we
It's presumably all ATI, given the timescales for design, Nice question for us to ask Scott, though, or maybe Wavey knows and can spill the beans. 4am here and the sun is coming up, I'm out for a few hours.Was AMD (read: Fusion) at all responsible for some of the left-field area efficiency increases, or is it all "ATI"?