Doesn't sound like anything that would blow me out of my socks to be honest....so why the fuzz again about those?
Because it's an option AMD was lacking versus nV, especially in the workstation market.
AMD: R8xx Speculation
- Thread starter Shtal
- Start date
Because it's an option AMD was lacking versus nV, especially in the workstation market.
Who knows,unless AMD ?
Maybe the block is Display Controllers,not controller
.
Well kudos for AMD for following up then.
Well, using adapters shouldn't be too much of an hassle, while DP isn't required to support DVI/HDMI, as far as I know every single case with DP on card, the same output supports DVI/HDMI via adapter, too.
Would be iFinity better? At least it would be coherent to iSound controller
Hmm, yeah, maybe I should just go all in with 2560? I've got nothing to lose
Jawed
How about:
640 double pumped ALUs + 64 TMUs for Juniper?
Using your Ecxel sheet, it worked quite well under der following assumptions:
- area per ALU: 1,25 bigger than for the RV740 (due to the higher speed of the ALUs)
- still only 8 cluster despite the 64 TMUs
- reducing the size for the "control, setup, interpolation, tessellation etc" from 2 times RV740 to 1,5 times RV740. Eric Demers only said "twice the complexity" not "twice the size".
I don't think this can be true, but at least using your tool I would work.
I dunno in contrast it looks to me like 3 outputs would be more useful on low-end cards. Simply because high-end cards are mostly used for gaming where there still isn't that much need for multi-head, but low-end cards are more appropriate for office use where this should come in more handy. And don't forget the existing multi-mon cards where both nvidia and amd simply stick two low-end chips on the same card to be able to offer more outputs, it is not an option to put high-end chips on those.
Jawed
Legend
I'm dubious about such high clocking. Also the TUs and ALUs would prolly work at the same clock speed, as they both access the registers.
The best thing it does is show how things like 2560 ALUs aren't really practicalI don't think this can be true, but at least using your tool I would work.
Jawed
Broken Hope
Regular
Don't Nvidia cards already do that? If so it wouldn't really be a new reference in texture quality
You couldn't come up with any more boring idea could you? I rarely (if at all) notice angle dependency on 45 degrees. Give me something like better filter kernels for instance and I'll drool forever....
Don't Nvidia cards already do that? If so it wouldn't really be a new reference in texture quality
There's no such thing in my book as angle independent; only less angle dependent.
Actually S3 got the really angle independent done IIRC
http://translate.google.ch/translate?u=http://www.computerbase.de/art ikel%2Fhardware%2Fgrafikkarten%2F2008%2Ftest_s3_ch rome_440_gtx%2F&sl=de&tl=en&hl=de&ie=UTF-8
Did I already mention that a new reference in texture quality is coming towards us soon for all those IQ freaks out there?
Like adhering to DX11's specs and providing support for 16kx16k textures, thus enabling a "whole new level of texture fidelity" - regardless what your filter does make out of it?
If not: I'd be pleasantly suprised. It'd be about time after the X1K-series's Area-AF.
Would be iFinity better? At least it would be coherent to iSound controller
What about "Triple Monitor Support"? They wouldn't even have to explain it anymore. Or is eyefinity more than that?
Similar threads
