AMR: How could SM2.0b card work with SM3.0 card?

[Karma Police]

Everyone is aware of ATi's upcoming AMR, which supposedly allows different cards to work together. However, how could an X850XT, which runs with SM2.0b, work with an R520, with SM3.0? I can understand 2.0b w/ 2.0b, & 3.0 w/ 3.0, but 2.0b w/ 3.0? Is it possible to get 24-bit to work with 32-bit?

 

[Inane_Dork]

The driver will report the lowest common denominator hardware as the available card. So games will "sense" the X800, not the R520.

At least, that's how I'd guess it to be.

 

[Dave Baumann]

a.) There is no such thing as AMR.

b.) If there is a system which enables different boards to work with each other then there are still likely to be restrictions such as having them of the same generation / capabilities. Whilst differing feature & shader capabilities could be worked around other elements such as shader precisions, output precisions, filtering algorithms, FSAA capabilities, etc., could potentially mean that the portions of the display may not be exactly the same - whilst the differences may be negligable between two boards when comparing two fully rendered images side by side, having the two render parts of the same frame or alternate frames these things may stand out much more, ergo this is a bit of a no-no.

 

[Geo]

a.) There is no such thing as AMR.

Is this one of your famous philosophical musings along the lines of "There is no spoon", or did ATI change their mind on what to call it? Or abandoned the idea entirely? Or commentary on the folly of believing the Inq about anything?

http://theinquirer.net/?article=19449
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20457

 

[Karma Police]

b.) If there is a system which enables different boards to work with each other then there are still likely to be restrictions such as having them of the same generation / capabilities. Whilst differing feature & shader capabilities could be worked around other elements such as shader precisions, output precisions, filtering algorithms, FSAA capabilities, etc., could potentially mean that the portions of the display may not be exactly the same - whilst the differences may be negligable between two boards when comparing two fully rendered images side by side, having the two render parts of the same frame or alternate frames these things may stand out much more, ergo this is a bit of a no-no.

hmmmm. That's what I was thinking.

 

[Mark]

I doubt that AMR, if it exists, would work on current generation cards, so the point of an X850 and a R520 working together would be moot if I am right.

However, a R520 vs R6xx would be interesting. Some form of technology to evenly divide up the load based on the capabilities of the cards installed. Maybe something as simple as having the second card act as an extra high speed memory bank or even doing rudimentary processing based on it's capabilities.

 

[Mark]

a.) There is no such thing as AMR.

Is this one of your famous philosophical musings along the lines of "There is no spoon", or did ATI change their mind on what to call it? Or abandoned the idea entirely? Or commentary on the folly of believing the Inq about anything?

http://theinquirer.net/?article=19449
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20457

Let me answer for Dave...

"Yes"

 

[Geo]

a.) There is no such thing as AMR.

Is this one of your famous philosophical musings along the lines of "There is no spoon", or did ATI change their mind on what to call it? Or abandoned the idea entirely? Or commentary on the folly of believing the Inq about anything?

http://theinquirer.net/?article=19449
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20457

Let me answer for Dave...

"Yes"

Now, now Ratchet. . .this is Dave's forum to taunt the natives with his superior knowledge of inside information. You have your own forum to taunt in.

 

[KimB]

Or commentary on the folly of believing the Inq about anything?

It should be obvious.

 

[Ailuros]

However, a R520 vs R6xx would be interesting. Some form of technology to evenly divide up the load based on the capabilities of the cards installed. Maybe something as simple as having the second card act as an extra high speed memory bank or even doing rudimentary processing based on it's capabilities.

I don't see why whatever applies for R4xx->>R5xx, wouldn't apply also for hypothetical R5xx->>R6xx scenarios. In fact in the second case it sounds even more complicated to me, since I expect unified units on the future R6xx.

My imagination doesn't exactly help with hypothetical load balancing between a board with separate and a board with unified units. Any ideas?

 

[MuFu]

a.) There is no such thing as AMR.

Good to know. I was wondering how ATi was going to fit two cards into that silly little brown slot anyway.

 

[zsouthboy]

a.) There is no such thing as AMR.

Good to know. I was wondering how ATi was going to fit two cards into that silly little brown slot anyway.

ROFLMAO

 

[Geo]

Or commentary on the folly of believing the Inq about anything?

It should be obvious.

I did a little googling, and while AMR (ATI Multi-Rendering, MuFu ) was primarily being pushed by the Inq, there was an Italian website who reported it as well in the same November timeframe. They didn't cite the Inq (I'm excluding the many sites who reported the Inq's report), but possibly they swiped it without attribution. The article is written to suggest the info came from a visit by the author to Taipei. They nailed the release date and specs of X850 three weeks in advance, so you have to give them a little bit of credibility.

http://translate.google.com/transla...e=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=/language_tools

 

[ZoinKs!]

a.) There is no such thing as AMR.

Is this just like back when we were grousing about how ati should introduce a lower clocked 16 pipe r42x to counter the 6800gt, and you told us ati has no plans to "introduce a card by that name" ?