Trying to follow the trail of the Direct3D DDK (amazing how well Microsoft is hiding that), I came upon an interesting article at http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hwdev/tech/display/graphics-reqs.mspx . I don't remember seeing it discussed here (which could mean that I just missed the discussion).
Interesting article about Longhorn graphics requirements
- Thread starter ET
- Start date
It was discussed here in the News-Section :
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6289
This paper is quite interesting. The Longhorn graphic will be really demanding for an embedded solution, especially the Tier2-system. PS2.0 and VS2.0 as an strict requirement is really good for all gamers. This will bring the minimum-spec of all new PC's up to the best available today. Hopefully the speed of an embedded solution is good enough.
In the other Thread I thought that an TBDR is the only solution for an embedded system, but maybe their is another (a little more expensive) :
QBM. Going from 6.4GB/sec to 12.8GB/sec bandwith would help a lot with the graphics-performance an would improve the speed of the CPU too.
How about an (sort of) RV350-embedded chip with 12.8GB/sec bandwidth! Would be an nice gaming solution now and an good system for casual gamers in two years maybe.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6289
This paper is quite interesting. The Longhorn graphic will be really demanding for an embedded solution, especially the Tier2-system. PS2.0 and VS2.0 as an strict requirement is really good for all gamers. This will bring the minimum-spec of all new PC's up to the best available today. Hopefully the speed of an embedded solution is good enough.
In the other Thread I thought that an TBDR is the only solution for an embedded system, but maybe their is another (a little more expensive) :
QBM. Going from 6.4GB/sec to 12.8GB/sec bandwith would help a lot with the graphics-performance an would improve the speed of the CPU too.
How about an (sort of) RV350-embedded chip with 12.8GB/sec bandwidth! Would be an nice gaming solution now and an good system for casual gamers in two years maybe.
Last night I saw saw a person with an Intel shirt on (brown with white letters for those intrested). I said hello and said some pleasant things about Intel. Anyway I was able to have a very brief conversation with him. I asked if Intel had anything planned to counter IBM's Cell CPU. He wasn't aware of it, so I summerized the chip to him. I said, "it will probably be a .065 nm chip with close to a terraflop in performance coming out in 2005". He responded, "thats intresting and all he knew as far as performance goes it that Intel will be a .045 nm in 2005". I said to him, "you mean .065". He without any hesitation, "no, .045 nm for both Itanium and Pentium (4?)".
I don't know if this guy really knows what he's talking about or not, so take that with a lot of salt. If his statement is correct, I guess that would imply that Intel is going to skip .065 nm. An integrated chipset could end up being created at .045 nm making a good longhorn compliant chip easier.
I don't know if this guy really knows what he's talking about or not, so take that with a lot of salt. If his statement is correct, I guess that would imply that Intel is going to skip .065 nm. An integrated chipset could end up being created at .045 nm making a good longhorn compliant chip easier.
Similar threads
