10fps or 3fps, it's a slideshow. This had better be a gtx 470, because if the 480 is losing to the 5870 in a TWIMTBP title nVidia might as well forget about releasing anything.
Don't recall anything coming from Nvidia that was dismissive of DX11. There was one comment about "DX11 isn't everything" and of course the usual suspects took that innocuous statement and ran with it.
That si tied to shader clock in fermi.I meant Texture Units frequency ..
I didn't know about that. Thanks for this.Then how does it detect the changes in frequency during overclocking or downclocking ?
10fps or 3fps, it's a slideshow. This had better be a gtx 470, because if the 480 is losing to the 5870 in a TWIMTBP title nVidia might as well forget about releasing anything.
The GTX 480 has 1536MB or RAM, and here we see 1xx0MB, so it has to be the 470 (1280MB).
Look at the RAM. It is a 470.
IMHO, it is a dead heat. 5870's atrocious min fps is the only standout data point.
Look at the RAM. It is a 470.
IIRC, there were also gems like, "because of physics, our $129 gpu is faster than their $400 gpu. "
I'm guessing due to 20% more video memory this is gonna be a repeating pattern. In those memory limited situations, 470 and 480 will pull ahead.
HD5870 with 2GB will prolly be a different story though. Overclocked to 1GHz and even GTX480 will have a hard time matching it.
10fps or 3fps, it's a slideshow. This had better be a gtx 470, because if the 480 is losing to the 5870 in a TWIMTBP title nVidia might as well forget about releasing anything.
I'm guessing due to 20% more video memory this is gonna be a repeating pattern. In those memory limited situations, 470 and 480 will pull ahead.
HD5870 with 2GB will prolly be a different story though. Overclocked to 1GHz and even GTX480 will have a hard time matching it.
In gameplay crysis benchmarks, 4890 already was head-to-head with GTX 285 in higher resolutions:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,6...ectX-11-Preisbrecher/Grafikkarte/Test/?page=7
So, nothing new here.
Aha. In theory tessellation lowers percentage of culling, because the number of triangles varies with distance to camera and "back faces" with lower triangle density are further from the camera. Also, tessellated stuff that's occluded by the dragon should have lower triangle density than the dragon, again due to LOD-adaptive tessellation.As for the second time, per the entire frame(all states) average culling rates are 76%/69% for untessellated/tessellated respectively, with 13.6 times more input primitives in the tessellated case.
I agree.The base idea was(and still is) that there are ample benefits to be had via more clever use of amplification rather than smashing it in.
It's quite a technical challenge, though. Until a triangle's vertices have passed through DS, you can't know precisely if the triangle's possibly occluded.Doing extra vertex shading for some 200k primitives that get discarded is something that tends to get lost in the noise, but doing domain shading for the vertices of a few mln primitives that get eventually discarded is a different kettle of fish, IMHO. We can guess that it's one of the areas where the updated Heaven demos will improve.
Some post-modern GPU-Z art: