That's pretty much exactly as I see it as well. Don't get me wrong - if it is optional and it works then I think it's fair enough for Nvidia to be exploring these options. But yeah...turbo and "lower fps side screens" makes me wonder a lot about how it's gonna make them look better in benchmarks.
Interesting point on the mouse, I guess they'd need the cursor to be decoupled from fps in most games for that to work ok.
DavidGraham
Veteran
You should be laughing at YOUR argument , no one takes overclocking as the basis of product competitiveness when it works both ways , that may hold true when one product is seriously being pushed to it's limits that you can't extract more juice out of it . but when both products are using the same technology , your argument is not even half valid .
The same applies to driver optimizations . when both companies are using new architectures , you cant expect one to pull ahead of the other by driver enhancements , since it is going to be applied both ways too .
Jawed
Legend
This will be like the jello effect you get with shooting video on DSLRs - only worse, because your peripheral vision is more sensitive to frame-rate than your focus.
I'm pretty sure I don't follow what your saying. I was thinking of the scheduler dynamically constructing what is essentially a VLIW 8 instruction by considering up to 2 instructions from a single warp per cycle. A dual issue case would look like:
cycle 1: ALU 1-4 instruction 1 on threads 1-4, ALU 5-6 instruction 2 on threads 1-2
cycle 2: ALU 5-6 instruction 2 on threads 3-4, ALU 1-4: open for an instruction from another warp.
I guess the assignment of ALU to pixel quad is a bit dynamic, but not very. Maybe that's what you mean by quarter warp scheduling... but isn't this already the case, given the limited SFU, LD/ST, and DP resources?
[Not to say that your explanation isn't convincing. I'm just throwing stuff out there and hoping to learn a little from it.]
FXAA (obviously) doesn't cure the under sampling problem (flickering in the distance), which is where aa is most needed in bf3 imho.
Well.. flash in the form of AIR is allowed for apps - but that's still through the app store ofcourse..
True of course. My premise is that Tahiti is severely underclocked. Even Dave confirmed that. We also know Tahiti scales incredibly well with higher clocks.
Once retail GTX 680 hits the shelves we will see how it does in this department.
Man from Atlantis
Veteran
This is my "extrapolation" of the Fermi multiprocessor into a Kepler version. The scheduler is omitted.
Bashing is welcome!
L/S is/was half of that on Fermi though or do you mean to access same LD/ST count through different ports, if yes you could do it same as you do for SFUs.. other than that i'm eager to see people in the known's inputs
Honestly, I wasn't sure how/where to place the L/S units, as they are obviously tied to the SIMD blocks... somehow. The problem in the case for Kepler is the odd/even mapping of the unit count and the unknown RF ports -- I just took the easy path with grouping the SIMDs in symmetrical pairs, each on its own port.
iMacmatician
Regular
Well, for the 5x1, the outermost monitors could update once per 4 frames….
*runs*
(Of course, I'm not saying that's a good idea)
What would be the point in improving main-screen fps under VSync anyway? Unless it was below 60 fps of course.
What I wonder is how it could even be measured via fraps or whatever - is it taken as an average over the whole setup or just the middle screen? You can see how the latter would be a serious advantage to Nvidia in benchmarking (if they have control over the benchmark).
Last edited by a moderator:
Was not a criticism about your words, but just i was agree .
Now, if on specific benchmarks, the 680 OC by 100mhz, im not sure the comparaison is still valid ... in games it is more blurry: we hit a grey line on what decide of this OC.. average tdp ( 195W ), max tdp limit... average max admissible tdp limit for benchmark ?
That is an 8 way scheduler (or dual 4 way)
. My last paragraph with the "quarter warps" was describing exactly this.It would basically result in a scheduling with a granularity of just 8 work items.In that picture an SMX would have 8 ports, not just 3.This is my "extrapolation" of the Fermi multiprocessor into a Kepler version. The scheduler is omitted.
Bashing is welcome!
I cannot say, because I don't know what the source cited meant by it anyway. I just wanted to make a point that in conjunction with VSync it's highly unlikely that this some kind of multi-monitor benchmark fraud.
I cannot say, because I don't know what the source cited meant by it anyway. I just wanted to make a point that in conjunction with VSync it's highly unlikely that this some kind of multi-monitor benchmark fraud.
Well let's take a game at 40 fps over a SLS, then drop each peripheral screen to 25 fps while boosting the main screen to 60 fps. That's lower fps overall but if Nvidia could convince enough game designers that the main screen was what counts...
They might even have a point, assuming it actually doesn't detract from the gaming experience. Like I said earlier, I had initially thought about lower IQ on the side screens - I can honestly say that in a lot of eyefinity games I wouldn't even notice the difference between max and min settings on the side screens.
Similar threads
