I heard this bs on many forum. This is only possible if they make an API for it, that work exactly this way. But running the game on the CPU, and the API on the GPU is more problematic, than just creating a Mantle alternative.
I heard this bs on many forum. This is only possible if they make an API for it, that work exactly this way. But running the game on the CPU, and the API on the GPU is more problematic, than just creating a Mantle alternative.
in my country we have a saying : "A madman throw a stone into a lake and five wisemen jump into the water to take it out" ... This is a Rumors&Speculations thread of course but a rumor must have at least a thin perfume of credibility to deserve a discussion around it ... those guy from "OnLiveSpot" mixed tech infos (whispered to him by sources, moles and little birds) with Star Wars lore and other things, so let me repeat myself : Are we talking about delusional now?
Last edited by a moderator:
In my land we also say that when someone criticizes something it must be substantiated. Care to elaborate where is the Star Wars lore there? I am not saying that the site is credible, but that sentence had nothing factually wrong in it.
I don't see any contradiction.
On the first sentence he is talking about drawing calls.
On the second sentence he is talking about specific game effects.
So this "special sauce ARM" can magically reduce API overhead and drastically increase draw calls without any changes to the API or the engine/game but has to be specially coded to work in Nvidia's own middleware/library which would then have to have changes made to the game code?
I know you really, really want to believe but please put on your critical thinking cap for a minute.
Well if the pictures of K1 are remotely accurate, the 2xDenver is at most 1/2 a SMX, so 4SMXs.
On the other hand, what can they decrease and/or remove from the die because of the Denver cores? That will be much harder to calculate and we may never get all the details if that is the case.
If one core can turbo up to ~30 GHz.
Blazkowicz
Legend
The way it looks remotely credible would be if everything runs on the Denver + GPU and the game
engine is built around it. i.e. like programming something specifically for a HSA APU.
Of course I agree it sounds like something merely wrote "16 cores" and "ONE MILLION BILLION BAJILLION DRAWCALLS!!" to get attention.
Dropping the Steam OS name in the article is suspect : it's sensible and Steam OS might technically run.. but what about Steam itself, and the games? There aren't that many games on Steam linux x86 already. I'm sure Valve would port its game to ARMv8 and it can be a long term solution but most 3rd party games could be "orphans". I can't even buy the Quake games for Steam linux i386.
I don't say desktop/laptop gaming on ARMv8 will never exist but I can't see how it would be announced so early.
It probably cannot, unless the API is hacked in a major way. The problem many developers are facing right now is - if i understand correctly - d3d11's threaded rendering only shifts the bottleneck to a point where all the commands have to be queued into a single thread again to be fired off to the GPU. Now, if you had that much control in a GPU and if you could get Microsoft to issue an update to DX to allow the last queue construction to be eliminated (i.e. sorted out on the GPU die), then it could work. Don't know if such a thing would be possible in OpenGL via extensions or if you could emulate this on the GPU die.
Oh you mean the photoshop artwork? Besides why would you want to use performance and not area optimized CPU cores in a high end GPU chip in the first place?
The point was that it's likely not going to exceed the 8 cores mark for the top dog and of course that there's again an unbelievable amount of rubbish surrounding relative speculation.
Project Echelon was some sort of "what the future could bring" exersize". Early versions of it mentioned 16 CPU cores integrated, while after a while it bounced down to 8 and that was meant for 2017 and NOT for 2014/5 LOL....
The problem is the DX API that sits between the application and the driver. Thus, the most optimized driver in the world still couldn't remove the bottleneck that DX11 injects in the middle.
The only way to circumvent it is to NOT USE the DX API calls in the first place, or else "fix" the scaling issues within DX itself. Hence, Mantle.
iMacmatician
Regular
From tmall.com: GTX 750 specs. The image on the page containing the specs is also here (it's fairly large).
I can't read Chinese but it appears that the 750 has 768 CCs, 1020 MHz base clock, 1085 MHz boost clock, 5 Gbps memory, 1 GB, a 128-bit bus, and DX11.2.
There are also some OC benchmarks here.
I can't read Chinese but it appears that the 750 has 768 CCs, 1020 MHz base clock, 1085 MHz boost clock, 5 Gbps memory, 1 GB, a 128-bit bus, and DX11.2.
There are also some OC benchmarks here.
From tmall.com: GTX 750 specs. The image on the page containing the specs is also here (it's fairly large).
I can't read Chinese but it appears that the 750 has 768 CCs, 1020 MHz base clock, 1085 MHz boost clock, 5 Gbps memory, 1 GB, a 128-bit bus, and DX11.2.
There are also some OC benchmarks here.
If this chip really does not require any external power it looks pretty damn impressive. HD6950 power for less than 75W?
EDIT - I wonder what's that "4+2" thing?
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
That's not the first time for a card of this caliber.
However, all I see is a GTX 750 Ti performing worse than a GTX650 Ti Boost.
Here we go for another round of erroneous naming..
Last edited by a moderator:
