BKilian say FLOPS great for comparing protein folding performance. Crap for comparing Game Console performance.
And seriously, I go out for one day and you guys add 8 pages to the thread?
it's all out of control
BKilian say FLOPS great for comparing protein folding performance. Crap for comparing Game Console performance.
And seriously, I go out for one day and you guys add 8 pages to the thread?
Are you guys talking about Single Precision FLOPS oder Double Precision FLOPS? The latter would be quite interesting in a HSA system that relies heavily on GPGPU algorithms, right?
But if both systems are measured in SP-FLOPS, how can Durango have "better" FLOPS than Orbis? Or what did you say exactly? "the best FLOPS you'll seen yet"
Sounds pretty contradictory, if you ask me...
But if both systems are measured in SP-FLOPS, how can Durango have "better" FLOPS than Orbis? Or what did you say exactly? "the best FLOPS you'll seen yet"
Sounds pretty contradictory, if you ask me...
But if both systems are measured in SP-FLOPS, how can Durango have "better" FLOPS than Orbis? Or what did you say exactly? "the best FLOPS you'll seen yet"
Sounds pretty contradictory, if you ask me...
Not necessarily. The GCN architecture can be configured with 1/2 rate double precision performance, as well as the 1/4 and 1/16 rates seen in current products.If Durango has double precision flops greater than 1.2 teraflops, it'll sport the most powerful single GPU yet, desktop or mobile. The 7970 is 950 gigaflops double precision.
BKilian say FLOPS great for comparing protein folding performance. Crap for comparing Game Console performance.
So you're talking about Paper-FLOPS on a VLIW5 chip like the Cypress XT (I think this is a good example) versus a Pitcairn-class GPU.
Fair enough, but I wouldn't call it "better" or "best" FLOPS, since architectual tweakings are pretty common for core-gaming consoles.
There is no fundamental difference between the quality of a theoretical flop in ideal conditions.
However in a GPU on a real workload not all the flops are used all of the time, for many reasons. Ignoring for a minute things like rendering shadows, Z pre-passes or the geometry pass in a deferred renderer where for the most part the GPU's ALU's sit entirely idle. Even when a GPU is working on Shader heavy code ALU's are often under utilized, to get the massive peak computational performance they batch data into wavefronts often these wavefronts run with portions of the ALU's disabled, or because of register pressure not enough wavefronts can run to hide memory reads and the ALU's sit idle while the data is fetched.
It is quite possible for a chip with a lower number of total flops to have better performance that a machine with a higher number. It would require some probably significant architectural difference. For example a much larger register pool, narrower wavefronts, not batching pixels as quads, but all of those things would eat additional silicon, and potentially introduce other issues. So it's all a trade off.
Having said that I know nothing about the actual Durango GPU and, it's unlikely this level of detail will ever be made public by MS, so...
I guess theres some sort of suggestion from thuway on GAF that Orbis uses GCN and Durango GCN2? (the latter presumably better, but then some gaffers are saying theres little or no performance difference anyway?)
I have no clue about this though...
It wouldn't seem to make sense for Sony to not use AMD's latest tech at time of shipping, so I'm dubious.
The speculations in this thread imply that a 1.2 SP TFLOPS GPU can be a 1.8 SP TFLOPS GPU (or beyond) but that is simply wrong.
You can argue that a 2.7 SP TFLOPS GPU like the Cypress XT is not able to deliver this peak floating point performance all the time, of course, but a 1.2 SP TFLOPS GPU can not deliver more peak performance than this exactly 1.2 SP TFLOPS.
I just wanted to remind you that some readers might get a completely wrong impression of what Durango can and what not (*cough* NeoGAF *cough*). If Durango has a 1.2 SP TFLOP GPU it may can deliver this peak performance more steadily than a desktop GPU, but it will never deliver more than this 1.2 SP TFLOP.
I guess theres some sort of suggestion from thuway on GAF that Orbis uses GCN and Durango GCN2?
The guy who got banned said also 1D SIMD. What does it mean? Aren't GNC SIMD 16-way?