My bad. Got all excited when I saw 128-bit referenced here and 64-bit referenced in an R600 presentation. I wish they wouldn't do aggregate precision like that... Should stick to per component.
So, do we know anything about RV670 yet?
- Thread starter nicolasb
- Start date
My bad. Got all excited when I saw 128-bit referenced here and 64-bit referenced in an R600 presentation. I wish they wouldn't do aggregate precision like that... Should stick to per component.
chavvdarrr
Veteran
Some people claim that in order to support DX10.1, all NV has to do is enable support in drivers. They also claim whats known as 10.1 was intended to be used in 10.0, but one of vendors failed to implement whats needed so these things were cut from final spec, thus - somebody needed new hardware for "DX10 done right"
No idea if this is true or not.
Only thing similar to this that I've heard was dropping some memory virtualization to "optional" due nV not getting it right
RV680?
http://www.digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20071023PB200.html
2x RV680 = R680?
RV680 = MCM-Version of RV670, with on-die PCIe-bridge and A12-stepping?
http://www.digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20071023PB200.html
2x RV680 = R680?
RV680 = MCM-Version of RV670, with on-die PCIe-bridge and A12-stepping?
RV680?
2x RV680 = R680?
RV680 = MCM-Version of RV670, with on-die PCIe-bridge and A12-stepping?
nah, RV680 will not be MCM. I reckon it'll be more like the gemini cards we've seen so far. RV670 runs too hot to be placed in MCM.
Wow, Google translation got quite a bit better as of late!
vertex_shader
Banned
Jawed
Legend
I think so, too - though is HT fast enough? I was going to start a thread on the topic of intra MCM bus types a while back, but got lazy.
Jawed
I think he doesn't know the forum is back up
Offtopic: Actually I checked back daily, but was still getting the message that the boards were not available. Up until a few minutes ago I still got that message. :S
Yes. Gather4 is the DX10.1 name for Fetch4. AMD has supported this since the R580, RV515 and RV530 in their hardware. nVidia needs to make a bigger change to their hardware to support Fetch4 in DX10.1. They'll have to make a change in their TMU's to support this...
Last edited by a moderator:
For the record AMD also has PCF (added w/R600 I believe) which they were lacking in the R5xx days.
Jawed
Legend
No, Fetch4 does a "scattered" fetch which then allows shader code to perform PCF. A normal fetch (point-sampled, say) reads one or more colour channels from a single texel. Fetch4 is a "scattered" fetch because data from 4 texels is read into one "pixel" in shader code, in a single fetch instruction.
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/reviews/2/4
PCF, per se, is a feature of the texture pipeline in D3D10 (i.e. it's no longer NVidia proprietary, protected by patent). I'm guessing that D3D10.1 generalises this fetch, allowing the ALU pipeline to get at these texels as though PCF had left them untouched.
Jawed
Jawed
Legend
NVidia's fetch for PCF didn't provide the option to deliver those texels (as channels of a single .rgba texel) into the ALU pipeline. Fetch simply delivered the (single-channel) shadow texels as a quad for PCF filtering within the TMU, doing something funky (erm, someone else will have to explain it) with the bilinear filtering units of the TMUs to produce the PCF result.
So Fetch4 and presumably Gather4 just provide "texel passthrough", from the texturing pipeline to the ALU pipeline.
Jawed
vertex_shader
Banned
Some frutzilla info (i don't think so its a surprise to anyone).
Geforce 8800GT is faster than RV670XT
Geforce 8800GT is faster than RV670XT
Hm... Ok, it's 55 nm. Sorry.
Does it matter? Which CPU do I need to see this?
