The Official G84/G86 Rumours & Speculation Thread
- Thread starter Arun
- Start date
Must say I'm confused as to what point you're trying to makeI'm assuming Archmark's bilinear multi-texturing test is similiar to 3dmark's multi-texturing test and they both convey the same info - that G80 has 32 TMU's at 575Mhz.
The trilinear test betrayed the double filtering power but I don't think that's what we're discussing here re-G84. I'm taking the 3dmark numbers as evidence of the number of texture addressing units in the part.
Sorry, I cannot go into more detail right now, but when you're just regarding some of the numbers, your conclusion may be mislead. And in this case i should think some conclusions from 3DMarks Fillrate test are misleading.
If I'd gone by the first archmark-number (TA/TU-Issues not regarded for now), I'd have ended up with ~18 TMUs - for sake of Quads 20 - by that result alone.
But if I take the trilinear results with four texture layers i'd get around 63,5 TMus [(4567*4*2]/575], which is much closer to the truth.
Last edited by a moderator:
NVIDIA now have in place some new document protection systems to prevent leaks of info. We should all hail our new horribly rights-managing, zealously-watermarking overlords, right?Good luck guys. The changes to the NDA are probably under NDA
NVIDIA now have in place some new document protection systems to prevent leaks of info. We should all hail our new horribly rights-managing, zealously-watermarking overlords, right?
I'm at a loss tho for how such a system stops an ASUS from putting up pre-announcement PRs giving away specs (for example), or others posting entire reviews that suggest they have an actual sample to do testing on rather than relying on NV documentation.
Did anyone post Fuads Forceware 158.16 results yet? If so, here they are again :
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=550&Itemid=1
They seem to score even higher in 3Dmarks but the game performance stays the same, win some loose some. Weird.
:http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=550&Itemid=1
They seem to score even higher in 3Dmarks but the game performance stays the same, win some loose some. Weird.
Jawed
Legend
Ping Pong!
http://www.dailytech.com/More+NVIDIA+Midrange+Details+Unveiled/article6932.htm
Amongst other things, 8600GTS = 32 SPs, 10.8GT/s. I guess the latter is the trilinear rate for 8xTA/16xTF.
Jawed
http://www.dailytech.com/More+NVIDIA+Midrange+Details+Unveiled/article6932.htm
Amongst other things, 8600GTS = 32 SPs, 10.8GT/s. I guess the latter is the trilinear rate for 8xTA/16xTF.
Jawed
Did anyone post Fuads Forceware 158.16 results yet? If so, here they are again
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=550&Itemid=1
They seem to score even higher in 3Dmarks but the game performance stays the same, win some loose some. Weird.
3DCenter shows accross the board boost, in some cases by quite a few % points.
Yeah but those are 8800GTX SLI benchies.
True. Well, at least those drivers are good for something.
Yeah I think that's what Quasar was getting at earlier. But I'm still a little confused - have MT/s numbers always been reported based on trilinear throughput? I thought they always measured bilinear.
3dmark seems to agree with me - http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q4/geforce-8800/index.x?pg=5
Jawed
Legend
chavvdarrr
Veteran
8600GTS - 3dmark06 default http://bachu.dir.bg/8600gts/3DMark06@default.xls
SSam2, Q4, Prey - http://bachu.dir.bg/8600gts/SmartFPS_com_Results_NO-AA&AF.txt
SSam2, Q4, Prey - http://bachu.dir.bg/8600gts/SmartFPS_com_Results_NO-AA&AF.txt
My point was, that you should take what numbers you can get and not only rely on one (bilinear, 3Dmark) score to make assumptions - because, as i said, they might not tell the whole truth yet seem to do so.
Am i the only one who thinks that x1950pro will totally thrash 8600 cards both performance and value wise? I assume that the specs stated by dt are correct. They look insanely weak, especially when compared to a very solid mid/high end card like x1950pro.
I fear that x1950pro will have the same fate that 9500pro had. After a while, ati will stop making it and produce a slower(but cheaper to produce) product which will cost the same.
I fear that x1950pro will have the same fate that 9500pro had. After a while, ati will stop making it and produce a slower(but cheaper to produce) product which will cost the same.
Do not confuse Mainstream with Performance. Granted, X1950 Pro are of better value right now it seems, but they are on the verge of vanishing from the shelves...
Plus the DX10-sticker will make OEMs salivate like nothing else on this side of the screen.
Plus the DX10-sticker will make OEMs salivate like nothing else on this side of the screen.
Similar threads
