Will WGF 2.0 video cards be usable in XP/2000?

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by {Sniping}Waste, Mar 18, 2006.

  1. KimB

    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    12,921
    Likes Received:
    221
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    No, that's not what he said at all. All that they need to do is increase the size of the register file.
     
  2. Bob

    Bob
    Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    424
    Likes Received:
    47
    Increasing the register file costs area on-chip. A lot of it. Wouldn't you rather have those millions of transistors spent on better compression schemes, new features, or more MADs?


    It's not because something is in some arbitrary API that it's automatically a good idea.
     
    #82 Bob, Mar 22, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 22, 2006
  3. KimB

    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    12,921
    Likes Received:
    221
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Right. All I'm saying is that there's not necessarily any need to worry about FP32 performance on a DX10 NV part (assuming partial precision is gone...is it really?). Obviously there is some optimal balance between register file size and number of execution units.
     
  4. JHoxley

    Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    35
    Location:
    South Coast, England
    The current FX10 compiler still has the PP switch, but I'm pretty sure thats just for downlevel targets and that it's not valid for SM4.

    From what I've seen there is no reason why NV/ATI couldn't have FP16 or FP24 somewhere as long as it was bypassed/skipped whenever any D3D10 code came down the pipe. If it was active during D3D10 usage then it would almost certainly make it a non-compliant D3D10 part.

    Whilst D3D10 might be the primary reason for this next-gen hardware, it's not the only API that will make use of it (OpenGL and D3D9 for example) - so if those API's can make enough of a case for PP floats then maybe they'll dedicate some hardware for it. As I mentioned earlier - I doubt this would be the case though.

    Cheers,
    Jack
     
  5. Demirug

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    69
    I am just run a test last night. I have used the compiler to generate bytecode and then feed the dissembler with it. Even if I am used the half datatype the shader bytecode does only contains floats.
     
  6. JHoxley

    Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    35
    Location:
    South Coast, England
    Even for Shader Models 1, 2 and 3? I've not tried any downlevel compiling in fxc10 - only SM4 stuff for me :grin:

    My interpretation of available info was that, at least for now, fxc10 will correctly compile previous shader models in the same way the current fxc does.

    Cheers,
    Jack
     
    Geo likes this.
  7. Demirug

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    69
    I am not used fxc10. I have done it with D3D10CompileShader ( from C# :D )
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...