Xabre II 8x2 architecture...

Doesn't it suffer a similar way as NV30 regarding instruction count. DX9 requires you to say a number that you always can handle.
NV30 can do 1024 instructions, but have to say 512 because that's how many instructions you get if you use a constant in each.
R300 can do 64+64+32, but have to say 64+32 because that's what you get when you don't do color+alpha instruction pairing. (PS2.0 doesn't know of instruction pairing.) And 64+32 isn't above PS2.0.

Now, I don't know if DX9 checks pixel shaders against that cap before sending it to the drivers. If it doesn't, and let the driver do the testing, then there could be a loophole for NV30/R300.

PS, the link Xmas gave doesn't have the MaxPixelShaderInstructionSlots cap. I don't know what to make out of that. Shouldn't it be there even if it isn't above 64+32? There is a NumInstructionSlots that seems to be the same thing though, and it says 96 (=64+32).

[Edit]
DOH, Xmas beat me to it.
 
Ok then, but how about FP Cube Maps and FP Volumetric Textures?
MRT?

It's all beyond standard specs right?

Bah doesn't really matter for anything but bickering. :)
 
Ante P said:
Ok then, but how about FP Cube Maps and FP Volumetric Textures?
MRT?

It's all beyond standard specs right?

Bah doesn't really matter for anything but bickering. :)
Click to expand...
That's all not part of PS specs ;)
Ok, so we just agree to disagree, and let this thread come back to its original topic :)
 
Ha, I beat Xmas this time.

Ante P:
You could put it like this. It's hard to both claim that you're the reference for PS2.0, and having a PS2.0+ instruction set.

Me? Bickering? :playing_innocent: (Hint to administrators, make that smiley work. :))

OK, back to:
Xabre II 8x2 architecture = 2 pixel pipelines, 8 TMU each? :D
 
I wasn't serious. Just playing with the thought that the originally suggested 8x2 could be true, kind of. But only with an interpretation that would mean that it's pretty much useless.
 
Basic said:
I wasn't serious. Just playing with the thought that the originally suggested 8x2 could be true, kind of. But only with an interpretation that would mean that it's pretty much useless.
Click to expand...

hhe I grasped that you were only kidding, even though it might seem unlikely: I'm not that stupid 8)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top