Single bigger dice can be more complex than making multiple smaller die. Also, yields of many smaller die tend to be higher than complex large die. Occam's razor really.Originally Posted by DerekFSE
Single bigger dice can be more complex than making multiple smaller die. Also, yields of many smaller die tend to be higher than complex large die. Occam's razor really.
thats wot i think; but i know who will disagree >:0
or else they just making more use for what they already have in production
i7 3610QM 1.2-3.2GHz
Oh so this will be theyr quad-sli -.-
Well its just 2 x G92 GTS in 1 card, they should release G100 instead of this crap.
::: Desktop's - Intel *** Intel 2
2 x Xeon E5-2687W *** Intel i7 3930k
EVGA SR-X *** Asus Rampage IV Extreme
96Gb (12x8Gb) G.Skill Trident X DDR3-2400MHz 10-12-12-2N *** 32Gb (8x4Gb) G.Skill Trident X DDR3-2666 10-12-12-2N
3 x Zotac GTX 680 4Gb + EK-FC680 GTX Acetal *** 3 x EVGA GeForce GTX780 + EK Titan XXL Edition waterblocks.
OCZ RevoDrive 3 x4 960Gb *** 4 x Samsung 840 Pro 512Gb
Avermedia LiveGamer HD capture card
Caselabs TX10-D
14 x 4 TB WD RE4 in RAID10+2Spare
4 x Corsair AX1200
::: Basement DataCenter :::
[*] Fibreoptic connection from operators core network
[*] Dell PowerConnect 2848 Ethernet Switch [*] Network Security Devices by Cisco
[*] Dell EqualLogic PS6500E 96Tb iSCSI SAN (40 2Tb Drives + 8 Spare Drives, Raid10+Spare Configuration, 40Tb fail safe storage)
[*] Additional SAN machines with FusionIO ioDrive Octal's (4 total Octals).
[*] 10 x Dual Xeon X5680, 12Gb DDR3, 2x100Gb Vertex 2 Pro Raid1 [*] 4 x Quad Xeon E7-4870, 96Gb DDR3, 2x100Gb Vertex 2 Pro Raid1
[*] Monster UPS unit incase power grid failure backed up by diesel powered generator.
I hope it's more than just "2 x G92's" -- my problem with all the AA at super high resolutions, is that it's sometimes just a texture fillrate benchmark. Take a look at some of the benchmarks here (the Sapphire active cooling method is a good read, too):
http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/ind...1&limitstart=4
/rambling begin/
Nvidia is a fill-rate monster, but not necessarily the best at shader/ALU ops. While I'm digging some of the newer games out there (BioShock, CoD4, and Crysis), they seem to be more focused on AA+hires than more realistic physics, AI, gameplay, and visual effects -- although CoD4 is one of the best shooters I've played in a long time. I'm pretty content playing at 1680x1050 =)
We're in the 1st generation of DX10 games; game makers are still trying to figure out how to "do it fast" -- the game makers can't keep up with the evolving hardware =) we've had multi-core machines for years, and developers are still trying to "do it right" cpu side.
/rambling end/
Why only 30% performance increase? Possibly due to Ahmdal's law (google it), but I'm still not sure what benchmark they are using -- 30% faster in fill-rate, shader, or ALU ops?
What I want from the graphics cards is more performance with similar/lower power consumption, heat, and footprint -- is that too much to ask? =P
XFX offering I think.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/01/...force_9800gx2/
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks