What about the "Giga FLOPS" vs "GigaFLOPS" mistake made in the 2900XT slide?Originally Posted by conzymaher
AMD's "designer" can't think of that?
What about the "Giga FLOPS" vs "GigaFLOPS" mistake made in the 2900XT slide?
AMD's "designer" can't think of that?
n1
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T@3.5GHz@Scythe Mugen 2 <-> ASRock 970 Extreme4 <-> 8GB DDR3-1333 <-> Sapphire HD7870@1100/1300 <-> Samsung F3 <-> Win8.1 x64 <-> Acer Slim Line S243HL <-> BQT E9-CM 480W
So tell me.. if they now use separate shader clocks (which they do), why would they only list core clocks when showing gigaflops?
They don't.So tell me.. if they now use separate shader clocks (which they do), why would they only list core clocks when showing gigaflops?
You're missing very obvious things, I'm afraid
The shader units don't have a seperate domain, it's all 750 MHz (or 600)
FLOPS calculation: 750 x 2 x 800 = 1.200.000 for 4870; 625 x 2 x 800 = 1.000.000 for the 4850.
Sorry, but you are the one missing things. My point is, the mere existence of a shader clock in a separate domain would throw a wrench in the works of the calculation you just made, the number of SP's and also the slide itself being valid.
I'm telling you there is a separate clock domain
Figure the rest out for yourself.
How do you know there is a separate clock domain? Where'd you get that from? Information directly from AMD? Are you an insider?Sorry, but you are the one missing things. My point is, the mere existence of a shader clock in a separate domain would throw a wrench in the works of the calculation you just made, the number of SP's and also the slide itself being valid.
I'm telling you there is a separate clock domain
Figure the rest out for yourself.
Please then show us some proof or evidence besides going off whether a slide is aligned properlySorry, but you are the one missing things. My point is, the mere existence of a shader clock in a separate domain would throw a wrench in the works of the calculation you just made, the number of SP's and also the slide itself being valid.
I'm telling you there is a separate clock domain
Figure the rest out for yourself.
When VR-Zone did their previw of the 4850 by showing us CCC info on it, there were no shader clock options, but that doesn't mean there won't be on future driver releases.
Chiphell had a GPU-Z shot of the 4870 but it was covered up for the most part and until we get a clear shot of that, we won't know for sure.
Perkam
Rather than arguing over whether that slide is true, (let it rest people, you will know for sure in two weeks) we can at least see the logical side of this.
At this point nobody knows for sure, but I would think that RV770 either has a seperate shader clock or more than 480SP. If RV770 had only 480SP clocked at 750MHz, that would give it 720 GFLOPs, only 45% more shading power than the HD 3870. I highly doubt that AMD would launch a card with such weak shading power compared to the previous generation.
While it's true that RV670 needs more texture power more than it needs additional shading power, it does not dominate nVidia's G92 parts in shader power. AMD's 5-way shaders are not as efficient as nVidia's. So I think AMD needs more shading power as well, especially since games will continue to rely more on shaders as time advances and DX10 becomes more common.
It would also be a complete departure from ATI's mindset since the launch of RV530 and the subsequent launch of R580 in January '06. They have always prioritized shading power over texture power, and I can't see this changing now.
I also can't see R700 performing the way it does (~X5500, beating GTX 280) if it did not have a significant amount of shading power compared to the HD 3870 X2/RV670 parts. 3D Mark Vantage is very reliant on shading power; this is why the HD 3850 can equal the 9600GT in Vantage. The 9600GT's texture advantage makes it faster elsewhere, but in Vantage its 64SPs are a big bottleneck. So how would performance have increased by more than 2x (comparing HD 3870 X2 -> HD 4870 X2) if shading power only increased by 45%?
Last edited by Extelleron; 06-07-2008 at 05:11 AM.
Genius, I never said a word about the slide text being aligned properly as the reason.. if anything I merely explained away the alignment issue FOR AMD.
Bookmarks