Only 2 GPUs would work.Originally Posted by 003
DX9's hard limit is 3 frames (3 GPUs in AFR) BUT ATI locked the system down to 2 X2s for Vista CFX I think. 4870 + 4870X2 should work, but I'm not entirely sure.
And most of the time, Vista will have better ATI drivers (it's the trend for about 10 monthly releases already)
Yeah but if the 4870X2 identifies itself to the PC as a single GPU, then it would work, no? If it uses a shared memory pool, that means it is not crossfire on a card. Whether or not it still identifies as dual GPUs to the system is yet to be seen. I really hope it shows up as one because I do NOT want Vista.
Asus Rampage II Gene | Core i7 920 | 6*2GB Mushkin 998729 | BFG GTX280 OCX | Auzentech X-Fi Forte | Corsair VX550
—Life is too short to be bound by the moral, ethical and legal constraints imposed on us by modern day society.
If it used a shared memory pool that doesn't mean it's not crossfire on a card.. it just means that they didn't waste memory and therefore cut costs by not having to duplicate all memory contents across two sets.Yeah but if the 4870X2 identifies itself to the PC as a single GPU, then it would work, no? If it uses a shared memory pool, that means it is not crossfire on a card. Whether or not it still identifies as dual GPUs to the system is yet to be seen. I really hope it shows up as one because I do NOT want Vista.
It still doesn't mean that it's 1 big GPU. The determining factor for many GPUs to behave exactly as 1 big GPU would be if each GPU receives work for the same frame at the same time and outputs to the same place without the notion of SFR or AFR at play.
^
Super old I think.
And @003
Even when it shares RAM, DX9 limits the frames you can render (ahead?) up to 3. Even if 2 GPUs pretended to be 1, they'd still be rendering 2 frames with the chips they had.
or 2 gpu's render the same frame in same shared memory in 1/2 the time,may look to xp as 1 gpu and 1 frame?
That's called SFR(minus the shared memory part) and on current hardware performs significantly worse than AFR. Maybe shared memory could make SFR a lot faster?
Seems we made our greatest error when we named it at the start
for though we called it "Human Nature" - it was cancer of the heart
CPU: AMD X3 720BE@ 3,4Ghz
Cooler: Xigmatek S1283(Terrible mounting system for AM2/3)
Motherboard: Gigabyte 790FXT-UD5P(F4) RAM: 2x 2GB OCZ DDR3 1600Mhz Gold 8-8-8-24
GPU:HD5850 1GB
PSU: Seasonic M12D 750W Case: Coolermaster HAF932(aka Dusty)
what about super tiling ?
Resting in peace, gone forever.
Any technology (SFR, Tiling), that splits the frames into smaller pieces will instantly kill geometry performance scaling across multiple GPUs.
So AFR here is just the lesser evil here, but it requires a lot of bandwidth and rapid response latency, to keep all the workload in proper time lock. And it's getting worse with the advance of the deferred 3D engines, with multiple render targets.
Last edited by fellix_bg; 06-08-2008 at 02:33 AM.
AFR create one picture before the CPU calculate it,
OR it create one picture after the cpu calculated it.
But considering a RV770 is likely enough powerful to handle geometry all nicely, wouldn't SFR work nicely?
The biggest problem now is probably just shader power, and MRTs.
Thats how RV770 will most likely look like:
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
Quickly BatmanThats how RV770 will most likely look like:
, to the Spreadsheet-Mobile !!
Perkam
i seen only 200 shaders !!!
40 TMU?Thats how RV770 will most likely look like:
Hasn't it been pretty much confirmed that it will have 32 TMU? I suppose it is possible that those rumors were incorrect as well.
40 TMU + 800SP would be really awesome.
Then look again, its 160 5D in this Pic.
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
lol your blind?
its 5x4 clusters each with 8 sp -> 160 sp -> 5D -> 800...
... oops ^^
Another possibility: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...postcount=2837
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
Why one 16 RBEs? Will that have any kind of impact on performance @ high resolutions coupled with AA?
RV 670 -> 320:16:16 ... RV 770 -> 800:40:16?
Doesn't seem balanced.
Last edited by Beefy22; 06-08-2008 at 04:52 AM.
"The problem with designing something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of a complete fool."
16 ROPs are completely sufficient.
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
meh im not sure about that, just look at 8800ultra vs 9800gtx -> in high res the ultra "stomps" the 9800gtx.
That's different, the the 8 series cards ROPs perform AA functions and RV770 will use the shaders for that.
The RBEs still render the pixel data... (If I recall correctly)
-EDIT-
LMAO, I read high resolution and was thinking AA for some reason.
Yeah BW limitation was G92s biggest problem @ higher resolutions...
Last edited by Beefy22; 06-08-2008 at 05:09 AM.
"The problem with designing something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of a complete fool."
Bookmarks