Quote Originally Posted by Behemot View Post
No it is not and that's what I tried to point out. If you say the GF100 is different than GT200, you just cannot say RV870 is the same as R600 because they architecturaly differ to. Than if you say R600=RV870, than by this logic you have to say G80=GF100.

By the way, as for terms of shader units, this is true Both firms improvements were for GPGPU mainly. Gaming related is only add-on of new instructions for DX 10.1 and DX 11, adding shader units, memory and some other stuff (like improving compression algorythms, better anti-aliasing etc.).

We'll see, but I personally doubt there won't be some drastical performance speed-ups. The Catalyst 10.2/10.3 impact on speed is speculative, too. These were much more important like bug-fixes and that's what I expect from ForceWare too.
But then, if gaming-related enhancements and differences of GF100 are adding shader units and stuff, how do you account for the incredible performance differences between games? One game it tramples 5870, one game it falls behind with 2x transistors.

Some guys at B3D have pointed out that this is related to how geometry intensive a game is. Apparenetly FC2 is such a game whereas Crysis is just shader/texturing intensive, thus accounting for the big performance difference.

And if this is true, it should mean that GF100 is architecturally very different.