Originally posted by: Azn
And your point? GT200 on 55nm is what? 470mm which is nothing but clock increase? and what RV770 die size? 260mm? I don't see why ATI can't fit more SP and TMU into their chip to compete with GTX 285. Of course they would have to raise die size but it still wouldn't be big as GT200 on 55nm.
Its not just a clock increase, its a clock increase with a reduction in power draw, ~40W, enough to reduce its power consumption below 65nm GT200 and HD 4870. It was also enough to reduce power consumption on the GTX 295 so that it draws less power than HD4870X2.
As for adding transistors to RV770, I'm sure they could but considering RV770's power draw and TDP already match or exceed Nvidia's 55nm GT200, they'd most likely need a process shrink or a reduction in clock speeds to keep thermals in check. That's where the news of a 40nm RV790 comes in, as AMD is either going to add transistors with a shrink or try and improve yields enough to take advantage of the 2 additional shader clusters RV770 is rumored to have (12x80).
You haven't done a thing except personal attack. :laugh: Never denied 9800gtx+ wasn't slower but in non bandwidth limited situations it's only 10% faster if that. As for your GTX 295 I had to correct you to determine bandwidth was the limitations in most of those tests followed by GTX 280 SLI having faster clocks.
Heh, you keep saying 10%, but that doesn't make it true.
1920 Comparison I put that together at launch to compare performance differences and found 25-100% performance increases between GT200 and G80, even without AA. I'm sure I'd see similar differences today.
As for correcting me with regards to GTX 295...you still haven't acknowledged how it performs more like GTX 260 core 216 SLI than GTX 280SLI, and in that case there is no bandwidth or VRAM disadvantage.
Bit-Tech GTX 295 Review
Feel free to look through that review, they have plenty of results without AA and in cases where all of the multi-GPU solutions aren't completely CPU bottlenecked, you'll once again see GTX 295 performs much more similarly to GTX 260 SLI than GTX 280 SLI, even in non-bandwidth intensive resolutions and settings.
Why even try when you have no idea what you are talking about?
It doesn't matter what resolution. that is determined by the core. Same reason why 9800gtx is only 10% slower with no AA even at 2560x1600 vs GTX260. At 4xAA it will be about 30% slower across resolution again because of bandwidth limitations long as it's there's no vram limitations.
GTX 295 is working with same bandwidth whether it be higher resolution or lower resolution as same for GTX 280 SLI. Performance difference is going to mostly same throughout at 4xAA because of bandwidth limitations.
ROFL. So now resolution and bandwidth aren't important? You're arguing one side of the coin with one breath and contradicting yourself in the next. You don't need to enable AA to increase bandwidth requirements, simply increasing resolution will as well. If you're going to claim a low resolution with AA is bandwidth limited then you must also acknowledge higher resolutions with or without AA are also going to be bandwidth limited. If that were the case, the drop in performance between GTX 295 and GTX 280 SLI would be similar to GTX 260 and 9800GTX+ in bandwidth limited situations, except its not.
Bandwidth is not an issue until 2560 and usually requires AA before significant bandwidth/VRAM limitations become apparent, as every benchmark has shown time and again with these high-end parts. Until bandwidth and/or VRAM become an issue, then yes, core architecures and differences are going to be most responsible for diffferences in performance, which is how we can conclude ROPs are more important than TMUs and SPs given the difference in core/speeds between GTX 260, GTX 295 and GTX 280.
That's right. Fillrate. not bandwidth. What part of the GPU makes fillrate? Don't tell me bandwidth. :laugh: This just shows how clueless you really are.
ROFL. When I have I claimed bandwidth was an issue with GTX 295 other than extremely high resolutions with AA in some titles? I haven't, so why would I claim bandwidth would have a greater impact on performance, especially without AA? I've already stated numerous times that fillrate is more important than bandwidth in most situations, hence my emphasis on ROPs, as they're directly responsible for both fillrate and peformance with or without AA.
Anyways, thanks again for reminding me why its completely unproductive arguing with you. Half the time you don't even know what you're arguing. :laugh: