First of all, I would like to repeat what I said in the end of my previous reply, because you seemed a little bit offensive, i don't know why:
Originally posted by: MODEL3
I may be wrong I'm just asking.
Also your comment in bold text:
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
I understand you're just asking questions. But you're all over the map. FOCUS!!!
was not exactly a nice thing to say, since i was only asking!
You could just ask me to explain what I meant!
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
What does this have to do with anything?
Well I didn't mean that you were wrong in anything, i just meant that since:
we were talking about 300$ to 300$ price range ATI transitions,
in your example (600$ to 300$ price range Nvidia transition) the task to conclude some valuable things regarding ATI DX11 transition will be a more difficult thing and maybe it was better to use another example (in order to make your point more clear)
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
G80 had 32 Texture Address units and 64 Texture Filtering units (32/64). G92 increased the Texture Address units to 64 for a 1:1 ratio with Texture Filtering units. (64/64).
You have this reversed. G80 has half the TU (Texture Address units) in relation to G92. Still, what does any of this have to do with the ROP's?
Yes you are correct, I had forgot this thing. Like I said
I was just asking, because although the above information is all over the net, I am to lazy to check so i write from memory.
I didn't say only ROP's, I said TU/ROP ratio!
I will explain what I meant:
In the example you gave the G80-G92 transition increased the TU/ROP ratio and also the SP/ROP ratio and this was for a 2006 to 2007 transition,
Why do you think, that in this time, for a 2008 to 2009 transition (2 year gap in relation with G80-G92 transition) the DX11 games that are going to be launch will need:
1.a increase in the TU/ROP ratio (since the TU/ROP ratio of RV790 is for example already way way higher than the GT200 TU/ROP ratio)
2.but not increase at all the SP/ROP ratio? (in fact in the site's scenario the SP/ROP ratio is decreased considerably in relation with RV790 SP/ROP ratio)
Don't you think that for the games that are going to be realised this upcoming period the need will be actually to increase the SP/ROP ratio rather than to decrease it?
Also if this is your opinion don't you think that this scenario (where we have doubling of the ROPs and a 2,4X increase in TUs in relation with RV790) will be bandwidth limited?
(only +12% increase of the bandwidth in relation with 4890) Why ATI to waste resources since the design will be bandwidth limited?
4890 850MHz GPU core 16ROPs/40TUs 125GB/sec
5870 900MHz GPU core 32ROPs/96TUs 140GB/sec
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Why not? What is the big deal even if they went to 128 TUs ? Whether they are used or not could very well depend on the application. Explain how this would become a bandwidth limitation?
I thought that if you increase the texture units (texel fillrate essentially) you are going to need more bandwidth in order those texture units to work optimally.
Why increase the TUs so much if the texture units are not going to deliver the full potential that they have?
About the 128 TUs, you are implying that if the TUs/ROPs ratio is 4:1 (128:32) the design will not need additional bandwidth in relation with my scenario (2:1, 64:32) for example?
We are talking about optimal design, why ATI waste million of transistors for a feature that is not going to deliver its full potential since they can devote those transistors for things such SPs?
Again I'm not sure, just asking, I am not trying in any way to say that you are wrong and i am right, i just want to understand the way you think, in order to evaluate better the site's proposed specs!