So would that be yes or no for every parts of the games?
It would be "likely enough so that texturing in your context doesn't make a difference".
We already know the GTS 512 beats the GTX in many modern games when not using AA, many of which use FP HDR. So we know your texturing and memory bandwidth arguments are invalid in those situations.
We already knew AA can make a difference to bandwidth but again that has nothing to do with your texturing claims.
It's meaningless to games? It is tool to measure what the card is capable of. I wouldn't call it meaningless.
It's meaningless because games aren't bottlenecked in the manner the test operates in.
If I create a CPU test that reads and writes to a single register how relevant do you think it is to real-world programs?
What I meant is that graph you linked few months back showed that shader was used even in older games.
That's my point, a trend that is continuing upwards.
Exactly that graph showed that old games used shaders. Very little of it but still.
Very little? Explain "very little" when as of early 2006 some games had a shader/texture ratio of 7:1.
If anything the texturing was "very little" even back in 2006.
You reply to my message I'm replying back. If not don't reply to my posts. fair enough?
Replying isn?t the problem, it's your continual choice to ignore that graphs that were provided.
Do you see the advantage Radeon has over FX series?
Yep, with shaders, as was evident with 128 bit 96xx derivatives still competing with 256 bit 59xx derivatives in some situations.
Why are you talking about FX vs 9800 series again? This has no relevance to what we are talking about with current gaming situations and gpu.
Much like your multi-texturing graphs not being relevant to current games or GPUs.
Much like your "raw texture fillrate will kill everything" comments not being relevant to today?s games or GPUs.
I think you?re stuck back in 1999/2000 when the GTS didn't have enough bandwidth to take advantage of it?s 4x2 configuration until the Ultra came along. Somehow you think that?s relevant for today when it isn?t.
I never said all you need to do is increase the texture fillrate.
Yes you did, repeatedly.
I believe long as a card is not being hold back by shader or bandwidth fillrate is king which includes pixel and texture fillrate.
So in other words you?re saying something is the most important as long as other things more important than it aren?t lacking.
:roll:
Shader performance
is lacking and that is the point.
Also the way you interchange pixel fillrate and texel fillrate as if it?s somehow the same thing is fallacious.
There's no such thing as magic drivers and uber tweaks.
Have you forgotten numerous examples where ATi, nVidia and even 3dfx provided large performance gains with drivers?
Then explain the 9600gt phenomenon.
Again it could be anything from the core to drivers. In any case the 9600 GT has much lower texel fillrate than a 8800 GT anyway.
You say shader creates "rich" pixel but current games aren't shader bound with modern GPU.
Of course they are, and that's one of the reasons why ATi don't do so well. At best they have 320 shaders but at worst they have much less given code is seldom 100% optimal for their configuration. That and nVidia's shader clocks are much higher than ATi?s.
According to BFG however shader dictates game performance and create "rich" pixels. Memory bandwidth and fillrate doesn't matter.
Nope, by all means, raise the specs everywhere if possible. But if you can?t then focus on shaders first as that?s where you?ll see the biggest gains, even with 256 bit memory.