- Učlanjen(a)
- 12.07.2000
- Poruke
- 6,934
- Poena
- 800
pe kod koga ce da nadju tih 32nm?Barem u 32nm.
pe kod koga ce da nadju tih 32nm?Barem u 32nm.
That leaves us on a final note: clocks. The core clock has been virtually done away with on GF100, as almost every unit now operates at or on a fraction of the shader clock. Only the ROPs and L2 cache operate on a different clock, which is best described as what’s left of the core clock. The shader clock now drives the majority of the chip, including the shaders, the texture units, and the new PolyMorph and Raster Engines. Specifically, the texture units, PolyMorph Engine, and Raster Engine all run at 1/2 shader clock (which NVIDIA is tentatively calling the "GPC Clock"), while the L1 cache and the shaders themselves run at the full shader clock. Don’t be surprised if GF100 overclocking is different from GT200 overclocking as a result.
Once the polymorph engines have finished their work, the resulting data are forwarded the GF100's four raster engines. Optimally, each one of those engines can process a single triangle per clock cycle. The GF100 can thus claim a peak theoretical throughput rate of four polygons per cycle, although Alben called that "the impossible-to-achieve rate," since other factors will limit throughput in practice. Nvidia tells us that in directed tests, GF100 has averaged as many as 3.2 triangles per clock, which is still quite formidable.
Sharp-eyed readers may recall that AMD claimed it had dual rasterizers upon the launch of the Cypress GPU in the Radeon HD 5870. Based on that, we expected Cypress to be able to exceed the one polygon per cycle limit, but its official specifications instead cite a peak rate of 850 million triangles per second—one per cycle at its default 850MHz clock speed. We circled back with AMD to better understand the situation, and it's a little more complex than was originally presented. What Cypress has is dual scan converters, but it doesn't have the setup or primitive interpolation rates to support more than one triangle per second of throughput. As I understand it, the second scan converter is an optimization that allows the GPU to push through more pixels, in cases where the polygons are large enough. The GF100's approach is quite different and really focused on increasing geometric complexity.
What NVIDIA has done is made the GF100 more parallel than any GPU to date, obviously making it even less serialized. NVIDIA claims 8X the geometry performance of GT 200. This re-ordering of the graphics pipeline caused an increase of 10% of the die size and from our understanding of the issue, is the reason GF100 is "late."
This re-design may pay off though if the slide above about the Unigine Benchmark is to be believed. NVIDIA is claiming much higher performance in this benchmark with Tessellation compared to the Radeon HD 5870, and we all know that benchmark was written specifically on Radeon HD 5000 series hardware. And while it is only a benchmark, the Unigine application is the best we have seen for leveraging DX11 tessellation showing off huge image quality impacts. If GF100 is beating the Radeon HD 5870 that much in a benchmark that was written for the Radeon HD 5870 in the first place, that just spells "awesome" for the kind of geometry performance potentially here.
Next generation games will demand much more than just fast rendering of triangles and pixels—they will require the GPU to compute physics, simulate artificial intelligence, and render advanced cinematic effects. These demands are all met by the next generation NVIDIA® CUDA™ architecture in GF100 GPUs.
Novi gf100 modeli ce se zvati gtx480 i gtx470.
Kakvi pajseri pa trebali su onda da daju gtx580 itd. kad već hoće da se utrkuju sa ATi-jem.
U IT svetu ako je nesto 50-60% brze, a samo 50% skuplje, onda je to ekstra povoljno![]()
Samo shto ce jako tesko da bude 50% brze.Iskreno,ja bi voleo,ali treba sacekati i videti...
Realno.. za danasnje naslove ti je sasvim dovoljan 4850 ili GTX260.
kada bi Intel poslovanje bazirao samo na prodaji EE procesora mogao bi odmah da zakatanci firmu. pare donosi mainstream i tu su sve oci uprte. kartu od 500e kupi tek poneko...Pa ne mora da bude 50% brzi. Intelovi extreme procesori koji su 10% brzi od nekih iz sredine ponude, skuplji su 400%, pa opet niko ne spori to pravo Intelu, i sasvim im lepo ide biznis.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Napomena: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari