The shader clock had the least impact.... you would expect that to be the opposite. I never realized that GDDR3 was such a bottleneck here, because memory clocks really took a frame rate plunge when underclocked. Interesting...
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Quote:
yes it sure was
Originally Posted by mothergoose729 The shader clock had the least impact.... you would expect that to be the opposite. I never realized that GDDR3 was such a bottleneck here, because memory clocks really took a frame rate plunge when underclocked. Interesting... |
Quote:
Some of these setting were at below 60fps framerates, which clearly illustrates a GPU bottleneck setting. Also, with AA enabled, I think shader power would kick it up a notch, rather then slack off. Besides, higher resolutions are even more bandwidth inhibited, because the texture sizes are so huge and have to be transfered from memory. When and if the GTX 300 series comes out (assuming they are equiped with GDDR5) I expect to see a pretty significant increase in performance. The difference isn't huge, but significant I think.
Originally Posted by Ihatethedukes It's all done at a 'low' resolution. To be expected I think. More pixels requires more shader power in a more direct manner than more AA, which has already been established as a memory heavy operation. Makes sense to me. EDIT: Furthermore, it's done on four games that might just be more memory intensive that others. More are needed to get a real picture of what the card is limited by more than just a given graphics engine. It's obvious there that it varies between engines. FURTHERMORE... it's done on a 3.0GHz dual core cpu..... a little CPU limited if you ask me. Especially with a 0xAA. Hell, at 1920x1200 I've CPU limited in a number of new games at 4xAA EDIT EDIT: Lastly, declocking performance changes aren't necessarily = to overclocking performance changes. It was a good investigative attempt though. They REALLY need to address their CPU speed difference. Also, their differences are in tenth decimal places in some tests... hardly outside of statistical significance I think. |
Quote:
<60FPS doesn't indicate a GPU bound anything, especially with a 3.0Ghz dual core. You're making assumptions.
I have pretty solid reasons for my take.
AA is a memory heavy process. Furthermore, it's CPU power consuming process. You're right about the textures are a percentage bigger. However, the number of pixel computations goes up 30+% regardless of ANY other variable (from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200). And, even though the textures are bigger the shaders now have to compute that as well, on top of the 30% more pixels.
Originally Posted by mothergoose729 Some of these setting were at below 60fps framerates, which clearly illustrates a GPU bottleneck setting. Also, with AA enabled, I think shader power would kick it up a notch, rather then slack off. Besides, higher resolutions are even more bandwidth inhibited, because the texture sizes are so huge and have to be transfered from memory. When and if the GTX 300 series comes out (assuming they are equiped with GDDR5) I expect to see a pretty significant increase in performance. The difference isn't huge, but significant I think. |
I have pretty solid reasons for my take.
AA is a memory heavy process. Furthermore, it's CPU power consuming process. You're right about the textures are a percentage bigger. However, the number of pixel computations goes up 30+% regardless of ANY other variable (from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200). And, even though the textures are bigger the shaders now have to compute that as well, on top of the 30% more pixels.
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
