Yep. Because having a theoretical 1 extra fps in a game you wont be able to play is much better than enjoying AA and higher resolution gaming until the inevitable requirement to upgrade.
Yep. Because having a theoretical 1 extra fps in a game you wont be able to play is much better than enjoying AA and higher resolution gaming until the inevitable requirement to upgrade.
Ok, one last post, read all that german crap and the US test.
Germans saw a boost on a 320 8800gts, US guys saw a loss on a 512 8800gt. Judging from what the germans found within the driver (memory compression) it makes sense to assume that 174 has some kind of component in it that sacrifices mem bandwidth (or possibly some other element, but bandwidth makes the most sense) for mem capacity. That would explain why the 320bit card with less mem gains with it but the 256bit card with more mem loses. It seems only to effect dx10 to a serious degree. I'm not sure what to make of that, except perhaps that it's a feature that only works in DX10, or that it's impact is only noticible in DX10. But if we assume that, then the question becomes why. They dont have any cards supported by it that would really benefit from this.
This bodes well for g90 gts, well for 9600gt assuming it's affecting it now and can be disabled in later bios (or if that isnt the case, meaningless for 9600gt), and alternately well and badly for 8800gs, depending on the situation.
There's also the possibility that one or both testers broke something and their changes are nonsense.
It'll be interesting to see what becomes of it when they release updates to the 8800 drivers.
Germans saw a boost on a 320 8800gts, US guys saw a loss on a 512 8800gt. Judging from what the germans found within the driver (memory compression) it makes sense to assume that 174 has some kind of component in it that sacrifices mem bandwidth (or possibly some other element, but bandwidth makes the most sense) for mem capacity. That would explain why the 320bit card with less mem gains with it but the 256bit card with more mem loses. It seems only to effect dx10 to a serious degree. I'm not sure what to make of that, except perhaps that it's a feature that only works in DX10, or that it's impact is only noticible in DX10. But if we assume that, then the question becomes why. They dont have any cards supported by it that would really benefit from this.
This bodes well for g90 gts, well for 9600gt assuming it's affecting it now and can be disabled in later bios (or if that isnt the case, meaningless for 9600gt), and alternately well and badly for 8800gs, depending on the situation.
There's also the possibility that one or both testers broke something and their changes are nonsense.
It'll be interesting to see what becomes of it when they release updates to the 8800 drivers.
From a user's POV, I own the XFX 9600 GT and run it on a Samsng 226bw 22" monitor and it runs excellent for me. Then again, I only play LOTRO and GH3. I do run LOTRO with high setting and AA/AF cranked to the max.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter