- Nov 26, 2001
Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Thanks for chiming in BFG. In fact, BFG was one of the few who got it right from the get go. In the thread from around a year ago, he had stated that we were shader limited, not memory bandwidth limited. I sided with Azn at that time, because I truly believed we were bandwidth limited. However, testing and some logical reasoning based on other parts and their performance has caused me to rethink and recant.
Kind of early to determine who is right from the get go don't you think? Just because you agree with BFG "now" doesn't make it right.
At the time of the argument 8800gt was just released and 8800gts was just about to release. Back then there weren't too many games that were shader limited. Now there are quite a bit of games that are more dependent on shader performance I've said this few months back as well when arguing with Chizow.
G92 are bandwidth limited which can catch up to GTX 260 level of performance if it did have the bandwidth much like 4850 can catch up to 4870 if it had more bandwidth. GTS250 has higher texture fillrate than GTX260 216SP. Again bandwidth is the carrier to carry the fillrate in and out of GPU memory subsystem. Expecting 58% better frame rates just because it has 58% more memory bandwidth is grossly exaggerated because you won't get the same 58% more frame rates even if shader is clocked 58% higher. GTX260 is one of those cards that have more than enough bandwidth to cover the fillrate while GTS250 does not. All cards are not created equal. All games are not created equal. If they were we can pretty much point to any card or game and make general statements like "bandwidth does not matter" "shader does not matter".