- Oct 22, 1999
- 5,933
- 0
- 0
From MatroxUsers
"G800 specs:
G800
Available September 2000
Introduction August 2000
250MHz DDR RAM clock (GF2: 166)
3 pixels/clockcycle, 3 textures/pixel (G400MAX 2/1; GF2: 4/2)
Fillrate 600 MPixels, respectively 1800 MTexels (G400MAX 300/300; GF2: 800/1600)
T&L unit with 20-30 million polys/sec
DualChip setup capability"
Now - This looks to be the one chip version. 3 pixels per clock to the GF2's 4, but it does 3 textures per pixel to the GeForce's 2. This is going to be helpful to the EMBM front, because we will now be able to do it without a hit.
So, lets put the specs down for the dual chip version.
1200mpixels per clock
3600mtexels per clock
40-60million polygons
This doesn't seem TOO awesome, in my eyes.
HOWEVER - John Carmack saw the chip in the spring, and he commented that Matrox has COMPLETELY ILLEVIATED the memory bandwidth problem. Does this mean Tile Based Rendering? Something like the Radeon HyperZ? Or is 250mhz DDR and dual chip's enough bandwidth?
"G800 specs:
G800
Available September 2000
Introduction August 2000
250MHz DDR RAM clock (GF2: 166)
3 pixels/clockcycle, 3 textures/pixel (G400MAX 2/1; GF2: 4/2)
Fillrate 600 MPixels, respectively 1800 MTexels (G400MAX 300/300; GF2: 800/1600)
T&L unit with 20-30 million polys/sec
DualChip setup capability"
Now - This looks to be the one chip version. 3 pixels per clock to the GF2's 4, but it does 3 textures per pixel to the GeForce's 2. This is going to be helpful to the EMBM front, because we will now be able to do it without a hit.
So, lets put the specs down for the dual chip version.
1200mpixels per clock
3600mtexels per clock
40-60million polygons
This doesn't seem TOO awesome, in my eyes.
HOWEVER - John Carmack saw the chip in the spring, and he commented that Matrox has COMPLETELY ILLEVIATED the memory bandwidth problem. Does this mean Tile Based Rendering? Something like the Radeon HyperZ? Or is 250mhz DDR and dual chip's enough bandwidth?