Stream processors...

[covert24]

ive been noting the amount of stream processors in some cards lately. The 4850 for example has 800 of em'. but on the GTX280 it has 240? what exactly to these little processors do in relation to , well i guess processing? obviously the 280 has more power than the 4850 but less stream processors...

Enlighten me?

 

[Zap]

That's the equivalent to how many rodents running on wheels it takes to power the cards (wheels hooked up to generators). The big difference comes from the way they measure things. ATI uses mice, while NVIDIA uses rats. Obviously rats are bigger and thus can do more work, so 240 rats are kinda-sorta equivalent to 800 mice in performance, with slight variations of course depending on individual rodent strength, age and working conditions.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Zap
That's the equivalent to how many rodents running on wheels it takes to power the cards (wheels hooked up to generators). The big difference comes from the way they measure things. ATI uses mice, while NVIDIA uses rats. Obviously rats are bigger and thus can do more work, so 240 rats are kinda-sorta equivalent to 800 mice in performance, with slight variations of course depending on individual rodent strength, age and working conditions.

Ok, if this wasn't so long, it would be quoted in my sig. LMAOOOOOOO.. :thumbsup:

 

[nerp]

Sounds like one hell of a rube goldberg.

 

[covert24]

lmao that was amazing and very appreciated!

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Zap
That's the equivalent to how many rodents running on wheels it takes to power the cards (wheels hooked up to generators). The big difference comes from the way they measure things. ATI uses mice, while NVIDIA uses rats. Obviously rats are bigger and thus can do more work, so 240 rats are kinda-sorta equivalent to 800 mice in performance, with slight variations of course depending on individual rodent strength, age and working conditions.

I nominate this post for post of the year, possibly of the decade.

 

[lavaheadache]

awesome...

 

[plion]

That was amazing and easy to understand. I was expecting something highly technical.

 

[covert24]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Zap
That's the equivalent to how many rodents running on wheels it takes to power the cards (wheels hooked up to generators). The big difference comes from the way they measure things. ATI uses mice, while NVIDIA uses rats. Obviously rats are bigger and thus can do more work, so 240 rats are kinda-sorta equivalent to 800 mice in performance, with slight variations of course depending on individual rodent strength, age and working conditions.

I nominate this post for post of the year, possibly of the decade.

+1

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Zap
That's the equivalent to how many rodents running on wheels it takes to power the cards (wheels hooked up to generators). The big difference comes from the way they measure things. ATI uses mice, while NVIDIA uses rats. Obviously rats are bigger and thus can do more work, so 240 rats are kinda-sorta equivalent to 800 mice in performance, with slight variations of course depending on individual rodent strength, age and working conditions.

Good analogy but you are forgetting one thing. SP clock speeds. How fast those mice and rats run to make the wheel spin. ATI 800SP are a little bit more powerful than Nvidia's 240SP at current clocks. In theory at least.

 

[the unknown]

Originally posted by: Azn
Good analogy but you are forgetting one thing. SP clock speeds. How fast those mice and rats run to make the wheel spin. ATI 800SP are a little bit more powerful than Nvidia's 240SP at current clocks. In theory at least.

This is clearly covered as stated here :

Originally posted by: Zap
That's the equivalent to how many rodents running on wheels it takes to power the cards (wheels hooked up to generators). The big difference comes from the way they measure things. ATI uses mice, while NVIDIA uses rats. Obviously rats are bigger and thus can do more work, so 240 rats are kinda-sorta equivalent to 800 mice in performance, with slight variations of course depending on individual rodent strength, age and working conditions.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Zap
That's the equivalent to how many rodents running on wheels it takes to power the cards (wheels hooked up to generators). The big difference comes from the way they measure things. ATI uses mice, while NVIDIA uses rats. Obviously rats are bigger and thus can do more work, so 240 rats are kinda-sorta equivalent to 800 mice in performance, with slight variations of course depending on individual rodent strength, age and working conditions.

Good analogy but you are forgetting one thing. SP clock speeds. How fast those mice and rats run to make the wheel spin. ATI 800SP are a little bit more powerful than Nvidia's 240SP at current clocks. In theory at least.

How are you figuring this? Are you talking about shader clock speeds?
In that case:

800sp * 750MHz = 600,000 (theoretical RP (rodent power))
240sp * 1300MHz = 312,000 (theoretical RP (rodent power))

Looks like Nvidia's rodents get a lot more done with a lot less.

If you meant something else, let me know.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Zap
That's the equivalent to how many rodents running on wheels it takes to power the cards (wheels hooked up to generators). The big difference comes from the way they measure things. ATI uses mice, while NVIDIA uses rats. Obviously rats are bigger and thus can do more work, so 240 rats are kinda-sorta equivalent to 800 mice in performance, with slight variations of course depending on individual rodent strength, age and working conditions.

Good analogy but you are forgetting one thing. SP clock speeds. How fast those mice and rats run to make the wheel spin. ATI 800SP are a little bit more powerful than Nvidia's 240SP at current clocks. In theory at least.

How are you figuring this? Are you talking about shader clock speeds?
In that case:

800sp * 750MHz = 600,000 (theoretical RP (rodent power))
240sp * 1300MHz = 312,000 (theoretical RP (rodent power))

Looks like Nvidia's rodents get a lot more done with a lot less.

If you meant something else, let me know.

Ummm no...

Nvidia GTX 280
3 cycles * 240SP * 1296mhz = 933 GFLOP

ATI 4870
2 cycles * 800SP * 750mhz = 1.2 TFLOP

Rodents or mice does it matter? In the end ATI gets more work done.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Zap
That's the equivalent to how many rodents running on wheels it takes to power the cards (wheels hooked up to generators). The big difference comes from the way they measure things. ATI uses mice, while NVIDIA uses rats. Obviously rats are bigger and thus can do more work, so 240 rats are kinda-sorta equivalent to 800 mice in performance, with slight variations of course depending on individual rodent strength, age and working conditions.

Good analogy but you are forgetting one thing. SP clock speeds. How fast those mice and rats run to make the wheel spin. ATI 800SP are a little bit more powerful than Nvidia's 240SP at current clocks. In theory at least.

How are you figuring this? Are you talking about shader clock speeds?
In that case:

800sp * 750MHz = 600,000 (theoretical RP (rodent power))
240sp * 1300MHz = 312,000 (theoretical RP (rodent power))

Looks like Nvidia's rodents get a lot more done with a lot less.

If you meant something else, let me know.

Ummm no...

Nvidia GTX 280
3 cycles * 240SP * 1296mhz = 933 GFLOP

ATI 4870
2 cycles * 800SP * 750mhz = 1.2 TFLOP

Rodents or mice does it matter? In the end ATI gets more work done.

In the end ATI has more theoretical power.

 

[Denithor]

Methinks the nVidia rat wheels are better greased than those used by the poor mice employed by ATi.

My god, I needed this laugh today...even funnier for me cause I have pet ratties.

 

[Avalon]

We should make a video benchmark that has scores in terms of rodent power instead of stuff like Futuremark and their dreary 3Dmarks.

 

[sonnygdude]

Originally posted by: Avalon
We should make a video benchmark that has scores in terms of rodent power instead of stuff like Futuremark and their dreary 3Dmarks.

Hmmmm... Isn't that what Furmark is for? Think of it as a rat chasing its tail

 

[justinburton]

The fastest stream processor is still useless with drivers. Ati might have better stream p's but Nvidia has better drivers and CUDA.

 

[Cuular]

Unfortunately in the case of ATI and nvidia there is no shared definition of stream processor.

Each company defines an SP differently.

For ATI they have a processing unit with 5 "streams" in it, which could in the right circumstances do 5 things at once. So in reality they only have 160 real processors(800=5*160), but to make it look better, the marketing people say it's 800.

So if you look at the number of real processing units, not the maximum number of operations that could be going on at once, with the best workload imaginable, it's amazing that the 160 processors in the ATI card can meet or sometimes beat the 240 in the nvidia card.

Since the general public can only understand larger numbers ATI uses the "800 stream processors" as their number instead of 160 multi-stream processors. Technophiles understand the amazing work that 160 real processing units can keep up with 240. The public in general doesn't.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: justinburton
The fastest stream processor is still useless with drivers. Ati might have better stream p's but Nvidia has better drivers and CUDA.

That's not quite true. CUDA work better with apps like FOH and so far not much else.

Not all games are determined by processing power however games like GRID and Assassin Creed that is heavily determined by processing power show 4870 with less ROP, Texture fillrate and bandwidth goes toe to toe with GTX 280.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: sonnygdude
Hmmmm... Isn't that what Furmark is for?

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
(theoretical RP (rodent power))

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Cuular
Unfortunately in the case of ATI and nvidia there is no shared definition of stream processor.

Each company defines an SP differently.

For ATI they have a processing unit with 5 "streams" in it, which could in the right circumstances do 5 things at once. So in reality they only have 160 real processors(800=5*160), but to make it look better, the marketing people say it's 800.

So if you look at the number of real processing units, not the maximum number of operations that could be going on at once, with the best workload imaginable, it's amazing that the 160 processors in the ATI card can meet or sometimes beat the 240 in the nvidia card.

Since the general public can only understand larger numbers ATI uses the "800 stream processors" as their number instead of 160 multi-stream processors. Technophiles understand the amazing work that 160 real processing units can keep up with 240. The public in general doesn't.

It still does more processing. That's all that matters.

 

[soccerballtux]

edit: sorry, I didn't even bother reading this thread.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Azn
It still does more processing. That's all that matters.

Sure, to the children that couldn't comprehend what his post said.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Cuular
Unfortunately in the case of ATI and nvidia there is no shared definition of stream processor.

Each company defines an SP differently.

For ATI they have a processing unit with 5 "streams" in it, which could in the right circumstances do 5 things at once. So in reality they only have 160 real processors(800=5*160), but to make it look better, the marketing people say it's 800.

So if you look at the number of real processing units, not the maximum number of operations that could be going on at once, with the best workload imaginable, it's amazing that the 160 processors in the ATI card can meet or sometimes beat the 240 in the nvidia card.

Since the general public can only understand larger numbers ATI uses the "800 stream processors" as their number instead of 160 multi-stream processors. Technophiles understand the amazing work that 160 real processing units can keep up with 240. The public in general doesn't.

It still does more processing. That's all that matters.

So those other 640 sp's sit by idly and watch the 160 do all the work then? LOL