View Full Version : R520=worst yields ever.
Ok, I'll go for that.
But I still don't think flipper has 24 bit pixel shaders. I've rarely heard much good about Flipper's shaders in comparison to NV2A(other than that they get better performance in some things and require less texture look ups), and if they actually had higher precision than NV2A then I think it would have been mentioned at some point. I believe NV2A has 10bit or 12bit precision only.
Ok, I'll go for that.
But I still don't think flipper has 24 bit pixel shaders. I've rarely heard much good about Flipper's shaders in comparison to NV2A(other than that they get better performance in some things and require less texture look ups), and if they actually had higher precision than NV2A then I think it would have been mentioned at some point. I believe NV2A has 10bit or 12bit precision only.
True, unfortunately they really dont' let out the nitty gritty details on console chips :/
killahsin
08-03-05, 02:11 PM
Flippers actually the only console chip that u can't do alot of research on. The rest of them you really can get alot of info on them. nintendo kept a very very tight reign on the flipper designs. which also made me quite curious. I just know while they were designing the flipper chip they also designed a pc unit and they showed it at one of the developer conferences, and were bid on immediatly by all three gpu companies. We are talking immediatly after that, nvidia ati and s3 wanted to aquire art x badly. So as to the correlation of those 2 parts and perhaps if that is what the r300 was, has been speculation for a long time. But the r300 came out of nowhere that is a definate for sure. i mean massive company aquires tiny company, tiny company members become team leaders and head honcho of big company instantly. Theres alot of behind the scenes stuff missing from that picture. right after this r300 introduced that blows away the competition by literal lightyears.
I believe the Intel 740 was a very good card *for its price* at the time.
:lame: (bs2)
no real gamer at the time would of used the POS
:lame: (bs2)
no real gamer at the time would of used the POS
Well, it was only like $20, and I think it had decent specs. I think it may have completely lacked any onboard memory though, lacked many features, and had serious compatibility problems.
angshuman
08-04-05, 09:38 PM
Well, it was only like $20, and I think it had decent specs. I think it may have completely lacked any onboard memory though, lacked many features, and had serious compatibility problems.
8MB onboard, baby! I could play Half Life at 800x600 OpenGL at butter-smooth framerates :cool:
Hmm, most cards at that time period only did OpenGL or DirectX well, was the Intel card an OpenGL card?
pakotlar
08-07-05, 03:11 AM
oh I see, thats very similiar to flipper it has 24 bit per channel but compressed to a 24 bit frambuffer.
Never said the r320 has 24 bit buffer, it has 24 bit floating point calculations in the pixel shader.
lets start over
r300: Interal precision 32 bit floating point operations, pixel shaders 24 bit FPO, output to 96 bit buffer. 24 bit color per channel. 8 textures and 8 hardware lights per pass
flipper: Internal precision 32/64 bit floating point operations, pixel shader 24 bit possibly lower, out put to a 24 bit buffer (this doesn't seem right unfortuanatly information isn't really avaiable on this, they might have been talking about 24 bit per channel again so end result would be 96 bit buffer). 24 bit per channel color. 8 textures and 8 hardware lights per pass.
Very similiar. They used a similiar principle in the creation of the r300, which was used in the flipper. Archecture wise yes completely different but methodolgy is very similiar.
A lot of misinformation being thrown around. The TNT2 pipelenes had 32bit integer precision. AKA 8 bits for each channel + alpha. What r300 had was very very different. It had a 32bit floating point precision through much of its pipeline, and 24bit floating point precision in pixel shaders. Aka, 24 bit per component + alpha. Anyways, IMO opinion 8bit fp components are better than 8bit integer components because of mantissa. Neways, if you qualify the r300 output at 24bit precision, then the tnt2 outputs 8bit.
A lot of misinformation being thrown around. The TNT2 pipelenes had 32bit integer precision. AKA 8 bits for each channel + alpha. What r300 had was very very different. It had a 32bit floating point precision through much of its pipeline, and 24bit floating point precision in pixel shaders. Aka, 24 bit per component + alpha. Anyways, IMO opinion 8bit fp components are better than 8bit integer components because of mantissa. Neways, if you qualify the r300 output at 24bit precision, then the tnt2 outputs 8bit.
We aren't comparing the TNT2 to the r300 at all. We are talking about Flipper
angshuman
08-07-05, 11:45 PM
Hmm, most cards at that time period only did OpenGL or DirectX well, was the Intel card an OpenGL card?
Dunno, but my personal observation was that HL played *much* smoother on OpenGL than on Direct3D (on my i740). Maybe it was just the engine.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.