Quote:
Originally Posted by SH64
There is no point of that FS bench since it dosen't show the min.fps
|
Since when does a minimum framerate not factor into an average?
Quote:
|
its obvious & logical that the GTX260's min.fps would've been higher if it was in that benchmark i posted (due to its higher Video Memory).
|
No, it wouldn't, and here's why.
Frame-buffer and overall memory bandwidth have the same effect and are interrelated. In fact, you could think of memory bandwidth as composed of 3 key components:
1) Frame buffer
2) Bus width
3) VRAM speed
Each of these plays a role in boosting peak memory bandwidth to speed up texture loading/streaming.
Quote:
|
As of 2007, advanced personal computers and graphics cards use even more combined buses than dual-channel, and combine four (e.g. Mac Pro), five (e.g. nVidia 8800GTS), six (e.g. nVidia 8800GTX) [b]or more sets of 64-bit memory modules and buses to reach 256-bit, 320-bit, 384-bit or greater total memory bandwidth.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_bandwidth
The point of the entire exercise of using a large frame buffer is to increase bandwidth, but if a card already has it due to faster VRAM (such as 4870 with GDDR5 instead of GDDR3) then it doesn't need as large a frame buffer. See how the 4870 has just a little higher bandwidth than the 260 does despite the smaller frame buffer:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341