If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:00:18 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote: Do you begin to understand the issue? Heh. Finally. I'm so used to hearing people complain about vid cards with overly large fan solutions *blocking* PCI slots, that's what my brain heard when you complained about a *lack* of PCI (e) slots. It finally took you posting several thousand words of explanation for me to see the distinction. I'm a dumbass sometimes... just move along. g |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Curious...I wonder why they decided to split the rendering horizonatally
as opposed to vertically...seems if they split the rendering vertically they wouldn't have to bother w/ a separate algorithim to balance the rendering load in realtime. The only difference from physical point of view is in what order the framebuffer is stored in memory and it seems less hassle to keep the memory continuous for rectangular block of display, not split the memory as well as the display area. This way each GPU could keep own separate framebuffer: upper and lover half, quickly thinking that would be much less hassle. If the display is rotated 90 or 270 degrees, I wonder which way the split is done.. does the split rotate with the display or not? My educated guess is that it does. If I understand the process correctly the rendering is not split 50/50 but based on the rendering load of a scene/screen... Possibly but doing at efficiently requires some thinking. If we adaptively move the scanline we split at, it means we must either: - dynamically reserve more memory for scanlines added to current half-screen - have the memory preallocated If preallocated, which option? - some fixed treshold such as 2/3 is allocated for each screen half, totaling 33% memory waste, or: - allocate full buffer for both screen halves, totaling 100% memory waste If the memory was split 50/50 the memory waste would be 0% and no need for dynamic allocation (which I doubt is done), my (again educated) guess is that either they split 50/50 (and no dynamic balancing) or 100/100 (dynamic balancing). Dynamic balancing has a slight problem, when other GPU reclaims scanlines from the other, the current buffer contents must be copied to the other GPU's framebuffer so that the buffers contents remain in sync. The decision is propably better to do before the frame is rendered. Either they keep copy of all rendering commands for the whole frame, which I doubt: requires memory, and introduced one frame latency. Most viable way to do this is to look at previous frame and track the amont of work for each GPU and decide the splitting based on that information. Simple and would work pretty nicely, that's what I'd do. All things considered: dynamic balancing is propably not done intra-frame. Furthermore...would this balancing act suckup GPU processing power?? No, because the parts of chip doing the work wouldn't know. It would eat transistors to implement the balancing, which means (not necessarily significantly) larger chip. Doing this in CPU would be unfeasible as it would require write-back from vertex programs to know the coverages for each screen half (since this is done in the GPU the load balancing don't leave CPU must work). I'm assuming that load balancing is done at all, ofcourse. ...that could be used to render the scene perhaps??? No, because GPU's are not CPU's which execute generic purpose programs. In GPU things are implemented in functional blocks, which means transistors are used to implement fixed functionality for a lot of things that are done. Sampling, scanconversion, clipping and so on and so on. The fragment- and vertex programs are exception to this because they are in practise programs which the "shader state machine" runs, but this is a red herring when it comes to the principles involved here. Just seems to make more sense...perhaps someone can shed some light on my ignorance here??? I get the impression that you have the programmer's outlook on the issue at hand, while it gives the basic tools to understand the algorithms and how binary logic works you need a perspective shift to think in terms of "how many gates would that take?" and thinking of the problem in functional blocks, because that's how the chip designers do. It's not like von neuman program or anything, it is more like N-dimensional array of gates. The two main "camps" of design are synchronous and asynchronous logic, I got the impression that NV would be in favour of synchronous logic but I could be wrong. But if you approach the problem form this angle it might clear up things... |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"John Lewis" wrote in message Smells like desperation to me. Seems like they can't keep up ATI's technology In what way ? Please explain ? It just seems to me that they can't compete with ATI in their price range so they're creating a "halo" product to garner prestige for the company. I'm sure they don't expect to sell too many, it's more for promoting the brand name anyway. Video graphics technology is advancing so rapidly that I suspect that this dual-card solution will be integrated into a single-card, realistically priced, product long before this version reaches its own life span. NVIDIA criticized 3dfx for the same thing back in the late nineties. Yes, solely for marketing reasons, never technical. Pretty much the same thing do you think? NVidia's marketing department seemed to try to convince us that 3dfx was inferior for technical reasons. Also, I have found NVidia's own product descriptions so filled with marketing jargon and double-talk that I need a third party source just to understand what they're talking about. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nvidia NV48 still alive, expected to be released in 2Q 2005 | Xenon | Ati Videocards | 0 | December 22nd 04 10:13 PM |
Nvidia SLI, SLI's back with a vengeance | SLIisBACK | Ati Videocards | 31 | July 5th 04 10:45 PM |
Nvidia SLI, SLI's back with a vengeance | R420 | Ati Videocards | 0 | June 28th 04 05:57 AM |
Nvidia's History with Sega | Zackman | Nvidia Videocards | 37 | June 20th 04 07:02 AM |
Bad news for ATI: Nvidia to 'own' ATI at CeBit - no pixel shader 3.0 support in R420 (long) | NV55 | Ati Videocards | 12 | February 24th 04 06:29 AM |