I'm not babbling at all. Your merely failing to take in the context of what I'm saying. The reasons I mentioned "other things", is because your using transistor count as a medium for comparison of performance ratio. Which is inaccurate in this situation. If Fermi was just a CPU, then there would be a bit more validity to your comparison. But in this case it doesn't apply.
This has nothing to do with being a fanboy. The only thing I'm a fan of is good technology, I don't...
haha yeah. Well we all know it will be able to look best on a PC.
Oh, I know a lot more about computer hardware than you think. It's you who needs to learn some more. If you had taken the time to read the whitepaper on Fermi, you would know that is not a favorable estimate at all.
Plus your comparing 2 different scenes that you know little technical details about. I don't know what PS3 benchmark your talking about, but it probably didn't have global illumination enabled. Only the ray-tracing itself with perhaps an extra bounce or two.
<...
There not paper products products. We will be seeing them for sale in December. They have working chips and it's going into mass production later this month.
@MNicholas:
Your comparing 8 processors to a single multi purpose processor. If you stuck 8 GT200's together it could render the scenes that fast too.
Plus FERMI is more than just a little over a doubling in cores. There have been so many optimizations for doing general purpose calculations it's not even funny. I could easily see a single GTX380 rendering that scene at least close to an acceptable frame rate. Nevermind 8 of them.
Firstly, Charlie is not respected at all. He happened to get lucky with a few things over the years being right out of the many things he get's wrong. You throw enough sh*t at a wall, somethings bound to stick.
Now this article is nothing but his raging hate for Nvidia. Yes the card didn't work. It was a show model, to give people an idea of how it's going to LOOK.
Nvidia did show off demo's. They stated during their double precision point demo that it was being run ...
PCGH didn't get their facts straight. These pictures and the video demo are done on the last generation GT200. They even say that at the end of the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Sorry to break the news, but this ain't no awards show. I don't know if you work for Icrontic, but I assumed not. I was just sharing the link because I thought you'd be interested to read an even more in depth review of the architecture.
And you went and added yours as an alt on mine too, don't see me b*tchin. So don't be a hypocrite.
So, your comparing a single purpose RISC processor, to a GPU that can do some CPU calculations.. Ya know the 360 and PS3 still need a GPU. So you should be factoring in that also lol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
"comparing only floating point abilities of a system is a one-dimensional and application-specific metric. Unlike a Cell proc...
Ah that sucks man. Damn OEM's and their crappy motherboards. Next time you want to upgrade your computer I hope ya give building one a shot. If not throw a message my way and I build you one online in your budget for you to put together.
Ok, well searching that model I find it's at 2.2Ghz. That could be a problem. Only 2 cores at 2.2Ghz is pretty low. Have you overclocked it? If not, ya should, that could solve your frame-rate problems. The general stable overclock for that CPU is at about 3.0 - 3.2Ghz. That would increase performance quite a bit. Just Google for some guides on overclocking the e4500, and Core2 Duo's in general.
And if you have overclocked already, then the only thing left I could think of is slo...
You obviously have no idea what your talking about, and lack the ability to understand any of the data put forth in these articles.
The raw processing power of this card is a larger fold increase than ATI's 5870 was. And they also stated at the event they were wrong in their pricing of the GT200.
Well know that in a month or 2 when test cards start going out to reviewers.
Also, AnandTech has done a much more in depth review of the architecture:
http://www.n4g.com/industry...
@badz149:
If you can only run Crysis at 720p using a 4850, then you must have a CPU bottle neck. Or you have Anti-Aliasing on way to high. What CPU do you have?
As time goes on, the cost to make good looking games goes down because new software is created to ease the creation of good looking graphics. Such as the CryEngine 2/3. To just license the engine instead of creating a whole new one, cuts down majorly on costs.
Also things like tessellation allow easier ...
@Raz:
Actually it does. Because he doesn't buy it first. He downloads the Release Candidate client and tries that out. Or a pirated copy.
Diet Dr. Pepper ftw.
No teeth rotting, no calories, no diabetes, awesome flavor.
@Godmars290:
You should try building a computer sometime. It's really not that hard. It just seems daunting to people until they learn more about it.
TomsHardware has a pretty thorough guide on it:
http://www.tomshardware.com...
It's rewarding to know you put your computer together yourself, and also saved money. The computer industry is being incredibly wasteful b...
Crysis 2. And trust me, there will be games that will push it. Sure, not a huge amount though. Developers crave more power to further realize their creations. So many short cuts and tricks are used right now to make the games look this good. With more processing power more tools can be implemented to make them even more realistic without so much work. Just you wait and see, it's going to be amazing these next few years.
My Youtube account was just shut down because I had Robot Chicken clips on it <_<. So those 2 videos got deleted.
Video 1 was ray-traced with global illumination, not shaded. It's rendered in real time in Cinema 2.0 using a scene made with Voxels. And yes, her face was bad. The video quality is poor because AMD hasn't posted a video rip of it.
Here's the floating point demo. It's like 3/4 into the video.
2.) I read your comment lol. But the whole argument from the ...