Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Just bought two of these cards (Score 1) 109

by JustNiz (#48914775) Attached to: NVIDIA GTX 970 Specifications Corrected, Memory Pools Explained

Yeah I know. Its basicaily what I meant when I listed bitmaps.

The whole point of using mipmaps is as a strategy to reduce GPU memory/bandwidth usage. Consequently I don't think differentiating between bitmaps and mipmaps is actually relevant to the larger discussion here.

Comment: Re:Just bought two of these cards (Score 5, Informative) 109

by JustNiz (#48908571) Attached to: NVIDIA GTX 970 Specifications Corrected, Memory Pools Explained

>> I run three 30" 2650x1600s
Thats pretty much irrelevant. GPU ram isn't used that way at all. Its used to hold the 3D geometry, bitmaps, bump maps etc of assets and other processing data which is largely if not completely independent of screen resolution/no.of screens.

Do the math:
2560 x 1600 x 4 (4 bytes per pixel for 32 bit color) = 15.625 Mb * 3 monitors = screen buffer for 3 screens total size = 46.875 Mb.

Even triple buffering your total screen buffer requirement for all 3 monitors is less than 150Mb.

Comment: Re:has not answered the important question (Score 1) 109

by JustNiz (#48908387) Attached to: NVIDIA GTX 970 Specifications Corrected, Memory Pools Explained

>> *Ever run RAM of two different speeds in a desktop? Wonder where those crashes are coming from?

No I'm not that stupid. And yours is a *terrible* analogy. You're not meant to mix different speed ram for your system. At least it says so in every motherboard manual I've ever read, which is a LOT in over 30 years of building my own PCs. If you do then you are not only operating outside the design parameters of the motherboard maker, but cluless about computers.
Also, GPU memory is functionally totally different than system memory. Fuirthermore unlike some idiot who mixes ram even though the manual says not to, this is a decision taken by the manufacturer and until you post credible links proving otherwise, I'm going to stick with the fact that it is well-tested and does NOT cause any failure in actual operation, just a performance decrease compared to the more expensive 980.

Comment: Re:Consumers? No just whiny fanboys (Score 1) 109

by JustNiz (#48908247) Attached to: NVIDIA GTX 970 Specifications Corrected, Memory Pools Explained

>> there are some people who do have cause to complain if they would have changed their purchasing decision based on having the correct information at the time of their purchase.

While I agree that nVidia should have got the published details correct, do you seriously think a customer exists that would not have bought this card had they knew the memory handling strategy was slightly different than published, even though the overall performance of the card was advertised correctly?

That would be as insane as basing a car purchasing decision entirely on the colour of plastic used for the radiator cap.

Comment: Re:has not answered the important question (Score 2, Informative) 109

by JustNiz (#48908155) Attached to: NVIDIA GTX 970 Specifications Corrected, Memory Pools Explained

>> causing them to crash out

This is a blatantly misieading thing to say. The cards don't crash at all. The only thing that happens as a result of this is a properly handled decrease in real world performance compared to the 980.

Are you seriously trying to claim that the 970 _should_ have the same performance as the 980?

I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at the rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour ... -- F. H. Wales (1936)

Working...