hellknight
BSD init pwns System V
what's up with the low memory interface on all of the ATI cards?? why can't they expand it like 448-bit on GTX260 and GTX 275?? Please explain..
As of now GDDR5 supports 256-bit memory interface ( max ). So there is no question of 448 or 512 bit 
Even with 256 bit memory interface it's equivalent to 512bit GDDR3
So with just 128 bit mem interface it's same as 256bit GDDR3 ( it used on many nvidia cards )
Even with 256 bit memory interface it's equivalent to 512bit GDDR3
So with just 128 bit mem interface it's same as 256bit GDDR3 ( it used on many nvidia cards )
MetalheadGautham
AFK
60% still ain't 99% as it should be...
cheaper to manufacture lower memory interface cards. the performance drops can be gained back from else where, like using GDDR5 instead of GDDR3 and making cards more VFM.
OP
comp@ddict
EXIT: DATA Junkyard
512-bit GDDR5 is for nVidia.
AMD plays smart, goes for Dual 2 x 256-bit GDDR5 instead in the RV870 X2 or R800 chip.
AMD plays smart, goes for Dual 2 x 256-bit GDDR5 instead in the RV870 X2 or R800 chip.
MetalheadGautham
AFK
Thats for end users. BUT:whatever the specs are, in the end fps is what we take as test result. Look at HD4770. it rocks even with a 128bit GDDR5
1. Like the old GHz myth, that higher means better (see athlon vs pentium wars), even the bandwidth myth exists. People tend to think that 256bit GDDR3 is better than 128bit GDDR5.
2. Lower bandwidth indeed is CHEAPER to manufacture. And that is the reason why HD4870X2 came at the price during launch of a SINGLE GTX280 and pwned the world.
OP
comp@ddict
EXIT: DATA Junkyard
Yup, GDDR5 has become cheap to manufacture thanks to AMD, and 128-bit is dead cheap for them.
I wonder if they will use 64-bit GDDR5 in the lower end HD5000 series.
I wonder if they will use 64-bit GDDR5 in the lower end HD5000 series.
desiibond
Bond, Desi Bond!
ATI Stream vs. NVIDIA CUDA - GPGPU computing battle royale
Parameter 1: Evaluate CPU usage and determine how much of the computing load being handled by the CPU with ATI Stream/CUDA enabled and disabled
Winner: ATI Stream. During our evaluation, we noticed considerable differences in CPU usage between transcoding with ATI Stream and CUDA. CUDA's average CPU usage was in the 80s, while Stream was closer to the high 60s. The extra CPU usage didn't really help CUDA in producing faster transcoding times either. So, the winner would have to be ATI Stream because it used less resources and produced faster transcoding times. It also left enough resources for users to do additional tasks during transcoding.
Parameter 2: What performance differences will consumers notice between using ATI Stream or CUDA?
Winner: ATI Stream. The performance differences between these two GPGPU technologies was a bit mixed because Stream used less CPU power and had better transcoding times, but it seemed to produce lower quality videos. If we strictly viewed just the "performance" portion of our review, ATI Stream would win because of its benchmark results during performance testing. We'll give a slight edge to ATI Stream in this portion of our ranking.
Parameter 3: Subjectively evaluate the image quality of outputted video that was transcoded with ATI Stream and CUDA
Winner: NVidia CUDA. CUDA seemed to produce a higher-quality image in two out of the three video clips we captured screenshots from. ATI Stream's outputted video was a little bit softer in a few parts of the test videos and CUDA's screenshots were brighter, clearer, and showed a little more detail overall. So, we'll give CUDA the image quality crown.
Read On
Parameter 1: Evaluate CPU usage and determine how much of the computing load being handled by the CPU with ATI Stream/CUDA enabled and disabled
Winner: ATI Stream. During our evaluation, we noticed considerable differences in CPU usage between transcoding with ATI Stream and CUDA. CUDA's average CPU usage was in the 80s, while Stream was closer to the high 60s. The extra CPU usage didn't really help CUDA in producing faster transcoding times either. So, the winner would have to be ATI Stream because it used less resources and produced faster transcoding times. It also left enough resources for users to do additional tasks during transcoding.
Parameter 2: What performance differences will consumers notice between using ATI Stream or CUDA?
Winner: ATI Stream. The performance differences between these two GPGPU technologies was a bit mixed because Stream used less CPU power and had better transcoding times, but it seemed to produce lower quality videos. If we strictly viewed just the "performance" portion of our review, ATI Stream would win because of its benchmark results during performance testing. We'll give a slight edge to ATI Stream in this portion of our ranking.
Parameter 3: Subjectively evaluate the image quality of outputted video that was transcoded with ATI Stream and CUDA
Winner: NVidia CUDA. CUDA seemed to produce a higher-quality image in two out of the three video clips we captured screenshots from. ATI Stream's outputted video was a little bit softer in a few parts of the test videos and CUDA's screenshots were brighter, clearer, and showed a little more detail overall. So, we'll give CUDA the image quality crown.
Read On
MetalheadGautham
AFK
Wait a second, OpenCL mar gaya kya ? I am waiting for both ATI and nVidia to embrace OpenCL and say tata to Stream and CUDA so that we can see some interoperatability here and these guys still have STREAM vs CUDA wars ???
-----------------------------------------
Posted again:
-----------------------------------------
64-bit GDDR5 sounds possible but I think there is a higher probability of them using "normal" DDR3 (not GDDR3) memory since its fast evolving, cheap to manufacture, widely available and has low power consumption.
Last edited:
@ desiibond - thanks for the review
@ MetalheadGautham - 64 bit GDDR5 may perform same as 128 bit GDDR3. I don't think gfx card manufacturers will use DDR3 as GDDR3 or GDDR5 64 bit replacement. Coz DDR3 has more latency as compared to both GDDR3 & GDDR5. What you may see is manufacturers may use DDR3 as DDR2 replacement on dirt cheap gfx cards.
@ comp@ddict - yup, ATI may use either 64 bit GDDR5 or 128 bit GDDR3 as both performs naerly same & the production cost is also nearly same.
@ MetalheadGautham - 64 bit GDDR5 may perform same as 128 bit GDDR3. I don't think gfx card manufacturers will use DDR3 as GDDR3 or GDDR5 64 bit replacement. Coz DDR3 has more latency as compared to both GDDR3 & GDDR5. What you may see is manufacturers may use DDR3 as DDR2 replacement on dirt cheap gfx cards.
@ comp@ddict - yup, ATI may use either 64 bit GDDR5 or 128 bit GDDR3 as both performs naerly same & the production cost is also nearly same.
OP
comp@ddict
EXIT: DATA Junkyard
If GDDR5 becomes mainstream, tat might get cheaper than 128-bit GDDR3
desiibond
Bond, Desi Bond!
World first Radeon HD 4750 pictured
This HD4750 adopts non-reference PCB and features AC cooler instead of older cooler.Compared to HD4770,it has lower frequency due to low heat dissipation of 40nm RV740.In terms of cooler,aluminum heatsink and large-size silent fan with low speed can meet cooling demand.
Read On
This HD4750 adopts non-reference PCB and features AC cooler instead of older cooler.Compared to HD4770,it has lower frequency due to low heat dissipation of 40nm RV740.In terms of cooler,aluminum heatsink and large-size silent fan with low speed can meet cooling demand.
Read On
OP
comp@ddict
EXIT: DATA Junkyard
The price is a freaking 80$ awesome!
MetalheadGautham
AFK
Unfortunately that 80$ won't become Rs. 4000
OP
comp@ddict
EXIT: DATA Junkyard
Yes, it wud end up at 5-5.2k hate these stupid duties.
MetalheadGautham
AFK
OP
comp@ddict
EXIT: DATA Junkyard
But still, it's only 20Mhz slower than HD4770, hardly any difference. And doesn't require a power connector. It will become the new budget king(short lived)
MetalheadGautham
AFK
saqib_khan
I M A *STAR*
Sorry for asking, but whats so special in it? BTW, Windows 7 has DX 11, so should I wait for DX 11 or should I purchase 4770 ?
Thnx in advance
Last edited: