DieAppleDie said:
HoloDust said:
DieAppleDie said:
at least the gpu is decent right? ;)
how does 550 mhz stand against anything? |
It must be deja vu - haven't I answered you this in the other thread ;)
1) Redwood based (400:20:8 config, 104mm^2@40nm)
Pixel (GP/s): 4.4
Texel (GT/s): 11
Shader (GO/s): 220
GFLOPS: 440
2) Turks based (480:24:8, 118mm^2@40nm)
Pixel (GP/s): 4.4
Texel (GT/s): 13.2
Shader (GO/s): 264
GFLOPS: 528
Xbox360
Pixel (GP/s): 4.0
Texel (GT/s): 8.0
Shader (GO/s): 96
GFLOPS: 240
PS3
Pixel (GP/s): 4.4
Texel (GT/s): 13.6
Shader (GO/s): 74.8
GFLOPS: 255.2 (400.4 theoretical)
In Shader performance some 2-3x as expected from rumours. In Pixel and Texel throughoutput, slightly over 360, and about the same as PS3. PS3 does have some extra GFLOPS juice in Cell though (179.2 for 1PPE+6SPEs), but not sure how much can be actually squeezed out for graphic related tasks (or how much 3rd parties actually know how to use).
|
LOL pretty much
but no mhz info?
|
Um, that's for 550MHz - when you see someting like 480:24:8 config, it means - 480 Shaders, 24 TMUs (Texture Mapping Units), 8 ROPs (Render Output Unit). So you take the clock, divide it by 1000 (to get to giga instead of mega) and multiply with config - 24*.55GHz gives 13.2 GTexels/s; 8*.55GHz gives 4.4GPixels/s; 480*.55GHz gives 264 GOperations/s - now for the GFLOPS part - each AMD's shader can do multiply + add at the same time, which in this case gives 264*2 = 528 GFLOPS (single presicion). Notice how 360's and PS3's Shader operations per second are not related in same manner to their GFLOPS numbers - this is due to different Shaders, so math is bit different (specially for RSX inside PS3).
