By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HollyGamer on 16 December 2019
Edit Thread
Pemalite said:
HollyGamer said:

You  brought Bethesda as an example, it's mean you prove my point. Bethesda never has any new engine, they always using the same engine from 2001 era. Their engine are limited so it performed bad on hardware that come out after 2001 and new hardware , many effect, graphic and gameplay, AI, NPC etc look and played very outdated. 

Did you even bother to read? Or only pick and choose what you want?

It pretty much happens with every major game engine.

HollyGamer said:

Yes flop is flop, but how Flop perform are different on every uarc, the equation of effectiveness  from one uarc to other uarc is very different . the effectiveness of TFLOPS can be measured from one UARC to other UARC. Navi it's indeed 1.4 times then GCAN.  

No. A flop is exactly the same regardless of the Architecture in question.

A flop is the exact same mathematical equation regardless if it's GCN or RDNA, RNDA isn't taking that mathematical operation and doing it differently, the flop is the same.

The issue is... The flops you standby are a theoretical denominator, not a real world one.

And the reason why RDNA gets more performance than GCN, isn't because of FLOPS at all. It's everything else that feeds that hardware as RDNA has the EXACT same instruction set as GCN. - Meaning how it handles mathematical operations is identical to GCN. So you are wrong on all accounts.

Well my reasoning are based on Digital foundry LOL, you seem don't want to lose in debate typical Australian 

On Topic actually we are agree on the same thing . SO yeah