SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)
AMD 214.90-0.1%Dec 26 3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: ptanner who wrote (81491)6/3/2002 6:04:30 PM
From: wanna_bmwRead Replies (2) of 275872
 
PT, Re: [From Anandtech]"What's very interesting about NVIDIA's chipset is that there doesn't seem to be any on-board frame buffer for integrated video. The reason this is such an important feature that is missing is because we have been hearing all along from chipset manufacturers that the latency introduced by having to use the Hammer's on-die memory controller effectively kills integrated graphics performance. Remember that with previous chipset designs with a unified frame buffer the memory controller was physically right next to the graphics processor (or a part of it), but now the graphics must go all the way to the CPU in order to get access to the memory controller and perform any memory reads/writes. Unless the graphics cores are modified significantly with much deeper buffers to take into account this change in latency, the performance of conventional integrated graphics solutions on Hammer will suffer."

This is exactly what I had meant in my previous message. Apparently, Anand couldn't come up with a good reason why nVidia missed this feature, either. Perhaps, they are willing to take the huge performance hit, since the competition at this point is so far behind. I don't any other integrated graphics engine besides nVidia can afford that kind of performance drop, though.

wbmw
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext