Can we settle this? NV3x Quadro FX vs Geforce FX ROPs...

Discussion about old graphics cards, monitors and video related things.

Re: Can we settle this? NV3x Quadro FX vs Geforce FX ROPs...

Postby The Serpent Rider » 2019-3-10 @ 16:04

but FX 5800 Ultra runs at 500 MHz

Also it's practically does not exist and overclocked to the max from the factory (no headroom left).
User avatar
The Serpent Rider
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: 2017-3-25 @ 19:07
Location: Stagnant Demesne

Re: Can we settle this? NV3x Quadro FX vs Geforce FX ROPs...

Postby havli » 2019-3-10 @ 16:34

It was direct competitor to R9700 Pro. And it does exist, I have one right here. :lol:
OC headroom is not the point... only stock clock is because it is the official specification. Btw - R9700 Pro is just as poor overclocker as FX 5800 Ultra. Mine Ultra can do +7% on the GPU and +16% on the MEM. And 9700P is +14% GPU and +6% MEM. So more or less the same.
HW museum.cz - my collection of PC hardware
User avatar
havli
Oldbie
 
Posts: 715
Joined: 2014-11-07 @ 16:51
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Can we settle this? NV3x Quadro FX vs Geforce FX ROPs...

Postby swaaye » 2019-3-10 @ 19:38

Yeah I don't remember them being rare at the time but they didn't build many. 5900 was almost ready when 5800 finally launched.

500 MHz was probably a stretch but they pulled it off. And I wouldn't be surprised if the awful cooler actually made them sales because of its looks.
swaaye
Moderator
 
Posts: 7312
Joined: 2002-7-22 @ 21:24
Location: WI, USA

Re: Can we settle this? NV3x Quadro FX vs Geforce FX ROPs...

Postby Putas » 2019-3-15 @ 07:47

agent_x007 wrote:
swaaye wrote:By the way, Putas has put together a comprehensive table. Tries to abstract everything to an extreme so you can kinda compare all the cards.
http://vintage3d.org/dbn.php#sthash.Il6om7Lq.dpbs
How he get to 48 Pixel Pipes number compared to 96 ROPs on newer NV cards (Maxwell/Pascal/Turing) ?
Does he have a specsheet with number of pixels/rasteriser (or per SM) ?


8 pixels per rasterizer.
User avatar
Putas
Oldbie
 
Posts: 784
Joined: 2010-11-21 @ 06:58
Location: q3dm6

Re: Can we settle this? NV3x Quadro FX vs Geforce FX ROPs...

Postby agent_x007 » 2019-3-15 @ 17:34

Putas wrote:8 pixels per rasterizer.
Hello :)
Sadly, it's wrong value. I base this on test from here : LINK
Here's explenation of the above on TechReport : LINK
Also, my GM200 card gets over 2x performance bump on 3DMark Vantage Pixel Fillrate test vs. GK110b, at similar clock speed (ie. within 10% GPU clock).
Unless those "Rasterisers" in Big Maxwell are simply mindblowingly more efficient compared to those on Big Kepler's, it's impossible to have this kind of jump without doubling "pixel pipes".

PS. Why no Titan V/Titan RTX ?
Image
User avatar
agent_x007
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: 2016-1-19 @ 11:06

Re: Can we settle this? NV3x Quadro FX vs Geforce FX ROPs...

Postby Putas » 2019-3-20 @ 10:14

Most probably you are correct and rasterizer : ROP output ratio remains near 1. However, from those articles I cannot tell whether Nvidia confirmed Damien's conclusion. Since the fillrate is still significantly behind theoretical maximum of 8 pixels/rasterizer, there is a chance other changes caused the uplift.

Scratch that, the numbers from b3d suit broke the barrier, I will also go with 16 pixels.

agent_x007 wrote:PS. Why no Titan V/Titan RTX ?

I limited the database to discrete 3d accelerators usable for games. Even if missing Titans can do that, I think their price excludes them from consideration as cards for games.
User avatar
Putas
Oldbie
 
Posts: 784
Joined: 2010-11-21 @ 06:58
Location: q3dm6

Previous

Return to Video

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kazeobi and 2 guests