On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:19:52 -0500
Timothy Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, it's been pointed out that 200Mp/s would be adequate for high
> framerate at 1600x1200. That seems right. So, why are all the other
> vendors so bent on making their GPUs run at 500MHz? I can see how
> you'd want the geometry engine to run at high speed, but we don't have
> one. Plus there are programmable fragment and vertex shaders, but we
> don't have those either.
[...]
> The result is that the rendering engine would be able to fun full-out
> at 200Mp/s, until you turned on so many features that even other
> vendor's cards would hit their limits anyway!
Another comment by someone w/o any knowledge in graphic hardware:
Leave all those ultra high performance windows gamer cards away.
Don't go for them. Our main target is still the people who use
old ati mach64/rage128 or matrox g200-g550 cards. Thus we
should compare our card with them instead of a hyper fast nvidia.
I also think, that an engineering aproach is always the best:
if you can get your desired functionality with minimal
material/effort/... then this is the best solution.
Attila Kinali
--
éãåããéãåã
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
