Quote:
Originally Posted by KooKKiK
bla bla bla[/B]
|
Bla, bla, bla 3% difference between both of your scores and I'm sure you even went as far as doing many and chosing the ones that showed the biggest difference. Don't worry everyone does that when desperately trying to prove something. Too bad you didn't check what the real difference was. Lame.
And I don't have to prove anything, since I never actually claimed anything. I said that a bottleneck is not warranted, that there's high chances that a bottleneck won't occur and provided REAL evidence of previous cards NOT being bottleneck. The one who says there's going to be bottleneck is you, and the only proof you could provide is a lameass comparison with 3% difference that could be derived from margin of error in 3DMark scoring system or a cat farting down the street. You are not right. Get over it.
EDIT: bah, I decided to be nice and teach you one or two things. Here:
http://realworldtech.com/page.cfm?Ar...2611035931&p=2
Quote:
|
In most of the cases we analyzed, 2X higher memory bandwidth yielded ~30% better 3DMark Vantage GPU performance. A good estimate is that performance scales with the cube root of memory bandwidth, as long the memory/computation balance is roughly intact.
|
Quote:
|
The Radeon HD 3870 and 4670 were the pair we mentioned on the earlier page. The 3870 has 2.13X the memory bandwidth of the latter, which translates into the 36% better performance
|
Quote:
|
In a similar vein, the Radeon 4870 and 4850 achieve 14% and 27% higher 3DMark scores over their bandwidth starved cousins
|
Note: both have 2x or 100% more bandwidth that their "starved cousins".
Quote:
|
The last example pair is the 335M and 4200M, which show somewhat less benefit from bandwidth. The 335M has nearly triple the bandwidth of the 4200M, identical shader throughput, and about 40% higher performance.
|