Pixel Fillrate and Turing/Pascal

[eraser666]

Limited by GPC? the max Pixel Fillrate of TU106 is ROPs*frequency/4*3, the same as GP106（max Pixel Fillrate=ROPs*frequency/3*2）.

You can use TU116（1660Ti,3GPC 48ROP） or TU106-200A（2060,3GPC 48ROP） comparing with TU104-400（2070,3GPC 64ROP） to verify this fact.

Remember! Use a same GPU and MEM frequency to verify this fact in Feature Test of 3DMark06 or 3DMark Vantage.

LOL!

 

[agent_x007]

Pixel Fillrate = GPC count x 16 pixels x Core clock (close to max. Boost clock to be accurate).

Turing (overall) : If GPC x 16 > ROP, Pixel Fillrate = ROP x Core clock, else use GPC x 16.

Did I get it right ?

 

[eraser666]

Pixel Fillrate = GPC count x 16 pixels x Core clock (close to max. Boost clock to be accurate).

Turing (overall) : If GPC x 16 > ROP, Pixel Fillrate = ROP x Core clock, else use GPC x 16.

Did I get it right ?

Excellent!

 

[agent_x007]

You could say, those ROPs are there for "cheaper" Anti Aliasing
Last time NV did this with Fermi (IIRC).

 

[eraser666]

You could say, those ROPs are there for "cheaper" Anti Aliasing
Last time NV did this with Fermi (IIRC).

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/pixel-fillrate-and-fermi.155459/

Haha, I‘ve copied the title.

 

[mtcn77]

You could say, those ROPs are there for "cheaper" Anti Aliasing
Last time NV did this with Fermi (IIRC).

Nvidia has never been candid for 3DFX FSAA.

 

[eraser666]

Would GPU-Z fix the Pixel Fillrate display of 1060,1070,2070 etc?

 

[PerfectWave]

GPU-Z show more Pixel Fillrate for those gpu?

 

[mtcn77]

Would GPU-Z fix the Pixel Fillrate display of 1060,1070,2070 etc?
View attachment 116967

You know Nvidia invented MSAA? MSAA performance is part of the package.

 

[eraser666]

You know Nvidia invented MSAA? MSAA performance is part of the package.

https://fanyi.baidu.com/?aldtype=16047###
I'm just talking about the pixel filling rate.

the display of gpu-z

 

[mtcn77]

I'm just talking about the pixel filling rate.

the display of gpu-z

It displayed wrong with GTX 970, too. TPU is used to such occurrances.

I mean it depends, anyway. I like the idea though, just as <99p testing we should have rasterizer performance information of individual scene setups like how much of an effect small & big triangles have.

How about a free licence of Beyond3D Suite as well, one cannot run short of such features. Though I doubt TPU has it, not having any associated publishings even after all these years.

 

[eraser666]

It displayed wrong with GTX 970, too. TPU is used to such occurrances.

I mean it depends, anyway. I like the idea though, just as <99p testing we should have rasterizer performance information of individual scene setups like how much of an effect small & big triangles have.

How about a free licence of Beyond3D Suite as well, one cannot run short of such features. Though I doubt TPU has it, not having any associated publishings even after all these years.

Thank you for your reply. According to feedback from B3D subscribers, there will be a public release version of Beyond 3D Suite in recent months, probably similar to that used by Anandtech.

GPU-Z show more Pixel Fillrate for those gpu?

I'm afraid so, including 1060, 1070, 2070, Quadro GV100 (Titan V JHH Special Edition), and maybe even 780.

https://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU18/2347

 

[eraser666]

How about this formula?
pixel fillrate=min(ROP, GPC*16, TPC*4)*frequency/1000

For example:
they have the same pixel fillrate in test.
2070:3GPC/18TPC/64ROP 2060:3GPC/15TPC/48ROP 1660Ti:3GPC/12TPC/48ROP
1080:4GPC/20TPC/64ROP 1070Ti:4GPC/19TPC/64ROP

they have different pixel fillrate in test.
1080:4GPC/20TPC/64ROP 1070:3GPC/15TPC/64ROP
1060:2GPC/10TPC/48ROP 1050Ti:2GPC/6TPC/32ROP 1050:2GPC/5TPC/32ROP