Texture or Pixel fill rate?

[pbmaster]

Kind of a random question, but which is more important to have higher values? I recently upgraded from a 9800 GTX to a HD 4890, and looking back at previous GPU-Z screen shots I see that the 9800 had a good bit higher Texture fill rate but much lower pixel fill rate. Just wondering. Thanks for any insight.

 

[KainXS]

you can't really compare texture fill rate or pixel fill rate on ati cards vs nvidia's and get a good idea of performance.

if you were talking about nvidia only or ati only, in games nowadays texture fill rate is more important, games are starting to stop using more and more pixels and are using more shading techniques instead, and for both ati stream and nvidia cuda, physx, ai, etc are computed using the shaders.

if you are at a very high res then you might need a higher pixel fill rate though

 

[jagass]

I agree with KainXS...

 

[pbmaster]

That pretty much cleared it up for me, thanks. Trust me, I know ATI and nVidia do things differently lol...ATi's 800 shaders for the HD 4 series to nVidia's 196 to 240 for the GTX 200 series...
I was just wondering the big difference between the two.

 

[Bo$$]

they utilse them differently as the archicecture is completely different

 

[Hitman.1stGame]

it's depending on the application uses ..
nV have more Texture Unit but Lower clock then ATI ..so different will be less.
On the other side ATI have more Computing calculation(Floating Point) .