Sazar
Rest In Peace
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2002
- Messages
- 14,905
I've been looking @ the official release sites of the GF FX...
for some reason they have changed their figures from 350 million triangles per second rendered to 200 million
example...
200 million ?
350 million?
only thing I can think of is that the pr department said 3 times the performance of the ti4600... and therefore was correlated to being 350 million...
here is the problem with this...
the r300 based 9700pro renders 325 million triangles per second...
go figure...
if it is the case as is and the gf FX ships with 200 million triangles per second.. that is ~60-65% of the 9700pro's...
i can't see an argument being made about the card doing cinematic rendering without the capability of rendering triangles...
sure it can have more efficient alogorithms and what not... but picture quality and high resolution rendering... AA and FSAA... everything is likely to suffer unless optimized specifically....
the pics are courtesy of BentValve from the rage3d forums...
for some reason they have changed their figures from 350 million triangles per second rendered to 200 million
example...
200 million ?
350 million?
only thing I can think of is that the pr department said 3 times the performance of the ti4600... and therefore was correlated to being 350 million...
here is the problem with this...
the r300 based 9700pro renders 325 million triangles per second...
go figure...
if it is the case as is and the gf FX ships with 200 million triangles per second.. that is ~60-65% of the 9700pro's...
i can't see an argument being made about the card doing cinematic rendering without the capability of rendering triangles...
sure it can have more efficient alogorithms and what not... but picture quality and high resolution rendering... AA and FSAA... everything is likely to suffer unless optimized specifically....
the pics are courtesy of BentValve from the rage3d forums...