Re: 4 Hardware bandwidth questions. (Related to ram,pci-e,cpu,gpu,sli).

Well,

I checked some other websites, and some websites mention this same bandwidth number as the external bandwidth. However Nvidia might have mistakenly used the GB notation which means Gigabyte... but they actually mean gigabit...

So dividing this bandwidth number 38.4 by 8 bits maybe even some overheads bits (2) let s say in total 10 bits.

Gives: 3.84 Gigabyte/sec.

Which matches the maximum speed of PCI-Express a lot better.

So if this is the thruth then I am right by assuming that the hardware will reach the gigabyte limitation of the PCI-Express bus. Do you really thing I made that all up ? No man, Like I said I have googled extensively and read a lot... and on one of those websites I read that the GPU is HELD BACK BY THE CPU ;) :P

So it's time for you to CRAWL BACK UNDER THE ROCK WHERE YOU CAME FROM LOL =D

YOU OUTDATED/OBSOLETE LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Bye, Skybuck =D

P.S.: Me stupid for listening to a dumb ass newby like you...

I'll just go ahead and design my dream PC without you ;) :P hihihihihihihihihi.

much

manage

AT

memory

SINGLE

buy

and

processor/memory

will

upgrading

Gigabyte/sec

Performance )

it

benefit

Oh man this is why I hate abbrevations. (in programming definetly ;) like stupid c programmers do... chr, hrdsk lol )

Sigh, it's just got a bit more complex oh no.

I read GiB thinking that they ment Gigabit... but maybe GiB means Gigabyte after all... oh no ;)

Why not just GB gjezus god damn.

Historically communication is specified in bits so this historical rule could even override it oh my god nooooooooooooooo :)

Bye, Skybuck.

Well,
>
> I checked some other websites, and some websites mention this same

bandwidth

number as the external bandwidth. However Nvidia might have mistakenly

used

the GB notation which means Gigabyte... but they actually mean gigabit...
>
> So dividing this bandwidth number 38.4 by 8 bits maybe even some overheads
> bits (2) let s say in total 10 bits.
>
> Gives: 3.84 Gigabyte/sec.
>
> Which matches the maximum speed of PCI-Express a lot better.
>
> So if this is the thruth then I am right by assuming that the hardware

will

reach the gigabyte limitation of the PCI-Express bus. Do you really thing

made that all up ? No man, Like I said I have googled extensively and read

lot... and on one of those websites I read that the GPU is HELD BACK BY

THE

CPU ;) :P
>
> So it's time for you to CRAWL BACK UNDER THE ROCK WHERE YOU CAME FROM LOL

=D

> YOU OUTDATED/OBSOLETE LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
>
> Bye,
> Skybuck =D
>
> P.S.: Me stupid for listening to a dumb ass newby like you...
>
> I'll just go ahead and design my dream PC without you ;) :P
> hihihihihihihihihi.
>
> > Here is a nice start:
> >
> > Technical specifications of GeForce 7800:
> >
> >

formatting link

> >
> > Graphics Bus Technology: PCI Express
> > Memory Interface: 256-bit
> > Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec.): 38.4
> > Fill Rate (billion pixels/sec.): 10.32
> > Vertices/sec. (million): 860
> > Pixels per clock (peak): 24
> > RAMDACs (MHz): 400
> >
> > In particular notice this line:
> >
> > Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec.): 38.4
> >
> > Is this a theoretical or practically limitation ?
> >
> > I would guess a practical since the rest looks pretty practical too.
> >
> > However this information could be misleading.
> >
> > What is ment with memory bandwidth in this case ?
> >
> > Case 1: Main/PC/System RAM System Bus Graphics Card
> >
> > or
> >
> > Case 2: Onboard graphics card memory/ram communication.
> >
> > My guess would be 2 !!!!! ( Because PCI express can't even handle that
> much
> > bandwidth at the present time)
> >
> > Which is still pretty f****ng amazing ;)
> >
> > Here we are with an Athlon X2 4800 dual core which is able to "only"
> manage
> > to pump around 6.4 GB/sec...
> >
> > Gjee... ;)
> >
> > Maybe I am wrong and maybe it's case 2 =D >
> > Bye,
> > Skybuck.
> >
> > > 'Skybuck Flying crossposted some questions to way to many newsgroups:
> > > | Hello fellow netcitizens I have some hardware bandwidth questions

for

> you:
> > > .
> > > .
> > > _____
> > >
> > > A memory bus is bidirectional; data can move in two directions, but

NOT

AT
> > > THE SAME TIME.
> > >
> > > Memory bandwidths are given in PEAK capacity. No current memory

modules

> can
> > > come even close to delivering data as fast as current CPUs can use the
> > data.
> > >
> > > No peripherials currently available (including display adapters) can

use

> > anything near the PEAK capacity of ANY of the newer buses for which

they

> are
> > > designed. Even ATA133 can't be maxed out.
> > >
> > > Do a lot more reading and reconsider the rest of your questions.
> > >
> > > Phil Weldon
> > >
> > > | Hello fellow netcitizens I have some hardware bandwidth questions

for

> you:
> > > |
> > > | Q1: Some websites specifications say:
> > > |
> > > | 1. The Athlon X2 4800 processor is limited to 6.4 Gigabyte/sec of
> memory
> > > | bandwidth.
> > > | 2. Intel Pentium Extreme Edition processor is limited to 6.4
> > Gigabyte/sec
> > > of
> > > | memory bandwidth.
> > > |
> > > | Case 1. Does this mean 3.2 Gigabyte/sec in both directions ?
> > > |
> > > | Case 2. Or is it possible to have 6.4 Gigabyte/sec going in one
> > direction
> > > ?
> > > |
> > > | Q2: Some website specifications say (more or less):
> > > |
> > > | PCI-E 16x slot is 8 Gigabyte/sec, 4 Gigabyte/sec IN and 4

Gigabyte/Sec

> out
> > > | PCI-E 8x slot is 4 Gigabyte/sec, 2 Gigabyte/sec IN and 2

Gigabyte/Sec

> out
> > > | PCI-E 4x slot is 2 Gigabyte/sec, 1 Gigabyte/sec IN and 1

Gigabyte/Sec

> out
> > > | PCI-E 2x slot is 1 Gigabyte/sec, 512 Megabyte/sec IN and 512
> > Megabyte/Sec
> > > | out
> > > | PCI-E 1x slot is 512 Megabyte/sec, 256 Megabyte/sec IN and 256
> > > Megabyte/Sec
> > > | out
> > > |
> > > | Case 3. So does this mean that PCI-E 16x slot is limited to 4
> > Gigabyte/sec
> > > | in one direction ?
> > > |
> > > | Case 4. Or is it possible to go 8 Gigabyte/sec in one direction ?
> > > |
> > > | I'll assume Case 2 and Case 3 to be true.
> > > |
> > > | Furthermore it seems current SLI motherboards when in SLI mode,
> > > | turn the two PCI-E 16x slots into PCI-E 8x slots.
> > > |
> > > | So the bandwidth that is available in SLI mode is the same as in
> SINGLE
> > > | mode.
> > > |
> > > | Anyway in both cases this would mean a maximum input for the

graphics

> > cards
> > > | of:
> > > |
> > > | Single: 4 Gigabyte/sec Input.
> > > |
> > > | SLI: 2 Gigabyte/sec + 2 Gigabyte/sec = 4 Gigabyte/sec Input.
> > > |
> > > | So that would leave 2.4 Gigabyte/sec for output.
> > > | (from graphics card back to RAM)
> > > |
> > > | Single: 2.4 Gigabyte/sec Output
> > > |
> > > | SLI: 1.2 Gigabyte/sec + 1.2 Gigabyte/sec = 2.4 Gigabyte/sec Output.
> > > |
> > > | So if I were to buy such an SLI motherboard it would be pointless to
> buy
> > a
> > > | graphics card which can handle more than 2 gigabyte/sec of input and
> > more
> > > | than 1.2 gigabyte/sec of output.
> > > |
> > > | Q3: How much bandwidth can the new Nvidia GTX 7800 process for input
> and
> > > | generate for output ?
> > > |
> > > | Q4: How much bandwidth can the processors handle ?
> > > |
> > > | Alternatively I could wait for new motherboards to come out with

FULL

> > | BANDWIDTH PCI-E 16x slots.
> > > |
> > > | Then the picture would look like this:
> > > |
> > > | Single: 4 Gigabyte/sec Input.
> > > |
> > > | SLI: 4 Gigabyte/sec + 4 Gigabyte/sec = 8 Gigabyte/sec Input.
> > > |
> > > | BUT this is now limited by the the processor/memory controller: 6.4
> > > | Gigabyte/sec
> > > |
> > > | SLI: 3.2 Gigabyte/sec + 3.2 Gigabyte/sec = 6.4 Gigabyte/sec Input.
> > > |
> > > | That would leave no room for output... that s bad.
> > > |
> > > | So better could be:
> > > |
> > > | SLI: 2 Gigabyte/sec + 2 Gigabyte/sec = 4 Gigabyte/sec Input.
> > > |
> > > | SLI: 1.2 Gigabyte/sec + 1.2 Gigabyte/sec = 2.4 Gigabyte/sec Output/
> > > |
> > > | So I think I must come to the conclusion that with this
> processor/memory
> > > | controller/bandwidth limitation waiting/buying this new motherboard
> will
> > > | solve absolutely nothing. Since the bottleneck is in the
> > processor/memory
> > > | controller. (I think sometimes this is called the northbridge chip

? )

> > |
> > > | Anyway these dual core processors are very expensive.. so just
> upgrading
> > > | them in the future for a little bit more bandwidth seems crazy.
> > > |
> > > | My conclusion is as follows:
> > > |
> > > | 1. If the single card (the gtx 7800) is able to handle 6.4
> Gigabyte/sec
> > of
> > > | input + output then I don't need SLI ;)
> > > |
> > > | 2. Otherwise I could buy into SLI as soon as the price has dropped

to

a
> > > | certain point for the secondary graphics card.
> > > |
> > > | The performance increase for SLI is:
> > > | ( ( Final Performance - Original Performance ) / Original
> Performance )
> > *
> > > | 100%
> > > | ( ( 6.4 - 4.0 ) / 4.0 ) * 100% = 60%
> > > |
> > > | Let's see the current price is $500 dollars.
> > > |
> > > | So the price of the future card should only be 60% of the price

which

it
> > > is
> > > | now.
> > > |
> > > | $5 * 60% = $300 dollars
> > > |
> > > | Alternative way of calculating:
> > > |
> > > | The current performance is 100% procent.
> > > |
> > > | The future performance will be 160% procent.
> > > |
> > > | So the future total price should not exceed 160 * $5 dollars = $800
> > total
> > > | dollars
> > > |
> > > | We might already have payed $500 dollars so an investment of $300
> > dollars
> > > is
> > > | warrented to get the same percentagual increase in performance
> > > | hehehehehehhihihihi.
> > > |
> > > | Ofcourse by then much better cards might have come out with even
> > superior
> > > | performance... though our current motherboards won't be able to
> benefit
> > > from
> > > | them, simply because the bottleneck of 4 Gigabyte/sec
> > > | in and 4 Gigabyte/sec out... but that would exceed the main

memory/ram

> of
> > > | 6.4 Gigabyte... so finally we more or less limited to 3.2

Gigabyte/sec

> for
> > > | current motherboards/processors/chipsets ;)
> > > |
> > > | Bye,
> > > | Skybuck.
> > > |
> > > |
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Can you explain me what the f... are you doing here ? You are posting to your self entire post, stop torturing us with your useless observations !

Indeed. ;-)

But seriously, I thought that the CGPM had given at least semi-official recognition to the IEC binary prefixes at the 2003 meeting. IIRC, they

Actually, no, from that page: "It is important to recognize that the new prefixes for binary multiples are not part of the International System of Units (SI), the modern metric system."

The great thing about standards...

Agreed.

G.

like

Gigabyte

gigabit...

overheads

thing

read

LOL

newsgroups:

the

Output.

to

and

input

motherboard

$800

Get the f*ck out of my thread with your useless remarks :P =D

Bye, Skybuck.

Learn how to post, f****it.

You ever heard of redudancy ?!?

:PPPPPPPPPPPPP*************

Bye, you f****it lol, Skybuck.

While you post inane rubbish, in an adjacent thread, Mashey (Mips),Andy Glew (Intel) and Mitch Alsup (AMD) are sharing some of their microprocessor architectural wisdom with us.