R600 Die Shots

hahaha translated sites are funny.

but seriosly, how big is that chinese coin in comparison to a quarter?

I tried to find that aswell, but the Chinese dont have a 10 coin.. Take a look at the CPU comparison for now.

Ya but its weakness is raster ops and texture units. Hopefully in dx10 geometry will replace texture units.

The 8800's weakness is ROP and Texture Units, the R600 currently has no known weakness.

Technically it's not since it all divides evenly on the 8800gtx its 42-43 pixel,vertex,and geometry.

from what iv seen the actual size of the metal around the gpu is the same size as the x1900 xtx

...8800's weekness is ROPs and texture units? where the hell are you getting that nonsense from Track?

@Mike: Sine u asked so nicely, ill tell u.
The 8800s have no weakness because its not like a part of them is bottlenecking the rest. But if i was to say wich part is the weakest, it would have to be the Texture Fill and the Pixel Fill. The Texture fill is 4 times less than the Shader operations (4:1) and th Pixel fill is 5.3 times less (5.3:1). Do u need more than what there already is? ATI dosent think so, and if so then it is a bottlneck and if it is a bottleneck then it IS a weakness because then having more would be better.

It is a Taiwan coin, and its diameter is 25mm.

@Track Those ratios are absolutely meaningless.

@Mike: Unless ATI is right in their claim that games require much more shaders than textures, then ur going to need more textures than 1/4 of the ammount of shaders. In any case, ur claim that ratios are meaningless is only valid if all u want to do is compare performance beetween cards. But thats not the only thing that is important for those who want to understand the architecture of a card.

@Track: The ratios are meaningless for several reasons. First, the clock speeds are completely different for the ROPs/TMUs and the unified pipelines (the unified pipelines are 2x faster). Second, screens are not getting bigger, you don't need any more ROPs or texture units because the amount of work they need to do is staying constant while the amount of shader work that needs to be done is increasing dramatically. ATi is right in their assertion that shaders are more important, it just isn't quite here yet.

@Mike: I did not claim that the ratios were meaninful because they are a weakness. In fact i do not see it as a weekness, but inlight of cards such as the 7950 GX2 wich has less shaders than the X1900XT but performs better, i can only trust the results of benchmarks and not blindly trust ATI in their assertion that shaders are more pletifuly used than textures.
So are u saying that the ratio is fine and NOT a weakness and that u need more shaders, or that the use for shaders is not here yet?

I'm saying that shaders are in fact more important if you have enough texture horsepower to back it up...but you can still go overboard with shading power, and that's what the x1950xtx did...

[Mike]"I'm saying that shaders are in fact more important if you have enough texture horsepower to back it up...but you can still go overboard with shading power, and that's what the x1950xtx did..."

Lol Mike.Thats what track has been saying all along, Ati did go overboard with the shaders on the x1k series. But so has Nvidia with the 8 series.