[rescue] WTB: SGI
Joshua D. Boyd
rescue at sunhelp.org
Tue Jun 19 10:42:13 CDT 2001
Of course we are comparing apples and pears. An apple is an apple. Who
really cares to compare them. I'd much rather compare an apple to a pear,
or to a SGI.
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, [iso-8859-1] Bj=F6rn Ramqvist wrote:
> "Joshua D. Boyd" wrote:
> > I just read that paper. I had a question. A two TE machine has nearly=
> > gigaflop of transformation power. So, does this mean that a G4 can
> > transform more geometry in software than an Impact can in hardware?
> Well, in theory that is, yes. This also depends on what that
> G4-processor is doing in between transforming those polys.
> However, we're comparing apples and pears again. Let me point out why:
> First of all, I believe that article is looking at the "first
> generation" Impact boards used in the early generation Octanes. The SI,
> SSI and MXI was replaced somewhere around '97-'98 to a new set of TE and
> GE ASICs, which turned out to be SE, SSE and MXE graphics. Benchmarks
> went up 10-50% for geometrical and texture-oriented calculations cause
> of that ASIC-boost, leaving the ol'e I2 MaxImpact in the dust, atleast
> in 95% of the cases.
> Octane was introduced somewhere '96-'97 and the Impact graphics set were
> dated back '93, so the graphics hardware really did need a refreshment.
> The VPro family of graphics ('99-'00) is a breeze fresh air for the
> aging Impact hardware.
> Second, It's not uncommon for CPUs to be quicker than their graphics
> hardware, where one specific example of this behaviour happened when
> they released the Indy R5000:
> Item MFLOPS
> XZ Hardware 128
> R5000 150MHz 300
> R5000 180MHz 360
> So generally, it wouldn't be such a bad idea to put G4's on a
> graphicsboard and use them as geometric engines. Although a probably
> expensive solution, it would in theory be a simple idea to offload the
> main CPU.
> (like SGI's graphics wasn't expensive?)
> rescue maillist - rescue at sunhelp.org
More information about the rescue