David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 4/13/11 wrote:
---------------------------
>PiedPiper (jamesdgwise@gmail.com) on 4/13/11 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Another good article, and i definitely like the idea of more regular smaller, and
>>as a result simpler/easier to understand,
>>articles.
>>
>>A good if somewhat basic analysis of modern GPU's.
>>I'm interested as to weather or not you did any testing / theorizing that took
>>into account memory bandwidth, prior to ignoring that >factor?
>
>Absolutely. I decided that I didn't have the time or word count to really deal
>with it adequately. Bandwidth matters, but one step at a time.
>
>>I cant help but think *purely guessing though* that if you added a scaling factor
>>that accounted for differences in memory bandwidth, that your results might be even
>>more accurate, especially when generalizing from the >laptop to the desktop version of the cards.
>
>That's definitely true, and the models I use for myself include memory bandwidth.
>But as I said in the article - it's more complicated, harder to visualize and really
>just beyond the scope of what I wanted to do.
>
>>EG. Memory bandwidth / number of processing cores
>>( or maybe establish a baseline memory Bandwidth for each >model of GPU, and then compare against that....
>>
>>Also interested as to why you chose notebookcheck.net as >your data source? Why
>>not use Anand/Hardocp/techreport and compare desktop GPU's?
>
>Of the three you mentioned, I only really trust data from Scott @ TR. Unfortunately,
>Scott doesn't use 3DMark, and I didn't want to use a real game (for a variety of
>reasons which might become clear later). Moreover, none of them put their data into a form that is readily usable.
>
>David

I personally prefer [H] for graphics card performance, Brent is very good at what he does.