John H (john.heritage.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 1, 2016 6:13 am wrote:
> David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 1, 2016 12:01 am wrote:
> > This is my first new article in a while, but its a treat. It's the first video I've done for the site.
> >
> > Starting with the Maxwell and Pascal architectures, Nvidia high-performance GPUs use tile-based
> > immediate-mode rasterizers, instead of conventional full-screen immediate-mode rasterizers. Using
> > simple DirectX shaders, we demonstrate the tile-based rasterization in Nvidia's Maxwell and Pascal
> > GPUs and contrast this behavior to the immediate-mode rasterizer used by AMD.
> >
> > http://www.realworldtech.com/tile-based-rasterization-nvidia-gpus/
> >
> > I look forward to the discussion.
> >
> > David
>
> David - excellent video and article. You deserve much respect as usual..
>
> In your estimation - if there were an 'incompatible situation' for this type of
> rendering/rasterization, could the drivers switch Maxwell back to the 'traditional
> PC mode' for output? If yes, any idea of what kind of performance hit?.
>
> Could this explain why Polaris hasn't caught up with Pascal on the perf/watt efficiency curve,
> despite the "in theory" advantage of Samsung/GloFo's 14nm process over TSMC's 16nm? (as evidenced
> by the Apple A9 that is slightly smaller and lower power on the Samsung 14nm process).
>
> Thanks!
> John H

14LPP has a density advantage but it has a power disadvantage (~10%) over 16FF+. TSMC A9's were lower power than Samsung ones.