By: dglow (nobody.delete@this.nowhere.none), August 2, 2016 5:08 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Montaray Jack (none.delete@this.none.org) on August 2, 2016 10:35 am wrote:
> I think this DirectX implementation of this program is flawed, Christoph Riccio's
> earlier OpenGL versions definitely showed different patterns. Admittedly, I didn't
> look at the program, but it might be doing something wrong with atomic counters.
>
> http://www.g-truc.net/post-0597.html
>
> Haswell, Kepler and Southern Islands are covered in this post.
Thank you for this link.
Christoph Riccio writes that "Kepler works using 4 by 8 pixel vertical blocks." If these blocks are the same 'rasterization tiles' Mr. Kanter points to in his video, then the thesis of Nvidia introducing tile-based rasterizers "starting with Maxwell" is false.
Mr. Kanter, how do you respond? Your news was picked up by Ars Technica and widely disseminated.
Is this a tempest in a teapot?
> I think this DirectX implementation of this program is flawed, Christoph Riccio's
> earlier OpenGL versions definitely showed different patterns. Admittedly, I didn't
> look at the program, but it might be doing something wrong with atomic counters.
>
> http://www.g-truc.net/post-0597.html
>
> Haswell, Kepler and Southern Islands are covered in this post.
Thank you for this link.
Christoph Riccio writes that "Kepler works using 4 by 8 pixel vertical blocks." If these blocks are the same 'rasterization tiles' Mr. Kanter points to in his video, then the thesis of Nvidia introducing tile-based rasterizers "starting with Maxwell" is false.
Mr. Kanter, how do you respond? Your news was picked up by Ars Technica and widely disseminated.
Is this a tempest in a teapot?
