• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

PowerVR demonstrate x2 to x16 core GPU chip for mobile devices!

titaniumx3 said "Sorry but I find your claims absurd, show us some evidence of this 75mhz powervr gpu outperforming Nvidia's top end GPU."
This http://www.youtube.com/user/CausticGraphics#p/u/4/LSwjXDCknpo is an old developer card running at 75Mhz from 2009 and its over x10 faster than Nvidia top end desktop GPU's which do about 0.6fps on a single GPU. That's a developer far from finale performance and the newer generations are meant to be much faster. The 2nd gen is ment to be x14 faster.



drunkenmaster said "The problem is, how would that 75Mhz chip do at gaming, answer, almost certainly utterly rubbish."
Your really don't get it do you? The technology is to be mixed with PowerVR tile based chips. The point is if a slow 75Mhz developer card can performed that well imagine what it's going to do on a full blown none developer PowerVR chip running at full speed. The answer is its going be way faster.

A PowerVR 75Mhz chip is about the same as a 700Mhz Nvidia chip. All they need to do is bump the speed up to say 150 to 200mhz add in the ray tracing parts and you have a pretty impressive chip.



drunkenmaster said " Likewise WHAT did it raytrace, was it not a highly accelerated for one specific purpose chip. Have a look at quicksync on Sandybridge, when you have hardware acceleration its magnitudes faster than general purpose hardware programmed in software to do the same job."
Anything and everything. The whole point of the Caustic technology is its a full real-time, fully interactive renderer for a wide range of 3D graphics applications. It's not highly accelerated for one specific purpose which is what's so impressive about Caustic technology ,it's made for 3D artists to designers and end users.

Its takes no shortcuts and does full raytraceing.



drunkenmaster said " What happens if a game has a new feature this fantastic, unavailable, not produced chip doesn't support, does fps go from 60fps to 0.00001fps?"
What a strange thing to say. What normally happens when a new feature comes out and your current chip does not support? As you know 0.00001fps would be an odd case. DX11 games don't drop my DX10 card from 60fps down to 0.00001fps.

What's more likely to happen is Nvidia will not have this nice feature so the games and software and go from 60fps with a PowerVR GPU to 0.1fps with a Nvidia GPU. Anyway for many of the platforms PowerVR are 100% market pretention so all the apps and software are made for PowerVR. The only time a new feature is going to be added is when a new generation of PowerVR hardware comes out. PowerVR are the market leaders in the space this will be used in.



drunkenmaster said "Your claim is so random, unquantified, and unknown."
My claims are 100% provable you just like to ignore anything that doesn't agree with you as this thread shows when you said the Ipad has low textures and low res even though you have been proven wrong many times on that.



drunkenmaster said " Why do people insist on ignoring logic. A basic tablet/smartphone ARM chip has advantages over desktop chips in power because they are designed to be that low power as the PRIMARY goal."
I am not ignoring logic, you are. The architecture of PowerVR is vastly different from ATI or Nvidia. PowerVR need vastly less power requirement to match ATI or NV .

PowerVR chips are magnitudes slower in raw speed then ATI and NV yet match them in 3D speed. Like its been pointed out a 100mhz PowerVR matches a 1000Mhz NV chip.

Sure desktops have access to more power but PowerVR don't need as much power and PowerVR are magnitudes faster at ray tracing.



drunkenmaster said "A smartphone/tablet chip is magnitudes slower than a desktop chip, and the same goes gpu's."
But if the technology keeps changing as it is, mobiles chip will be magnitudes faster in areas like ray tracing. This could mean far better looking games. Please note I said could, I did not say will.



drunkenmaster said " Its pretty simple, if this 75Mhz chip was THAT good, it would be out, making a killing and putting the other guys out of business."
It is out since 2009 and is the market leader in the hardware ray tracing world isn't it? Lots of software packages and people use it. Lots of companies use it.


drunkenmaster said "What you're talking about is a highly highly specialised, single function chip that can do one thing very well and can't in any way be released into an industry for gaming that doesn't give a monkeys about raytracing yet.c"
So what happens when 100% of Ipads 3/4 and/or 100% Iphones 6/7 have this chip? Do you really think no one will give monkeys about it? Do you really think no apps or games will come out that use it? All it will take is one nice looking app and lots of developers will get interested in ray tracing. Lots will be interested as 100% of that gen will be able to use it.

Considering how big the gaming market is for mobiles how can you say this isn't a chip for gaming? You might not like mobile gaming but it doesn't change the fact it's massive and predicted to overtake desktop gaming.


drunkenmaster said " A powervr card that is the slowest card in the past decade for any available game but can run some soon to be released game paid for by PowerVr really really well isn't interesting in the least."
You really have no concept of the markets do you? Or any real understand of technology. How am I meant to respond to something as wrong as what you just said? I have done a lot of research to this to the point where I am feel as safe as one can investing money in it. I guess one off two things are going happen, I am right and make a ton of money or you are right and I lose money. Time will tell.



MoodyB " http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=546
Imho, a hybrid engine that combines rasterisation & ray tracing will no doubt be the best of both worlds, but certainly not a ray tracing only engine."
I am pretty sure that the PowerVR/Caustic technology is a choice of Ray only or Hybrid with rasterisation. I need to re watch he videos.

For those interested thesse are old exmples of Castic technology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ2OltdXGZo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUa-2_KBwCs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO42parB9G4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwjQk7dJOFQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJoA4LdzhQs
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said "As for what happens when a new feature comes out, again you utterly utterly utterly fail to comprehend the very simple argument here.

When you make something small, dedicated hardware acceleration you can speed up ANYTHING and not that but VERY EASILY. Hardware acceleration is incredibly easy."
No I do no fail comprehend. You skipped over what I wrote again. PowerVR's plan is not dedicated hardware acceleration for one thing only. It's a full 3D chip that does full DX10/11 and ray tracing. It does everything current Nvidia and ATi cards do plus ray tracing.

When a new feature comes out the same thing happens to it as would happen to ATI or Nvidia. I don't see your point.



drunkenmaster said " So, name a game this fantastic 75Mhz card can raytrace, please, go on. The card takes no shortcuts and does full raytracing, thats fine, can it run DX11 game?"
What a stupid question. You know full well the first card was not a gaming card. It was developer card. The final product was sold for a different market to gaming so of course it doesn't run games. We are not going to have games years before the chip is due in a gaming market. The point is its being added to a PowerVR gaming chip for use in games and other software in a few generations. As for DX11 it doesn't exist into the market the PowerVR are in. But still the older chip supported DX10 the new chip has not been announced yet if it's supporting DX10 or beyond. It should run games just fine when it arrives.



drunkenmaster said " What you seem to be suggesting is this one card runs ONE piece of software, and herein lies the problem, said company doesn't make games, nor does anyone own one of these cards for gaming, so penetrating the gaming market will be almost impossible."
What? Where did get this one bit of software from? I already said it runs lots of software from lots of companies. Market penetration for gaming will be easy for the reasons posted before Where Anyway for many of the platforms PowerVR are 100% market penetration so all the apps and software are made for PowerVR. Within the generation this chip arrives 100% of that generation for the most popular platforms will support it.

Its not like the desktop card market where only half or less of people will have the feature so few will use it. We are talking between 80 to 100% market penetration hardware wise depending on platform and assuming the numbers don't change.

Like I said if 100% of Ipads 3/4 and Iphones 5/6 support it you can bet there will be lots of devs using it for games. This is the point when we might end up with better graphics on mobiles then desktops if desktops don't get ray tracing. Its not a fantasy it's a possibility. It might not happen but it could well happen.



You said " You're using the idea that a company can create a 75Mhz card, that you've provided next to no info on, but can supposedly do raytracing really really well, as a reason why a different chip will eventually surpass desktop cards performance."
I provide lots of info in this thread and the other one. Anyone can look it up with ease as well. As for speed that's not what I am saying. I said if the mobile market increase by 200 to 400% in speed per year. The PC market increases in speed by 10 to 20% per year. If this happens year in year out then logically if the trend doesn't change mobiles will overtake desktops. The speed increase between generations on mobiles is and has been for years bigger then the speed increase in desktops. It might not keep up but so far it is. I also gave a good reason for more R&D being spent on mobiles then desktops.

On top of the speed difference I argued that perhaps if mobiles get ray tracing they can produce graphics beyond what the desktop without ray tracing can produce. That is a reasonable assumption.



metalmackey " If this chip was that amazing, why dont they produce say a 50 watt version for desktops and blow the compition out of the water? "
I already explained that at least twice in this thread. They have designed high powered desktop cards.



EDIT: What I am trying to say is that platform A with DX11 3D and full hardware reytracing with 100% of the platform in that generation having the hardware might/could/possibly end up with better graphics then platform B without full hardware retracing and mixed hardware.

Is that really unreasonable?
 
Last edited:
rafster said “It would be akin to saying something like "Kids toy electric cars went from 2.5mph to 5mph average speeds last year. Ferraris increased their average speed by 5%. Soon, kids cars will be faster than Ferraris!"”
I don’t think its akin to that at all. I am not looking a one years’ worth of numbers and its predicted mobiles will overtake desktops which means more R&D spent on them. So it’s more akin to a normal road Electric cars went from 2.5mph to 5mph one year. Then next year 5 mph to 15 mph. Then next year 15 mph to 60 mph then next year 60 mph to 100 mph. Then the year after more money is put into electric cars then Ferraris as the electric cars market is bigger and new technology are implanted in Electric cars that Ferraris didn’t invest in (ray Traceing). So going by past history speed increase’s, market size and more R&D being spent on electric cars you might get to stage where the electric cars goes faster. Might.

I am not basing my data on a single years’ worth of info. I am looking at past history and known upcoming advancements. This is just like the people years ago who said we would never see 3dchips in phones. Or the people who said we never get up to DX10 features in phones anytime soon and look how wrong those people turned out to be.
 
Meaker Said “Ok say you develop some wonder chip.

What stops me taking 4 of those chips and puttng them in a desktop?”
Nvidia and ATI don’t have the technology I am talking about and PowerVR are not currently in the desktop market. In theory you are right PowerVR could take those 4 chip and even scale them up to x16 chips for the desktop. But if PowerVR are focused on the mobile with no desktop clients those chips will never get moved up.

That’s part of my argument. If PowerVR’s architecture keeps advancing like it is and they don’t move to the desktop market. It’s only going to take a few generations before they can pull off graphics that desktop cards cannot. It’s not a sure bet but it’s not as far-fetched as some people on here seem to think. It’s a very real possibility now due to Caustic's tech

I don’t mean to say PowerVR will run the latest desktop game better then ATI or NV. But we might end up with mobile games pulling off graphics ATI and NV cannot do at useable speeds. Those videos I posted of caustic tech are all beyound what ATI and NV can do.




Meaker Said “Then we have issues with bandwidth, PC GPUs have access to hundreds of GB/sec of bandwidth, something phones have no chance of copying.”
That’s part of the advantage of PowerVR’s architecture. It needs vastly less bandwidth, less raw speed, less power to run to match the same performance of ATI and NVidia’s chip. Those are all still problems but much less with PowerVR’s architecture.

It’s like the days when PowerVR where in the desktop market. Some people said the Kyro was rubbish as it didn’t have DDR ram and only had SDR and it had a low clock speed of 175mhz. But it didn’t need the extra bandwidth of DDR ram as the architecture is so different. DDR would have just increased the cost with zero benefit. As for 175Mhz that performed as well as Nvidias 800Mhz cards.

Yes I agree if PowerVR’s chips got moved up to desktop they could do more. The question is what happens when they don’t get moved up? What happens when the caustic tech gets added to the mobile space but not desktop space. Thats when things get interesting. That’s when mobiles might be able to do graphics desktops cannot.
 
Last edited:
metalmackey said “So PowerVR have made a "wonder chip" that canbeat a desktop GPU but uses a few watts in power, and they dont want to make a desktop card, why? If this chip does what you say, they could dominate the PC graphics market and earn billions.”
For the last time they are an IP company and do not produce cards. PowerVR licence the technology out to other companies to use. High end desktop cards are low volume and not really worth it from a profit point of view. It’s unlikely we will see a desktop card any time soon. There are rumours but I cannot think of any companies that would want to enter the desktop market. Not when its predicted to be the smaller of the GPU markets in coming years.

Its strongly rumoured PowerVR are in the PSP2 which has the power of a PS3. Hopefully we will find out if this is true on January 27th. See for a little more info

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=283339
 
titaniumx3 said “Unless I'm mistaken, the technology in mobile devices isn't radically different to normal desktop components, they are simply scaled down and always will be unless we have a completely new computing architecture in the works.”
That’s the bit I am trying to explain but don’t seem to be doing a good job of it. The architecture is different and is not just a scaled down version of desktop parts.

I do agree with “will they be able to sustain this rate of increase and for how long.” that is the key bit. Can this different architecture keep increasing at the current pace. If it can then it will overtake desktops at the current rate. But can it keep up the pace?


Owenb “Even the best mobile GPU's are about 8-10 years behind. “
But what happens when/if mobiles swap to a very different way of working. Like swapping to either raytraceing or a hybrid of raytraceing before desktops? Mobiles are starting to pick up new features and technology’s faster than desktops.

Will mobiles then be behind desktops?
 
But how would the architechture makes its into the PC? ATI and Nvidia would never licence the technology it would be too embarrassing I would have thought. Who else would use it and move it over?

I would love to see it in the desktop space but I just cannot think of any company that would want to do that.

I agree in theory the mobile chips could be moved into the desktop space either higher clocks or more cores. But who would produce the card? If there is no one to move it into the PC space then the advantage stays in the mobile space.
 
titaniumx3 said "Also why are PowerVR limiting themselves to handheld mobile platforms, why not enter the desktop and notebook market with such amazing technology?"
PowerVR are not limiting themselves to a handheld platform as they have desktop and other chips. Do I really have to explain that one again, they are an IP company. I assume you know what an IP company is? This is the main reason I don't see the technology being moved into the desktop space. This is why I don't buy the argument but the desktop can just take the same PowerVR chip and scale it up. Yes it could happen but its even more unlikely to happen then PowerVR getting ray tracing in mobiles.



titaniumx3 said "Sure it's a possiblity, but one must then ask how probable is it - to which the rest of us are saying, not very probable at all, for reasons we have already discussed."
But the reasons you lot are giving are unlikely to happen. The main argument against what I say seems to be, but we could just scale up the chip and cloak speed in the desktop market. But that is extremely unlikely to happen for the reasons I stated.

As metalmackey said yes Amd/Nvidia would have to come up with similar tech but how fast can they do that when it appears PowerVR are generations ahead in that area?



titaniumx3 said "I hope you realise that, as perceived image quality/complexity of a 3D scene increases, the computing power required to render the scene increases in a non-linear fashion (possibly exponentially)."
Due to the way PowerVR's architecture works the more complicated a screen gets the more data is removed and not needed to be rendered.

Take a PowerVR Kyro in a simple screen it was the Speed of a Geforce MX. In a medium complexity screen it was the speed of a Geforce GTS/GTX in a high complex screen it was the speed of an Geforce Ultra. In a super high complex screen it was too slow to use but could render the screen far faster ten a Geforce Ultra.

Yes the computing power to render a screen increases in a non-linear fashion but PowerVR have the advantage in high complex screens. For example a screen with an overdraw rate of x2 makes PowerVR chips effectively x2 faster as ATI and Nvidia have to render x2 more data than PowerVR. In a high complex screen with an overdraw rate of 5 ATI and Nvidia have to render x5 more data just to match the end result of PowerVR.

That's one of the most interesting things about PowerVR's architecture. It's just so much more efficient.
 
metalmackey said "I agree, and if this chip was so good Intel/Amd could easily incorparate something like it into CPU's as the watts would be so low."
After a nights sleep I just remembered Intel has taken out a licence and started working on this for the desktop. But its unclear which gen of chip they are useing.

As for those thinking PowerVR's Tile based rendering is the same as ATI/AMD you need to do more research. The architecture is vastly different. ATI/AMD do not do hardware tile based rendering. A few tricks in software do not make your card a tile based card or give many of the advantages. Putting two none Tile based cards together does not make a real tile based card. PowerVR still have many advantages.

As for the Kyro 1 & 2 it was not destroyed by the MX and even if it was just under MX speeds it proves my point. A low Mhz speed Kyro can match a higher Mhz speed MX.
 
Thanks for informing me I wasn’t aware of that. All I could find was references to two none tile based cards being tile based via software in Crossfire.

Still I don’t understand AMD’s thinking. So AMD list the benefits of Tile based rendering, use it in mobiles and consoles but not in desktops. Then sell this efficient architecture so they no longer have access to it. What’s the idea behind all that?
 
drunkenmaster said "This is where ultra accelerated but ultra LIMITED mobile graphics will fall down, and why a top end gpu uses 200W +, all the added effects you add, not only need more power but they also add the need to redo other effects so they all work together."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ssd4P0bgSM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy2hXtUN2t0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC2ul99iRkk
Make sure you watch the above in HD.

Yes mobiles really fall down at all those effects :) Epic Citadel has full Bump offset mapping AKA parallax mapping, Unreal's Global illumination to provides realistic lighting and shadows, Dynamic specular lighting with texture masks, Real-time reflections and animation and many more features. If that is somehow not good enough most of those affect will be far beyond what rasterisation based desktop cards can do once we get ray tracing.

Anyway realistic night/day cycle, shadows, realistic lighting all look way and I do mean way better via ray tracing then via rasterisation based desktop cards.

All those people saying mobiles are 16years behind, or my N64 could do mobile graphics better then PowerVR should really go go watch the above videos in HD. I like the middle one best.



drunkenmaster said "We're a decade or more away from Crysis type performance/effects on a mobile chip that can run under 2W."
If the x4 core chip come out on time this year you do realise don't you that we are only about half a year away from getting GeForce 8600 desktop card worth of power in mobiles. If I am not mistaken the 8600 can run Crysis.

Any 8 core PowerVR SGX543MP8 chip at a low 400 MHz would deliver around 532 million polygons and 16 billion pixels per second. Which is around GeForce GTX 260-216 level. Mobile tech is catching up fast. Now take that power and add in real time ray traceing along side rasterisation graphics.

EDIT:Its interesting to see how far mobiles have advance just in the past 6 months
 
Last edited:
Well we shouldn't have long to wait. If I am right on the 27th of January we should see mobile graphic chips over 8times more powerful then the Iphone 4. Perhaps even as much as x10 more powerful. That will be yet another giant leap towards Crysis on mobiles.
 
It's not a vague or meaningless terms. We have the spec and power of today's chips and the specs and power of the chips coming this year. The 2011 dual core chips are over x4 more powerful then the 2010 chips and the quad core should be over x8 more powerful.
Now if you want meaningless numbers how about your x30 and x50 what is that based on?

Since when is a high end desktop GPU x30 more powerful then a GeForce 8600?
 
Last edited:
metalmackey said " so not only do these new chips have the power of a desktop GPU, they can do it without the power of a desktop CPU, mem bandwidth ect? "
That's the benefits of a PowerVR's architecture and tile based rendering. As I have been trying to explain a 200Mhz PowerVR chip match's a 1000Mhz NV chip. All the while the PowerVR architecture need less bandwidth.

A 4 core 200 MHz SGX543 pushes 133 million polygons per second and has a fill-rate of four billion pixels per second (4GPixel/s) and in high overdraw games those numbers get bigger. That's in the range of a GeForce 8600 desktop card all from a mobile chip.

Ok it doesn't match high end desktop chips yet but it's a very impressive improvement in a very short timeframe.
 
Gashman said:
wow, its like im almost there!!! :D
Click to expand...
Well mobile graphics are now well beyond that screen shot.Uncharted to me looks far better See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKsWSzAe5R4 which shows how much graphics power has jumped forward on mobiles. Thenew Iphone and Ipad should use the same gfx chip only x2 core over x4 core.

I cannot wait to see what PowerVR series 6 is going to be like in the PlayStation 4. Its a series 5 chip in the PSP2
 
Its only day one of the The Mobile World Congress 2011 show and its already been full of great news. Some of the more interesting facts

"offers up a speed increase over today's quad-core models by around “20-100 times the power”, yet consumes barely a milliwatt to run."

"Apart from the fact that they have managed to ship more than 200 million graphics cores in 2010 (which is more than AMD, Intel and Nvidia combined), Harold also told us that the next generation Series6 graphics architecture will be twenty times faster than the Series5 SGX."

So assuming 20x the power we are talking about a mobile chip with 2660 million polygons per second and a fill rate of 80GPixel/s a second. Plus real time ray tracing which is being ment to be heavy shown this week.

source

http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/Various/Imagination+Technologies+news/news.asp?c=27514

http://www.itproportal.com/2011/02/14/exclusive-imagination-technologies-series6-20x-faster-series5/

For those interested ray tracing there has been a little more info at http://segaleaks.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/powervr-engineer-speaks/

To quote the link “CPU ray tracing has received tremendous speed ups in the past decade, with works on acceleration structures, traversal algorithms, and packet (or frustum) traversal. While these advancements brought ray tracing into the real-time area, the speed is still generally not acceptable.

PowerVR presents a solution, which proposes to place a small dedicated hardware ray traversal engine (RTE) directly on the GPU die.

The RTE has been confirmed to run at frequencies above 2GHz and can fit into an area less than 15mm2, achieving performance of over 1000 million rays per second.”

If true it’s pretty interesting and an impressive achievement. But it’s too early to celebrate and I am not convinced it’s true. 2ghz would be very out of character for a PowerVR chip. There chips tend to run more in the 100Mhz to 200Mhz range and use other tricks for speed then raw Mhz. At a push I could see 400mz but 2Ghz?
 
It's not a fatal flaw. For about the for about the 4ht or 5th time in this thread now. Yes a desktop card could be clocked higher with more cooling but there is no one to make it. PowerVR are an IP company which does not work in the same way as Nvidia or AMD.

Unless AMD or Nvidia licence the chip who else would want to enter the small desktop card market? I don't see AMD or Nvidia taking a licence as that would be too embarrassing. Most companys who could bring the chip would not as the desktop card market is too small to bother with. I just cannot think of any company who would want to enter the market. Mobiles are the future and mobiles are overtaking desktops both in unit numbers sold and perhaps over time even in GPU power. I am not saying the desktop market will die out but it's becoming the secondary smaller market.
 
metalmackey said " Pottsey, why do you think PowerVR has done what no other company has done and made a GPU that uses hardly any power and has desktop performance."
That massive technology show just started today and is going on all week. PowerVR have a large busy stand at the show and are selling series 6 technology.

PowerVR have constantly been ahead of everyone else in this area which is why they have almost all the market share. Past records prove they do what they say and that they have massive jumps in performance between chips. The refresh chip within the same series chip was x8 times faster than last. The series 6 Rogue chip is the first new generation from PowerVR in a while. It's not surprising it's much faster than a simple refresh. Look how many people said a series 5 refresh cannot be x8 faster and it was.

There is a lot of talk about the PowerVR Series 6 at the show and it's already in design with partners. There are also demonstrations of the latest ray tracing technologies from PowerVR/ Caustic.

Part of the stand
http://static.itproportal.com/slideshow_images/DSCF1422.jpg
http://www.imgtec.com/images/events/mwc_stand_2011_a.jpg
http://www.imgtec.com/images/events/mwc_stand_2011_b.jpg

I just noticed that Caustic Graphics Ray Tracing is also being shown at Game Developers Conference 2011 at the Imagination Technologies stand. Feb 28 - March 1. It must be further along then some people on here thought.


GDC Smartphone Summit Feb 28 - March 1
& GDC EXPO March 2-4


EDIT: titaniumx3 I have been unable to find and screenshots apart from those taken from the videos. If the HD videos are note enough or what has been said from the people using the device at the show then we have to wait.
 
Last edited:
metalmackey "Maybe they have but you seem to think that no one else could come up with something similar or better and the fact is they would have to. "
I am not saying no one else could just that PowerVR have a massive head start by years. Everyone else has to pretty much start the technology from scratch. PowerVR have been refining it for generations now.

Just look at Nvidia's current attempt with the Tegra 2. Nvidia's 1ghz chip doesn't even beat PowerVR's 100mhz last generation chip at games. Can Nvidia or AMD really make that much advanceman in such a short amount of time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom