🚀 go-pugleaf

Sebastian Kaliszewski <Sebastian.Kaliszewski@softax.com.pl> wrote in message
news:81lod5$vlk$1@euler.softax.local...
> Could you, please, first read my letter, before replying?
> If chips share memory the SHARE textures, too. There is no point in
> duplicating exactly the same data if memory is shared.
>
> That's the point. If they USED shared DDR instead of duplicated non-DDR
> they'd have cheaper solution.

Again, they cant share the textures.  Each chip has to work from it's own
set.
This is the way it was with Voodoo2 and is still the way with Voodoo5.
If there was a better way, they would have done it by now.  There has got to
be a good reason for why they cant share.

> > but would also severly limit the
> >scalability of the chipset.
>
> They simply waste memory. Now they are going too sell 64MB cards
screasming:
> Wow! 64MB RAM card! Average Joe would go for it and buy it, even if
cheaper
> card with ~40MB memory would be in all aspects better.

Nothing you said here addresses the fact that even if they could "share" it
would severely limit the scalability of the chipset.  The whole point of
VSA-100 is the ability to scale.
There is no "waste" of memory if the card is using that memory to achieve
such high fillrates.
Besides, they will be screaming xxxMpixels/sec, not 64MB RAM.

> At 1280x1024x32 with tripple buffer 24 MB of that memory is wasted for
duplicated textures. At
> lower resolutions even more is wasted.

The resolution has nothing to do with how much texture RAM is being used,
the game does.