[Geo]

Again, not any actual info, just mania about info.

This one has been even more quiet than R520.

What do we think we know, other than 110nm? Feeling confident it is a straight quad bolt-on, 16==>24? Anyone heard anything to lead them to believe they did a little tweaking here and there? Any new features?

Somewhere I got the idea that they'd probably be announcing before ATI, anyone care to put a date range on that? Does the fact that it is a refresh rather than a new gen mean we'd expect to see little-or-no leadup at nvidia.com?

Is there any evidence that anyone has actually seen one of these critters? For instance, were there some at CeBit?

[digitalwanderer]

I was under the impression that it wasn't coming until the Fall. :?

[Skinner]

grgrgrgrgr

[Geo]

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

I was under the impression that it wasn't coming until the Fall. :?

Really? For the 110nm part? And thus we won't see 90nm until spring 2006? The problem is, they've talked about seeing 90nm in 2H 2005, so if you back up 6 mos from there. . .

I found this from Wavey's CeBit article interesting:

both ATI and NVIDIA are dancing around each other a little at the moment, trying to catch each other by surprise

. . .as to whether it might mean something more than timing.

MuFu's rolling a "super NV43" possiblity out there was also intriguing.

At the moment, I'm not sure this 110nm part rumor isn't an elaborate ruse to mess with ATI's mind. . .until someone can say, "Yeah, I've seen one, it's real" at least.

For instance, I didn't hear anything in the call with the analysts in February that committed NV to having this part, or them even mentioning it. Indeed, when the subject of the refresh came up, what I got out of it was that NV felt they were very well positioned as is, and that ATI was the one with the need to do something because of their ancient overclocked (paraphrasing) line-up.

[digitalwanderer]

Oh no, I ain't basing that on nothing...it's just kind of what I thought.

I haven't kept up on nVidia's upcoming part because I didn't think it was on the horizon yet.

[Hellbinder]

Its got 64 "pipelines"

The way Nvidia counts them anyway.

[nAo]

The way Nvidia counts them anyway.

AFAIK nvidia counts pipelines the same way as ati does,
are you being sarcastic here?

[Tim Murray]

Unless he means 64 pipelines in the same way NV30 had 8.

[Demirug]

I am vote for (x*4)+1 Pipes.

[Arun]

Are you implying NVIDIA is going to use a "one pipeline" approach for Vertex Shading, Demirug?

[Demirug]

No I am talk only about the pixelpart of the chip. Maybe I should not call it one pipe. 0.9 Pipe or something like this should more correct.

[Geo]

Originally Posted by Uttar

Are you implying NVIDIA is going to use a "one pipeline" approach for Vertex Shading, Demirug?

Or does the one pipe have water in it and is the one we're all passing around right now. Duuude, don't Bogart the pipeline!

[CMAN]

I heard they were going to have "Double Stuffed" pipes and have a marketing deal with Oreos!

Nvidia will claim their graphics cards are way tastier than ATI's.

[Geo]

Originally Posted by Demirug

No I am talk only about the pixelpart of the chip. Maybe I should not call it one pipe. 0.9 Pipe or something like this should more correct.

Hmm. Has anyone seen Demirug and Dave in the same place at the same time?

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by geo

Hmm. Has anyone seen Demirug and Dave in the same place at the same time?

I caugh....saw them together once, but I am sworn to secrecy!

(this is certainly a lie and hopefully also a joke)

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Uttar

Are you implying NVIDIA is going to use a "one pipeline" approach for Vertex Shading, Demirug?

Yeah, the "+1" stands for Cell.

[wireframe]

Ok, I am getting a headache now. Someone explain the notation in (x*4)+1. This is obviously not normal math because then there would be no reason for the parentheses.

[Geo]

Originally Posted by wireframe

Ok, I am getting a headache now. Someone explain the notation in (x*4)+1. This is obviously not normal math because then there would be no reason for the parentheses.

Sez you. I always use parenthesis in those situations. God forbid someone might think I mean x*(4+1).

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by wireframe

Ok, I am getting a headache now. Someone explain the notation in (x*4)+1. This is obviously not normal math because then there would be no reason for the parentheses.

It's a joke from how nVidia counted the FX's pipes.

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by geo

Sez you. I always use parenthesis in those situations. God forbid someone might think I mean x*(4+1).

At first I thought I understood what was meant by (x*4)+1, but then it didn't add up for me and then the headache took over as I tried other permutations. I need help here!

If it was plain-jane math it would be traditional to write it as: 4x+1.

Thing is, I am not even sure what X is supposed to be. Unknown number of what? The 4 had me thinking "quad" but then I want to see 1/4 or something like that, thinking X is the number of pixel pipelines. So that each quad gets some shared resource that is not a pipeline, but almost exactly 0.9 of one. Gahh... I really am getting dizzy. Think I will avoid looking at it further and go for a walk and listen to some Keane.

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

It's a joke from how nVidia counted the FX's pipes.

Ok, but I thought that was a 4*2 magically becoming a 8*1 under certain conditions. Forget it. I will just get dizzier. :?

Edit: argh! 8*0 even...no!!! make it stop!

[Demirug]

digitalwanderer, I don't make bad jokes.

wireframe, don't get confused from the parentheses. As geo I tend to use more parentheses than needed.

Maybe you all need a hint:

[Geo]

Originally Posted by wireframe

At first I thought I understood what was meant by (x*4)+1, but then it didn't add up for me and then the headache took over as I tried other permutations. I need help here!

If it was plain-jane math it would be traditional to write it as: 4x+1.

Gosh, you really think he was joking, Digi?

What I took from the way he wrote it was that he had three variables in the equation of "how many pipes", but two of them were known to him (or at least willing to be disclosed by him) so he wrote out the equation and filled in where the two variables were he knew.

So (A*B) + C = no# of pipelines. A is the number of quads, and he either doesn't know or is being coy. B is the number of pipes per quad. C is his mystery ingredient but there are only 1 of them, later changed to .9

Or Demi's sense of humor is just too dry for me to get.

[Sxotty]

What about that weird thing someone posted? NV_ENGR1 or something like that... what was that thing?
http://www.google.com/search?q=+NV_E...US:eek:fficial

[Geo]

Originally Posted by Demirug

digitalwanderer, I don't make bad jokes.

wireframe, don't get confused from the parentheses. As geo I tend to use more parentheses than needed.

Maybe you all need a hint:

Gee, Demi, 8/9 is only .88888 (etc)!, not .9!

Someone PLEASE invent language/organizing principles that are user-friendly to replace our current pipeline paradigms that are becoming increasingly obfuscating rather than clarifying! It might not make you rich, but it could make you famous!