[Geo]

Originally Posted by Dave Baumann

I've just noticed something about the memory layout that I didn't quite clock before. I think it might even raise of a few eyebrows from their competitors.

Layout or connections? And please see my motion above about moving this to its own thread. At 43 pages we've lost too many people, and this deserves wide exposure/discussion.

[Skrying]

That looks to be an extremely massive and busy card. Wow, even the looks of that thing scream "PERFORMANCE" to me. Very interesting, cant wait to see some of the details about that weird memory bus.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by Dave Baumann

I've just noticed something about the memory layout that I didn't quite clock before. I think it might even raise of a few eyebrows from their competitors.

Two banks of three and two little offset chips?

[Geo]

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

Two banks of three and two little offset chips?

Hmmph. If it didn't already say that it was 256-bit external, I might ask if there was any benefit to doing a "partial" 512-bit bus --in other words, just to some of the memory not all of it. . .but what would you keep there and how big would it have to be to be useful for performance? And would the routing (you go thisaway but you go thataway) kill you? Was just thinking that might help out on the "pin" problem. . .

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

Two banks of three and two little offset chips?

I think Dave is talking about the fact that there are only eight of them...only eight of them.

6800 Ultra 512MB and others required 16 chips before. This one has only 8. Ie: 256mbit v 512mbit memory.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by wireframe

6800 Ultra 512MB and others required 16 chips before. This one has only 8.

Doh! I wasn't thinking of that, thanks.

[Dave Baumann]

Actually, that element doesn't surpise me at all, as I would expect high speed 512MB boards to be using 512Mb densities, seeing as these are fully ramped for production with XBOX 360 (and PS3 later). DW pointed out what I was thinking about.

[Arty]

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Surprised nobody mentioned how huge that mother is. My GTX looks like a scared bitch in comparison

The verdict is not out yet.

Thanks Dave !

[Skrying]

What will the 512-bit internal memory bus mean for the R520? Added bandwidth or is it some other factor? I'm not to keen on the two different buses thing, so could some clear this up for me?

[IgnorancePersonified]

all you have to know - like me - is that a bigger number means better!

[mapel110]

hm, is it be possible that ATI has found a way to split the traffic to the 512 MB Ram in two parts? that could explain this 512 bit bus. 256 bit to 256 MB of Ram. But would there an advantage using the 512 MB that way?

hm, a design for two 256bit interfaces would be too big?!

hope you understand what I'm thinking of.

Originally Posted by IgnorancePersonified

all you have to know - like me - is that a bigger number means better!

[Geo]

Originally Posted by Skrying

What will the 512-bit internal memory bus mean for the R520? Added bandwidth or is it some other factor? I'm not to keen on the two different buses thing, so could some clear this up for me?

Blending mebbee? Something to do with HDR performance? "No compromises" the man said. . .

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by Skrying

What will the 512-bit internal memory bus mean for the R520? Added bandwidth or is it some other factor? I'm not to keen on the two different buses thing, so could some clear this up for me?

Without knowing more than anyone else, it would simply be that inside the R520 everything is built as if you have 512-bit memory. That is to say, if you have an 8-way crossbar of 32-bits each for a 256 memory interface, this one would have a 16-way (internally). See how that adds up nicely with the number of speculated ROPs/Shader Units? Once the instructions travel beyond the memory interface and out to the actual storage (RAM) you are operating on 256-bit.

The real interesting part will be finding out what they did with this. If you look at the 7800 GTX, for example, with 24 shader units, you see that you will get lots of contention to just initiate the memory transaction unless the memory interface can do multiple requests per clock (or runs at double clock...or something). Having this wider internal bus can allow "new and interesting" ways of scheduling memory transactions, even though you are still limited by the 256-bit for the actual transfer of data.

Keep in mind that even a 256-bit memory interface is not always the same. There are technologies at work to make that interface as efficient and effective as possible.

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by Dave Baumann

Actually, that element doesn't surpise me at all, as I would expect high speed 512MB boards to be using 512Mb densities, seeing as these are fully ramped for production with XBOX 360 (and PS3 later). DW pointed out what I was thinking about.

Ok, but I don't get why that would raise eyebrows. I presume you are talking about Nvidia and their "two on a slant" design. Are you saying that it would imply that the VPU is so wide that this layout makes better sense?

Actually, now that I look at it, I raised my eyebrows. By having two on a slant you get a nice "canal" between them for the corner/diagonal mounitng holes. This looks like those holes are drilled right in the path to the memory chip. That is weird.

[Geo]

I'm still thinking there has to be something Significant in the fact (if it is a fact) that XT is 512MB and XT CrossFire is 256MB.

[wireframe]

Oh, and I just wanted to be the first to say it:

I gotta get me one of these!!!

This got me all excited about hardware again. I still don't know the real specs but my heart fluttered and I felt the need to run to a store to purchase one. I hope it wasn't just angina.

[Geo]

Originally Posted by wireframe

Oh, and I just wanted to be the first to say it:

I gotta get me one of these!!!

This got me all excited about hardware again. I still don't know the real specs but my heart fluttered and I felt the need to run to a store to purchase one. I hope it wasn't just angina.

I want to hear if Digi is ready to "revise and extend" his earlier remarks about not being excited . . .

[Chalnoth]

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

Two banks of three and two little offset chips?

I would tend to think that the layout and angle of the chips is utterly unimportant. The use of chips placed diagonally may only be a change in the software used for designing the board layouts, and shouldn't provide any visible difference (nor would it be indicative of a new memory bus).

[wireframe]

Hmm. I just noticed something weird. Notice how this card has the fan power header at the bottom...just like the 7800 GTX...and that wasn't necessarily a good thing. If it weren't for the "weird" memory layout, I'd begin thinking this picture was a hoax, a combination of 7800 GTX and x850XT. Similar problems will have similar solutions, but this board does look eerily like an Nvidia one apart from the cooler (and the different memory layout).

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by geo

I'm still thinking there has to be something Significant in the fact (if it is a fact) that XT is 512MB and XT CrossFire is 256MB.

This does seem strange, but perhaps it is explained by a missing 256MB "XT" part. It may be that this 512MB model is very expensive and was ruled out as candidate for pairing (CrossFire) even if some people can afford it. Two 256MB boards might be in the more affordable range where it would actually sell.

EDIT: And who are we yet to say that the "CrossFire" part isn't the "256MB XT" and has no additional cost over a "regular XT"? That is to say, the CrossFire 256Mb XT is the 256MB part. So, if you want 256MB you buy Crossfire 520XT (for $550) and if you want your 512MB 520XT you saw off both legs and draw all the money from your account. What was I thinking earlier? ATI's proposed system has me creating SKUs... :P

[Chalnoth]

Originally Posted by geo

I'm still thinking there has to be something Significant in the fact (if it is a fact) that XT is 512MB and XT CrossFire is 256MB.

That does seem really, really strange, since I doubt it'd be possible to have the two work together without forcing the XT to act like a 256MB board.

But, regardless, I don't expect Crossfire to really catch on unless ATI can bring their motherboard performance up to par. I seem to remember their previous solutions not being so great in performance...

[_xxx_]

What's that daughter die?

[Chalnoth]

Er, that's a GeForce 6800 GT PCIe, says so right on the white part there. It's the HSI bridge chip.

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by _xxx_

What's that daughter die?

I'm gonna go with AGP-PCIe bridge, but what does this 6800 GT have to do with anything?

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by wireframe

I'm gonna go with AGP-PCIe bridge, but what does this 6800 GT have to do with anything?

They said there weren't going to be an AGP releases in that article.