[dnavas]

Originally Posted by Dave Baumann

But more to the point, the ideal is what makes sense for the design of the individual unit and the properties of the rest of the ecosystem of the processor.

So if the bus size doubles, then so do the filtering units and the ROPs, and if the speed of memory access increases, then so follows the speed of processing data. Or not, as each chooses to believe.

But, if I'm forced to guess now, I'd say the aim is for doubling everything, and raising clocks 30% or so, but, we shall see in the fullness of time.

[silent_guy]

Originally Posted by Dave Baumann

You appear to say that relative to G71, however G71 was both released both after R580 and wouldn't have been known of in terms of properties when design started.

Fair enough.
In that case, it's more a matter of marketings inability to make correctly assess (or shape!) the desires of their customers (who seemed to be willing to overlook lower image quality).

Given the die size differences between R520 and R580 I don't think anyone would have refused a 3x math power increase.

Agreed. Of course, this underlines even more the inefficiency of R520.

[swaaye]

I know I remember reading in one of the better reviews out there that ATI and NV count transistors way differently. And so, going by that in a comparison is really pointless. After all, the actual measured die area between G70 and R520 was quite similar if I recall.

Here:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q4...0/index.x?pg=3

[Dave Baumann]

Originally Posted by silent_guy

Agreed. Of course, this underlines even more the inefficiency of R520.

How so? R520's performance wasn't bad - would have certainly reflected better had it been released earlier. But, still, if the architecture was scalable enough to afford a 3x math increase for a relatively small cost, then why not? Its proven that it could open up new markets as well.

[silent_guy]

Originally Posted by Dave Baumann

How so? R520's performance wasn't bad - would have certainly reflected better had it been released earlier. But, still, if the architecture was scalable enough to afford a 3x math increase for a relatively small cost, then why not? Its proven that it could open up new markets as well.

It wasn't bad in absolute terms, but it was 65% larger for lower performance. A small area increase to get a 3x math performance points to an unbalanced and costly non-math fraction for the R520. Maybe scalable for future generations, but also eating up margins of the current one.
In a lot of fields, you can often justify a larger die and higher cost by offering a range of different features that customers hopefully will care about. When your customers only really care about absolute performance, you don't have the luxury of playing it safe or overdesigning with the future in mind if your competitor does not.

[silent_guy]

Originally Posted by swaaye

I know I remember reading in one of the better reviews out there that ATI and NV count transistors way differently. And so, going by that in a comparison is really pointless. After all, the actual measured die area between G70 and R520 was quite similar if I recall.

Yes, G70 was only slightly smaller than R520. But also produced in 110nm instead of 90nm. Cheaper and more mature so higher yields. The number of transistors is largely irrelevant. Area is what counts.

[Dave Baumann]

I think your initial premise on the die sizes of the two are incorrect - R520 was in the order of 288mm2, G70 around 334mm2

[silent_guy]

Originally Posted by Dave Baumann

I think your initial premise on the die sizes of the two are incorrect - R520 was in the order of 288mm2, G70 around 334mm2

Oops.
Though that doesn't change the argument about architectural efficiency where it makes more sense to compare R520 with G71, it could be that the production cost of R520 was indeed similar to G70 then.

[Ailuros]

As others have already warned with sterile numbers, speculating isn't necessarily a bad thing the trick is usually to find something that makes at least sense or at least start thinking what each unit might or should be capable of for a D3D10 GPU.

As one of the examples think of the G7x ROPs vs. G8x ROPs; it might be quite easy to say 16 vs. 24, but you've already faced the first pitfall since they're not equal at all in capabilities.

Now as for TMUs I don't see a single reason why ATI would move from a 3:1 ALU:TMU relation to something like 2:1, just because G80 does seem to come closer to that rate (which can be arguable but that's besides the point). In my mind at worst ATI has kept the 3:1 ratio and at best moved to 4:1 and no I wouldn't suggest less than 24 frankly either.

To recycle back to the beginning of this post, now someone let me know what each TMU is exactly capable of, before I could theoretically say what is or isn't good enough.

My 2 cents.

[Razor1]

Originally Posted by Jawed

Well, we've been wondering about fast14 for years now I think, which sorta tells us exactly nothing

What's weird is this assumption that "ATI can't possibly do anything to match NVidia". There's a wodge of stuff, conceptually, inside G80 that ATI did first, some of it years ago. NVidia could only compete this year by strapping two G71s together, G71 is that far behind on IQ and raw performance.


I thought SS was for power consumption, which is obviously important to the mobile sector. ATI might have trialled SS on 90nm first? At some point ATI's 80nm GPUs will use SS? etc.

Jawed

Yes SS is for power consumption, thats why its concerning me, I can see why they used it for thier notebook GPU's but nV has no issue with thier 7600's in notebooks about power usage, and the rv560 I guess it is, don't remeber the exact notebook GPU using SS, doesn't really have a performance advantage in its class. Not to mention nV has made a gpu that is more then 2 times the size of thier previous GPU and hasn't doubled power usage.

I'm not sure when they started with SS, this is the first time I heard about it

[PeterAce]

As a die hard card owner/fan of ATI (though R300 and R420) I feel the last few generaions high-end releases from ATI have not been compelling (for me at least).

Last December I had a choice between G70 (7800 GTX 512) or R520 (much better IQ but week-ish shader performance and an annoying noise cooler).

So I chose the 7800 GTX 512.

Unfortunatly the R580 came after Christmas, which is too late (as I always buy my graphics card so I can have the maximum amount of games playing time over the holiday season) and still still came with the annoying cooler!

What disapoints me is that this year ATI have missed the buying window again! G80 is obviously the only contender for a high-end purchise for the Holiday/Christmas season.

A R600 (in Jan/Feb) is too late!

[INKster]

Originally Posted by Dave Baumann

I think your initial premise on the die sizes of the two are incorrect - R520 was in the order of 288mm2, G70 around 334mm2

Yes, but Nvidia used a relatively cheap 110nm process for G70 (and without low-k), while R520 had the (then) surely more expensive 90nm one.

If you compare G71 and R580 (both on 90nm), the difference is huge, there's no way around that fact.

[satein]

This is from VR-Zone a few days ago... The R600 board is needed to redesigned...
ATi R600 Card Re-Design In Progress

Originally Posted by VR-Zone

A re-design for R600 card and cooling is currently underway to make it shorter and better cooled. The original R600 card design is 12 inches long and ATi is probably trying to shorten it to at least 8800GTX length. The Inquirer has recently reported ATI has already produced some first R600 cards that are clocked lower to send out to game developers for debugging and optimizing their games for R600. The R600 card we seen will conform to the new PCI-SIG graphics spec of delivering 225/300W power for high-end graphics cards. Therefore it will have a new 2x4 pin connector for additional power on top of the current 6-pin connector.

I don't know if this may be rigid... but it would be very long if it was turely 12" card

[flopper]

Originally Posted by PeterAce

As a die hard card owner/fan of ATI (though R300 and R420) I feel the last few generaions high-end releases from ATI have not been compelling (for me at least).
What disapoints me is that this year ATI have missed the buying window again! G80 is obviously the only contender for a high-end purchise for the Holiday/Christmas season.

A R600 (in Jan/Feb) is too late!

Depends, if R600 is much more powerful than 800 and the refresh G81 then its worth the wait and also the price will be better due to nvidias card been out longer.

I got a x1950xtx and I am happy about the card.
Could have waited until 8800 but I never liked nvidia.

Wished that game developers would have used the compressing algoritms ati has to textures.
that would been a mindblowing game which Nvidia would been forced to implment.

DX10 is the key though.
How they perform there is more important than DX9 games.

[Rys]

Originally Posted by flopper

Wished that game developers would have used the compressing algoritms ati has to textures. that would been a mindblowing game which Nvidia would been forced to implment.

If you're talking about 3Dc or 3Dc+, (IIRC of course) NVIDIA has supported that technology for some time in their drivers, on their modern hardware.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Any one close to ATI got an impression of what they think of G80? Are they grumpy because it's much better than R600 and stole all their thunder by getting out first, or are ATI quietly happy because they know R600 will kick the (very impressive looking) G80's ass anyway?

Still, it much be really painful to ATI for R600 to be missing Christmas while their competitor gets their next gen card out for Christmas and the Vista business release.

[Jawed]

I think D3D10 requires support for 3Dc.

Jawed

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Originally Posted by Rys

If you're talking about 3Dc or 3Dc+, (IIRC of course) NVIDIA has supported that technology for some time in their drivers, on their modern hardware.

That's software support only though, isn't it? Or does Nvidia now support 3Dc in hardware too, at least with the G80?

[nAo]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

That's software support only though, isn't it? Or does Nvidia now support 3Dc in hardware too?

G80 should support it AFAIK

[Rys]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

That's software support only though, isn't it? Or does Nvidia now support 3Dc in hardware too, at least with the G80?

Decompression happens in the driver for G7x, then a map to an equivalent surface format. Not sure about native support for decompression in G80, but if Jawed is right then you'd definitely expect it.

[Dave Baumann]

Originally Posted by INKster

If you compare G71 and R580 (both on 90nm), the difference is huge, there's no way around that fact.

Thats entirely immaterial. We're compraring what was actually released.

[vertex_shader]

Originally Posted by satein

This is from VR-Zone a few days ago... The R600 board is needed to redesigned...
ATi R600 Card Re-Design In Progress


I don't know if this may be rigid... but it would be very long if it was turely 12" card

Vr-zone always writing crap about ATi cards, r600 PCB 10.4 inch long.

[Rys]

Originally Posted by vertex_shader

Vr-zone always writing crap about ATi cards, r600 PCB 10.4 inch long.

They weren't talking about the PCB as such, methinks. You might be right about that element, but dozens of shipping boards show that it's not just PCB size you need to take into account, and that might be the case here.

[Rys]

Originally Posted by Dave Baumann

Thats entirely immaterial. We're compraring what was actually released.

Fact remains that high-end G71 and R580 traditionally have somewhat equivalent performance and are pitched into the same price bands, so the comparison is entirely valid if one wants to make it (and even more valid if you want to keep process static when coming to a judgement about performance/area/watt/price/whatever).

[Dave Baumann]

The characteristics of perf/watt or whatever will waver process to process, so the process is part of that type of consideration. The process, hence the resultant size of the chip, will also give different yeilds, which affects the pricing.

You're correct, they were released at similar price points/performances, which is why comparing what they were actually released on was valid for the discussion.