Welcome, Unregistered.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

View Poll Results: How soon will Nvidia respond with GT300 to upcoming ATI-RV870 lineup GPUs
Within 1 or 2 weeks 1 0.65%
Within a month 5 3.23%
Within couple months 28 18.06%
Very late this year 52 33.55%
Not until next year 69 44.52%
Voters: 155. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 19-Jul-2008, 08:42   #1
Shtal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,343
ATI AMD: R8xx Speculation

AMD next generation RV870 key specs revealed?

It is said that AMD next generation graphic core possible be named RV870 and according to TSMC technology, it will use 40nm or 45nm technology. The core area of RV870 will be about 140m㎡ which is much smaller than RV770 260m㎡. As we know by now, it will have 192 ALU. RV770 each ALU matched 5SP and then RV870 will have 960SP. In order to control the core area, it is still 256bit. We believe RV870 will be 1.2 times than RV770 in performances, but this will be decided by the clock of RV870.

It is also said that AMD next generation R800 will use new design. We know Radeon HD3870X2 and the coming Radeon HD4870X2 both used single PCB+dual graphic core design while R800 will possible use real dual core design. If so, AMD next generation flagship R800 will be the first dual core GPU. The specs of R800 will double RV870.

Advanced 45nm (40nm?) will bring RV870 smaller core area. The current RV770 did well in performances but the temperature is really terrible. If RV870 can settle this problem and further improve performances, it will be really excited for us and it will be the first real dual core GPU possibly. http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=3768
__________________
What is the meaning of life? - Why I'm here, I know my past, because I return to the past but I'm going forward to see my future, to find the truth, meaning of the existence and purpose.
Shtal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-Jul-2008, 08:49   #2
fellix
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Varna, Bulgaria
Posts: 3,007
Send a message via Skype™ to fellix
Default

140 sq.mm? I don't believe it, at least with all that bunch of I/O in the chip... unless 40nm scales damn well the padding areas.
__________________
Apple: China -- Brutal leadership done right.
Google: United States -- Somewhat democratic.
Microsoft: Russia -- Big and bloated.
Linux: EU -- Diverse and broke.
fellix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-Jul-2008, 08:57   #3
Shtal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,343
Default

Quote:
The current RV770 did well in performances but the temperature is really terrible. If RV870 can settle this problem and further improve performances,
I wonder by how much temperature drop?

Quote:
we know Radeon HD3870X2 and the coming Radeon HD4870X2 both used single PCB+dual graphic core design while R800 will possible use real dual core design.
Well, it's interesting.....

Quote:
We believe RV870 will be 1.2 times than RV770 in performances
__________________
What is the meaning of life? - Why I'm here, I know my past, because I return to the past but I'm going forward to see my future, to find the truth, meaning of the existence and purpose.
Shtal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-Jul-2008, 09:09   #4
Anarchist4000
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Somewhere, IN USA
Posts: 313
Default

The only way those specs would make sense is if it were some form of x2 card and not a chip. Divide all those specs by two and throw in the 140mm2 and it would sort of make sense.

Wasn't RV770 pad limited with the 256bit bus at 260mm2? Cutting the die size in half and maintaining that bus just wouldn't make sense.

Targeting a chip for the low end and utilizing 2-4 chip configurations for the mid/high end parts might make sense but I'd think that PCIe bus would get saturated fast at that rate. A really high end card would likely appear as >4 cores in some form of crossfire configuration. I'm not sure the scaling would still hold at that point in time. AFR would definitely be out if that was the direction they took.
Anarchist4000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-Jul-2008, 09:16   #5
CarstenS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,964
Send a message via ICQ to CarstenS
Default

At 140mm˛ I think it's time to consider not only 2 GPUs for R800.

That said - maybe AMD starts to separate 2D-stuff also? So they could significantly improve shrinking pontential on future manufacturing processes - at least AFAIK.

So - how about a 5-chip R800? 4 Computing-Containers and one I/O?
__________________
English is not my native tongue. Before flaming please consider the possiblity that I did not mean to say what you might have read from my posts.
Work| Recreation
Warning! This posting may contain unhealthy doses of gross humor, sarcastic remarks and exaggeration!
CarstenS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-Jul-2008, 09:44   #6
Sunrise
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 306
Default

That would make quite a lot of sense, but only if it were something like this:

RV740 - 128bit - ~140mm˛ [1.2 TF]
RV870 - 2xRV740 (MCM) - 2x128bit (256bit) - 2x140mm˛ (280mm˛) [2.4TF]
R800 - 2xRV870 (2xMCM) - 2x 256bit - 4x 140mm˛ (560mm˛) [4.8TF]

Now, packaging costs would be quite high, but this would give them an endless list of advantages. If they could pull that off and they found a way not to rely on AFR, so that both ASICs on a package work together (almost) transparently, AMD/ATI would not be limited by process maturity of newer nodes, the volume would be there pretty early, prices could be _very_ competitive again and they could also minimize tape-out costs.

With GDDR5 maturing, mass availability by next year and lower prices (more semis), BW would be about equal per core (ASIC), like to where it is now.

Last edited by Sunrise; 19-Jul-2008 at 09:54. Reason: typo
Sunrise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-Jul-2008, 09:44   #7
Shtal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,343
Default

If it's only going to be 20% performance increase over RV770.

Then specs should be like this:
RV870
800MHz GPU
192 *5D = 960SP's
20 ROP's
44 or 48 TMU's
256bit GDDR5 ~120 to 160GB's bandwidth.
__________________
What is the meaning of life? - Why I'm here, I know my past, because I return to the past but I'm going forward to see my future, to find the truth, meaning of the existence and purpose.
Shtal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-Jul-2008, 13:44   #8
Pete
Moderate Nuisance
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,683
Default

If ROPs are tied to memory bus width, then they'd stay at 16. TMUs are tied to the shader core, so they'd be at 48. The rest of their numbers are just naive estimates: 960 / 800 = 1.2, 260 * 40^2 / 55^2 ~= 140.

They seem pretty confident about the 960 (though last time we heard both 480 and 800 ). How high is GDDR5 supposed to clock by next year? Could they get close to 4870 bandwidth with a ~128-bit bus?
Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-Jul-2008, 14:03   #9
AnarchX
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,485
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete View Post
If ROPs are tied to memory bus width, then they'd stay at 16. TMUs are tied to the shader core, so they'd be at 48.
RV770 is 10 SIMDs with one Quad-TMU each.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete View Post
Could they get close to 4870 bandwidth with a ~128-bit bus?
3.6GHz GDDR5? The highest number I heard was 3.5GHz, what is probably reached in 2010.
AnarchX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-Jul-2008, 15:58   #10
Sinistar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 519
Default

The 4870 Memory is running at 900 Mhz. Samsung is transitioning in K4G52324FG-HC05 memory chip, that last two digits are the speed of .5ns, that would be 2Ghz.

http://www.samsung.com/global/busine...num=K4G52324FG
Sinistar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19-Jul-2008, 16:06   #11
Mintmaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,896
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete View Post
If ROPs are tied to memory bus width, then they'd stay at 16.
I could see them move to 32 if GDDR5 got fast enough and they couldn't increase the GPU clock enough. If the core is 800 MHz and GDDR5 reaches 3 GHz, then 8 ROPs per 64-bit memory channel is actually 18
% more BW per ROP than what the 4850 (only 4 ROPs per 64-bit channel) gets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnarchX View Post
RV770 is 10 SIMDs with one Quad-TMU each.
This rumour suggests RV870 is 12 SIMDs, and one Quad-TMU each would equal Pete's claim.
Mintmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-Jul-2008, 04:47   #12
mczak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,670
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinistar View Post
The 4870 Memory is running at 900 Mhz. Samsung is transitioning in K4G52324FG-HC05 memory chip, that last two digits are the speed of .5ns, that would be 2Ghz.

http://www.samsung.com/global/busine...num=K4G52324FG
No, that's not the same clock. The 05 part would be a base clock of 1Ghz, and the 06 part would be even too slow for the HD4870...
I don't think anything faster than 2.5Ghz will be available early next year. Eventually faster parts may appear...
mczak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-Jul-2008, 04:57   #13
Sinistar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 519
Default




14~15. Speed

( Wafer/Chip Biz/BGD : 00 )


04 : 0.4ns (2500MHz)



4A : 0.416ns (2400MHz)

4B : 0.434ns (2300MHz)
4C : 0.454ns (2200MHz)
4D : 0.476ns (2100MHz)
05 : 0.5ns (2000MHz)
5B : 0.526ns (1900MHz)
5C : 0.555ns (1800MHz)


5D : 0.588ns (1700MHz)


Or are they comparing it to GDDR3?
Sinistar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20-Jul-2008, 10:12   #14
mczak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,670
Default

One is command clock, the other data clock.
mczak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-Jul-2008, 19:04   #15
turtle
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 279
Default

Is it conceivable that the "crossfire link" on each chip could be used on an MCM package to share a memory controller given they would be on the same package using the same pins?

If so, would this result in a pseudo-256-bit bus for both cores that would use load balancing, or rather memory sharing between both exclusive perhaps 128-bit buses, or both?

Either/or would be a boon to the mgpu market.
__________________
"Do you suck? Because if you suck, just get up and say you suck."
turtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-Jul-2008, 23:52   #16
INKster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Io, lava pit number 12
Posts: 2,108
Default

MCM core packaging on a graphics card seems like an illogical choice, from both cost perspective and from a technical point, IMHO.
A GPU doesn't work like a CPU, no matter how much anyone tries to spin it...
A MCM would only make sense if the cost of making the package with the two GPU's and the memory controller was smaller than just build them all in one, and if the performance of the shared memory controller was substantially better and consumed less die space than one otherwise built-in.

Yet, even future Intel Atom CPU's (not to mention "Nehalem" and Athlon64/Phenom) are moving away from that, by integrating memory controllers directly in the core.
That should tell us something...

Last edited by INKster; 20-Jul-2008 at 23:59.
INKster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-Jul-2008, 23:55   #17
Shtal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by INKster View Post
MCM core packaging on a graphics card seems like an illogical choice, IMHO.
A GPU doesn't work like a CPU, no matter how much anyone tries to spin it...
You mean 2x performance!
__________________
What is the meaning of life? - Why I'm here, I know my past, because I return to the past but I'm going forward to see my future, to find the truth, meaning of the existence and purpose.
Shtal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-Jul-2008, 00:05   #18
INKster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Io, lava pit number 12
Posts: 2,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shtal View Post
You mean 2x performance!
Oh, really ? How much L1/L2 cache would you have to build into a GPU core to compensate to the lowsy communication to an-off core die where the memory controller would reside ?
Now multiply the resulting GPU by 2, add the external memory controller and the decidedly more complex packaging of all three chips and do the math...

Even Nvidia eventually let NV45's BR02 (that was a MCM package, after all) and G80's NVIO functionality back into the GPU core...
In a special purpose chip design, it is especially useful if you can contain off-chip communications to and from co-processors down to a minimum.
Look at how simply switching to a PCIe 2.0 bridge made the current Crossfire-on-a-Stick solution scale performance that much better than its predecessor (PCIe 1.1 bridge).

Last edited by INKster; 21-Jul-2008 at 00:13.
INKster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-Jul-2008, 00:23   #19
Sound_Card
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 931
Default

I did not realize that their were any x2 boards with 2.0 PLX chips on them in the market yet...

Quote:
Look at how simply switching to a PCIe 2.0 bridge made the current Crossfire-on-a-Stick solution scale performance that much better than its predecessor (PCIe 1.1 bridge).
__________________
ATi Beta Tester
AMD Panelist Member
Sound_Card is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-Jul-2008, 00:24   #20
Shtal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by INKster View Post
Oh, really ? How much L1/L2 cache would you have to build into a GPU core to compensate to the lowsy communication to an-off core die where the memory controller would reside ?
Now multiply the resulting GPU by 2, add the external memory controller and the decidedly more complex packaging of all three chips and do the math...

Even Nvidia eventually let NV45's BR02 (that was a MCM package, after all) and G80's NVIO functionality back into the GPU core...
In a special purpose chip design, it is especially useful if you can contain off-chip communications to and from co-processors down to a minimum.
Look at how simply switching to a PCIe 2.0 bridge made the current Crossfire-on-a-Stick solution scale performance that much better than its predecessor (PCIe 1.1 bridge).
Maybe ATI/AMD has some-kind idea that we don't know.... Maybe using 512Bit GDDR5 instead 256bit GDDR5.
EDIT: I still believe that ATI R600 w/ 512bit bus was experimental project for the future. (Because everyone knows that R600 512bit available bandwidth was a waste) Unless if I downward ATI as an error.
__________________
What is the meaning of life? - Why I'm here, I know my past, because I return to the past but I'm going forward to see my future, to find the truth, meaning of the existence and purpose.

Last edited by Shtal; 21-Jul-2008 at 00:52.
Shtal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-Jul-2008, 00:38   #21
AlexV
Heteroscedasticitate
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,426
Default

These are Hardspell. They can't even get a codename right (the whole GT300 story). Why is anything they say fact all of a sudden?
__________________
Donald Knuth: Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.
AlexV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-Jul-2008, 00:54   #22
Shtal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgoth the Dark Enemy View Post
These are Hardspell. They can't even get a codename right (the whole GT300 story). Why is anything they say fact all of a sudden?
Good point!
__________________
What is the meaning of life? - Why I'm here, I know my past, because I return to the past but I'm going forward to see my future, to find the truth, meaning of the existence and purpose.
Shtal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-Jul-2008, 13:33   #23
mboeller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgoth the Dark Enemy View Post
These are Hardspell. They can't even get a codename right (the whole GT300 story). Why is anything they say fact all of a sudden?

good point.

IMHO the 140mm˛ cannot be correct also because even with a geometrical perfect scaling a RV870 with 960 SPs and 48TMUs would be larger than 140mm˛. Only a RV870 with the same amount of units as the the RV770 and a (nearly impossible) perfect scaling could be as small as 140mm˛

140mm˛ x 55˛/40˛ = 265mm˛ !!
mboeller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-Jul-2008, 13:55   #24
fellix
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Varna, Bulgaria
Posts: 3,007
Send a message via Skype™ to fellix
Default

I would bet for a die size around the RV670 one (~192 sq.mm) -- that's with the two additional MPUs and other minor updates. And if ATi manages to compact even more the overall structure, I really hope the new manufacturing process is power-switching efficient with minimum possible leaking. After all, this chip could boast [probably] over one billion transistors, tightly squeezed just under 200 sq.mm area -- potentially, a very hot spot.
__________________
Apple: China -- Brutal leadership done right.
Google: United States -- Somewhat democratic.
Microsoft: Russia -- Big and bloated.
Linux: EU -- Diverse and broke.
fellix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-Jul-2008, 14:28   #25
rpg.314
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: /
Posts: 4,230
Send a message via Skype™ to rpg.314
Default

sounds unlikely. if ati increases the sp's to _only_ 960 from 800, then nvidia will have clear advantage on the next process node as they are not going to stop building giant gpu's any time soon. And remember that rv7xx's goodies rely in large part ton the 2.5x jump in sp's
rpg.314 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
amd, ati, evergreen, speculation

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:28.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.