[trinibwoy]

Or maybe after two generations straight of AMD having a significant process advantage they've decided to shed their paranoia of another 130nm era debacle to avoid being left behind yet again.

[DegustatoR]

Two generations? What generations are those? Significant? 65nm vs 55nm with 55 being a version of 65? Or 90nm vs 80nm with 80nm chip coming half year late and gaining nothing from 80nm?
The reason why NV was avoiding 55nm in RV670 timeframe has nothing to do with them being scared of a new process. It was more of an availability thing.
With 40nm being the main and only TSMC node for the time being and general economy slow down nothing is stopping them from going to 40nm with AMD.
But i have severe doubts about GT212 being the first 40nm chip from NV. Even ATIs engineers prefer to go with the simplier chip first now. And for NV it's like a tradition of sorts since NV43. So i'm still pretty sure that we'll see GT216 or GT214 before GT212.

Btw, what the hell is GT206? =)

[Arun]

Originally Posted by DegustatoR

Two generations? What generations are those? Significant? 65nm vs 55nm with 55 being a version of 65? Or 90nm vs 80nm with 80nm chip coming half year late and gaining nothing from 80nm?

Very nice theory indeed, in practice on 65/55nm things weren't so pretty because of a variety of factors that resulted in the 80nm G84/G86 competing with 55nm chips for nearly 6 months (although from an OEM design cycle perspective it wasn't as big of a problem).

In this specific case, I think what needs to be realized is that while NV could justify lagging behind if they hit all their milestones, if they get delayed then by the time their part comes out it would have been more attractive not to be so conservative on process technology out of fear for wafer cost/yields.

On the other side of the coin, might have to be added the possibility that TSMC gave more attractive pricing to NVIDIA on older nodes in order to amortize them further. Remember much of the reason why MS took so long to transition the XBox360 GPU to 65nm is that TSMC's pricing just wasn't sufficiently attractive because they weren't as big of a customer as ATI. So while companies like ATI might get preferential pricing to go first on a process node for TSMC to be able to justify investment, NVIDIA might have gotten preferential pricing for sticking to an older node to amortize it further.

TSMC is not a "dumb" entity that just creates naive roadmaps pricing schemes not based on customer relationships. Both capacity and the different pricing models for different customers is dependent on complex feedback loops, and anything that doesn't take that into account is unlikely to be a very useful theory IMO.

The reason why NV was avoiding 55nm in RV670 timeframe has nothing to do with them being scared of a new process. It was more of an availability thing.

Indeed. The fundamental problem however is they could not easily at the same time work on some chips being 65nm and others 55nm; the "optimal" line-up both for NVIDIA and TSMC would have had a mix of both from the start, but this was not an option apparently.

With 40nm being the main and only TSMC node for the time being and general economy slow down nothing is stopping them from going to 40nm with AMD.

Pretty much, although I think it has been the plan for a long time that NVIDIA/AMD would both be very aggressive with 40nm. Nearly all handheld capacity will remain on 65 until well into 2010, and companies like CSR are only going to ramp 90nm for products like Bluecore7 in 2H09, so capacity reductions in older nodes shouldn't be catastrophic because of the shift to 40nm.

I would suspect that while NVIDIA/AMD's pricing for 40nm must be high, that of the likes of Broadcom and Marvell must be even higher for 2009 to encourage them not to shift too quickly in the few product line-ups they have with short design cycles. I also suspect TSMC sees large early investments in 40nm as a way to steal some customers from UMC/Chartered and encourage the likes of NV not to dual-source with them again this generation, or at least not as much.

But i have severe doubts about GT212 being the first 40nm chip from NV.

So do I, my expectations for GT212's die size are too large for it to make much sense in my mind.

Btw, what the hell is GT206? =)

My guess, FWIW, is that it is a G98 replacement that got canned. The fact there was a 'i' (i.e. integrated) version of the same is a strong hint in that direction; given the debacle that is NVIDIA's chipset division, it probably got killed in favour of focusing on future 40nm products.

[AnarchX]

Originally Posted by Arun

My guess, FWIW, is that it is a G98 replacement that got canned. The fact there was a 'i' (i.e. integrated) version of the same is a strong hint in that direction; given the debacle that is NVIDIA's chipset division, it probably got killed in favour of focusing on future 40nm products.

Look at #1, ELSA saw GT206 as high-end part.

Probably someone just misread GT200b as GT206, since b looks a bit like the 6, especially for asians?

[trinibwoy]

Originally Posted by DegustatoR

Two generations? What generations are those? Significant?

I was thinking of RV670 and RV770. And I should have said process/die-size advantage. They went up against considerably larger 80/90nm and 65nm parts from Nvidia.

The reason why NV was avoiding 55nm in RV670 timeframe has nothing to do with them being scared of a new process. It was more of an availability thing.
With 40nm being the main and only TSMC node for the time being and general economy slow down nothing is stopping them from going to 40nm with AMD.

I don't think Nvidia's conservative stance on process adoption is debatable. They've openly been willing to take their time moving to new nodes.

But i have severe doubts about GT212 being the first 40nm chip from NV. Even ATIs engineers prefer to go with the simplier chip first now. And for NV it's like a tradition of sorts since NV43. So i'm still pretty sure that we'll see GT216 or GT214 before GT212.

Perhaps, but remember G92 and G94 hit around the same time with the 8800GT actually making it to market months before the 9600GT so there's still a possibility. But I agree Q2 seems too aggressive for a big 40nm part.

[KonKort]

Originally Posted by Arun

So do I, my expectations for GT212's die size are too large for it to make much sense in my mind.

What are you expectations for GT212's die size?

[Domell]

Wasn`t G92 (the fastest G9x chip) first GPU in 65nm process from NVIDIA? So IMO GT212 (the fastest GT2xx chip) could be first GPU from NVIDIA made in 40nm as well.

[KonKort]

Yes, that's right. But G92 did not have more SPs or TMUs - well 64 instead of 32 TAUs .

It looks like that GT212 will have more SPs and TMUs than GT200.
The last time Nvidia brought a new high end chip in a new manufacture was in 2003. NV30 aka Geforce FX 5800.

[Domell]

Well, it doesn`t look like NV30 syndrome IMO. Why? because NV30 was completely new architecture compared to NV25, totally new generation and it have had aboy 2X more transistors than NV25.

Between GT212 and GT200 (even GT200B) is not such a big difference. There is NO new architecture and NO significant increase number of transistors. Moreover i think that GT212 will have only more ALUs than GT200 and number of TMU will be the same as GT200 has. I think NVIDIA will do 32SP per cluster (24SP at now) so then we could see something like this - 320ALU,80TMU,32ROP,512-bit MC. This is my opinion about GT212.

[trinibwoy]

Originally Posted by Domell

I think NVIDIA will do 32SP per cluster (24SP at now) so then we could see something like this - 320ALU,80TMU,32ROP,512-bit MC. This is my opinion about GT212.

Hey, stop stealing my opinions and claiming them as your own!

[Domell]

I`m not saying it`s my own opinion and i have said it first but only agree with it. This is most reasonable move which NVIDIA could do with their GT2xx 40nm highend chip.

[KonKort]

Originally Posted by Domell

Well, it doesn`t look like NV30 syndrome IMO. Why? because NV30 was completely new architecture compared to NV25, totally new generation and it have had aboy 2X more transistors than NV25.

Between GT212 and GT200 (even GT200B) is not such a big difference. There is NO new architecture and NO significant increase number of transistors. Moreover i think that GT212 will have only more ALUs than GT200 and number of TMU will be the same as GT200 has. I think NVIDIA will do 32SP per cluster (24SP at now) so then we could see something like this - 320ALU,80TMU,32ROP,512-bit MC. This is my opinion about GT212.

You are right. The difference between NV25 and NV30 was much bigger than GT212 between GT200 wille be.
And you are right, too, that Nvidia will do 32 SP per cluster by GT212. But this is not the only one, who is change. It is definetly a bigger step than G80 to G92.

[CarstenS]

Originally Posted by Arun

So do I, my expectations for GT212's die size are too large for it to make much sense in my mind.

That'd be one of the things amendable with 40nm technology.

Since I am no chip production/design expert: Isn't it the case, that you usually get a better shrinkage the more logic and cache, i.e. digital ICs, you have on a chip? Perfect target: Large Dies.

[DegustatoR]

Originally Posted by Arun

In this specific case, I think what needs to be realized is that while NV could justify lagging behind if they hit all their milestones, if they get delayed then by the time their part comes out it would have been more attractive not to be so conservative on process technology out of fear for wafer cost/yields.

I completely agree -- and that's almost exactly what happened to GT200 which probably is the only real example of NV choosing the wrong process since the NV30/130nm fiasco.
Another problem lies in the low transistor density of 65/55 NV GPUs -- G92b is bigger than RV770 on the same 55nm process while having 160M less transistors. I think that's the real problem for NV in 65/55nm generation -- simply put NVs 65/55 process usage sucks and they need to improve it considerably on 40nm node.

Originally Posted by Arun

TSMC is not a "dumb" entity that just creates naive roadmaps pricing schemes not based on customer relationships. Both capacity and the different pricing models for different customers is dependent on complex feedback loops, and anything that doesn't take that into account is unlikely to be a very useful theory IMO.

Exactly. And that's why it's pretty pointless to try and 'guess' die production cost from it's size alone. And that's why being "slow" to smaller TSMC nodes doesn't mean paying more for the GPUs. Especially when we're talking about node -> half-node transitions.

Originally Posted by Arun

My guess, FWIW, is that it is a G98 replacement that got canned. The fact there was a 'i' (i.e. integrated) version of the same is a strong hint in that direction; given the debacle that is NVIDIA's chipset division, it probably got killed in favour of focusing on future 40nm products.

That's a valid theory =)
GT206 MCP77 iGT206 MCP79 iGT209
So iGT209 is killed too? 8)

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

I was thinking of RV670 and RV770. And I should have said process/die-size advantage. They went up against considerably larger 80/90nm and 65nm parts from Nvidia.

55nm RV670 went against 65nm G92 (although it's worth to mention that NV's tactical mistake here made them do it -- they should've put G94 ahead of G92 and against RV670 instead).
As for RV770 -- NVs roadmap was in such a mess at the point of RV770 launch that it doesn't really matter wether they used 65 or 55nm for GT200 -- it would look worse than RV770 anyway. For NV it would be wise to use 55nm/256-bit GDDR5 of course but they've originally planned to launch GT200 when there were neither (well, 55nm was available since autumn'07 but migrating to 55nm with such a complex chip as GT200 probably wasn't an option).

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

I don't think Nvidia's conservative stance on process adoption is debatable. They've openly been willing to take their time moving to new nodes.

I don't think it's 'conservative', i think it's 'strategical'. They first 'try' the process with a simple chip and then transit a more complex ones. This 'simple chip' from NV for the most part was available as soon as the process allowed it to be. So it's not like they're waiting for half a year before switching to a new process, they simply beginning the switch in the low end segment (for which nobody cares here anyway). And this strategy mostly paid off.
If you think about it, NV was never that late with process transitions compared to ATI/AMD:

130 - NV31/1Q03 - RV360/4Q03
110 - RV370/2Q04 - NV43/3Q04
 90 - R520/4Q05 - G7(1/2/3)/1Q06
 80 - RV535/3Q06 - G86/2Q07
 65 - RV630/2Q07 - G92/4Q07
 55 - RV670/4Q07 - G92b/2Q08

So it's a 1-2 quarters difference mostly with the exception of 80nm (probably for the same reasons why they were slow with 55nm transition).
Plus you have to consider that RV670 turned out to be good in it's first revision -- and that's a rare thing. If they would need another spin then RV670 would show up at retail at the end of 1Q08 with G92b launching at the end of 2Q08.

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Perhaps, but remember G92 and G94 hit around the same time with the 8800GT actually making it to market months before the 9600GT so there's still a possibility.

Yeah, exactly -- and we all see how that turned out.
G94 would've been a much better competitor to RV670 and -- who knows? -- maybe they would have had a better luck with 65nm transition with a simplier and smaller G94? I hope they learn on their mistakes from the previous generation.

Originally Posted by Domell

Wasn`t G92 (the fastest G9x chip) first GPU in 65nm process from NVIDIA? So IMO GT212 (the fastest GT2xx chip) could be first GPU from NVIDIA made in 40nm as well.

If it's a straight GT200 shrink, yes.
But it's most likely quite a bit more than GT200 (12 or 15 32/8 TPCs, 256-bit GDDR5 bus, DX10.1 support maybe?). Plus it looks like G92 role in this cycle will be performed by 55nm GT200b.

[CJ]

Originally Posted by DegustatoR

But i have severe doubts about GT212 being the first 40nm chip from NV. Even ATIs engineers prefer to go with the simplier chip first now. And for NV it's like a tradition of sorts since NV43. So i'm still pretty sure that we'll see GT216 or GT214 before GT212.

I'm pretty sure GT212 is the last one of the GT21x series to tape out too.

[Arun]

I'm starting to think about something... When both I and possibly other sites heard about GT214, it certainly hadn't taped-out. Assuming they left the possibility open until the end depending on market conditions, which is a big if, maybe they did switch to GDDR5 for GT214 and that LinkedIn entry means more than I thought (not that it really reveals much either way)

After all, this would be a quite impressive roadmap:
GT218: 64-bit GDDR3 [~15GB/s]
GT216: 192-bit GDDR3 [~60GB/s]
GT214: 192-bit GDDR5 [~110GB/s]
GT212: 384-bit GDDR5 [~240GB/s]
GT300: 512-bit GDDR5 [~320GB/s]

Nothing AMD couldn't counter of course, but it'd make for a more exciting competition that this one (in retrospect, that is; of course when you don't know what's going to happen it can always be exciting...)

Another problem lies in the low transistor density of 65/55 NV GPUs -- G92b is bigger than RV770 on the same 55nm process while having 160M less transistors. I think that's the real problem for NV in 65/55nm generation -- simply put NVs 65/55 process usage sucks and they need to improve it considerably on 40nm node.

It's a known problem, expect it to be fixed in a firmware revision... *waits for VR-Zone, Expreview, and/or Fudzilla to link to this j/k* - more seriously, expect them to be much more aggressive on 40nm.

So iGT209 is killed too? 8)

Maybe; if it was a 55nm product, nearly certainly. If it's 40nm, nearly certainly not.

If you think about it, NV was never that late with process transitions compared to ATI/AMD:

You forgot RV350; of course everyone seems to always forget that one and how smoothly it went, poor ATI! You also forgot G73b, so NVIDIA wasn't that late to 80nm in fact.

Since I am no chip production/design expert: Isn't it the case, that you usually get a better shrinkage the more logic and cache, i.e. digital ICs, you have on a chip? Perfect target: Large Dies.

The cost benefit is likely to be smaller for small chips if they include a lot of I/O or analogue (i.e. this doesn't apply to handheld chips in the same way etc.) - however very big chips are riskier and will suffer from yield problems. This is not just catastrophic defects like coarse redundancy would partially prevent; it's also variability among other things. Chips like GT216/RV740 in the 120-150mm² range are likely to be a relatively good compromise, IMO.

[Jawed]

For wafer yield purposes, isn't some degree of NVidia's "oversized" design deliberate? Spacing things out so there's less chance of lithography-related malfunctions? If so, wouldn't this explain the "less than expected" gains from the more advanced nodes?

Jawed

[DegustatoR]

Originally Posted by Arun

I'm starting to think about something... When both I and possibly other sites heard about GT214, it certainly hadn't taped-out. Assuming they left the possibility open until the end depending on market conditions, which is a big if, maybe they did switch to GDDR5 for GT214 and that LinkedIn entry means more than I thought (not that it really reveals much either way)

After all, this would be a quite impressive roadmap:
GT218: 64-bit GDDR3 [~15GB/s]
GT216: 192-bit GDDR3 [~60GB/s]
GT214: 192-bit GDDR5 [~110GB/s]
GT212: 384-bit GDDR5 [~240GB/s]
GT300: 512-bit GDDR5 [~320GB/s]

I think you should consider inserting GDDR3-based GT212 solution (a la 4850) in there. And that kinda kills the idea of having GDDR5-based 192-bit solution (especially if GT212 is using 256-bit bus as i expect).
Plus -- do we really need 4 chips again after G98/96 fiasco? I always thought that having 4 chips for 0-400 price range is a bit too much.
So the question is -- what's faster -- GT216 or GT214? That LinkedIn thingie was about two chips -- G96 and GT214. Maybe we should consider the possibility of a GT214->GT216->GT212 three-chip line-up?
But if it's GT216->GT214->GT212, then GT212 will most probably have 15 32/8 TPCs and 384-bit bus, yes, GT216 -- something like 7 24/8 TPCs -- and GT214 is starting to look like GT200@40nm with 256-bit GDDR5...

Originally Posted by Arun

expect them to be much more aggressive on 40nm.

Well i sure hope they will be -- for their own sake.

Originally Posted by Arun

You forgot RV350; of course everyone seems to always forget that one and how smoothly it went, poor ATI! You also forgot G73b, so NVIDIA wasn't that late to 80nm in fact.

Sorry, i was using B3D 3D Tables time line 8)

[Rayne]

Originally Posted by Arun

...
GT300: 512-bit GDDR5 [~320GB/s]
...

This would solve all my problems with the SSAA performance.

I cross my fingers.

[AnarchX]

Hello GT215!

NVIDIA_DEV.06A0.01 = "NVIDIA GT214"
NVIDIA_DEV.06B0.01 = "NVIDIA GT214 "
NVIDIA_DEV.0A00.01 = "NVIDIA GT212"
NVIDIA_DEV.0A10.01 = "NVIDIA GT212 "
NVIDIA_DEV.0A30.01 = "NVIDIA GT216"
NVIDIA_DEV.0A60.01 = "NVIDIA GT218"
NVIDIA_DEV.0A70.01 = "NVIDIA GT218 "
NVIDIA_DEV.0A7D.01 = "NVIDIA GT218 "
NVIDIA_DEV.0A7F.01 = "NVIDIA GT218 "
NVIDIA_DEV.0CA0.01 = "NVIDIA GT215"
NVIDIA_DEV.0CB0.01 = "NVIDIA GT215 "

http://www.xfastest.com/viewthread.p...extra=page%3D1

[Domell]

Does it mean 40nm chips are pretty close?

[trinibwoy]

New option to force ambient occlusion? Wonder how that works. Seems like a very application specific thing.

Pic stolen from http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1380556

[INKster]

NVIDIA_DEV.0A20.01 = "NVIDIA D10M2-30
NVIDIA_DEV.06FF.01 = "NVIDIA HICx16 + Graphics

Intriguing... Hadn't heard those before.

[Jawed]

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

New option to force ambient occlusion? Wonder how that works. Seems like a very application specific thing.

Ooh, interesting, wonder if they're doing screen space ambient occlusion? That could be quite widely applicable - erm, though my understanding of the algorithm is not exactly in-depth

Jawed

[Cookie Monster]

NVIDIA_DEV.0A20.01 = "NVIDIA D10M2-30
NVIDIA_DEV.06FF.01 = "NVIDIA HICx16 + Graphics

Originally Posted by INKster

Intriguing... Hadn't heard those before.

Think the first is the mobile version of GT200 hence the D10M2-30. The latter sounds like some sort of a bridge chip? nVIDIA... Hydra IC??