[LordEC911]

Originally Posted by Razor1

don't have any evidence outside of the conference call stating margins for fermi will remain the same as they are now with the gt200b. Or has there been anything solid on that front?

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

The only "info" I've seen about Fermi size is Charlie's claim of 23.x * 23.x.

He just answered... neliz has been telling us this for quite a few months already.

Originally Posted by Ailuros

Slightly over 700MHz afaik with a ~2.2x ALU:TMU ratio under normal voltage rates. If they hypothetically would raise the voltage slightly a higher hot clock could be possible. It's senseless at this point to speculate on final frequencies until they get A3 done. IMHO they will then decide what the best level of frequencies/voltage will be considering that they want to keep power consumption roughly on GTX285 levels.

Just need a little clarification on your post. The clockspeeds you stated you mentioned them regarding the target clockspeeds, correct? Not the A2 clocks.
Thanks.

[Florin]

Originally Posted by LordEC911

He just answered... neliz has been telling us this for quite a few months already.

Are there any real sources though?

[LordEC911]

Originally Posted by Florin

Are there any real sources though?

Until neliz fails us, I don't see any reason to doubt his info.
Hell, even if he does fail, he has been spot on with the vast majority of info he has passed and would still take his word for it.

Edit- You also don't like Charlie's source in Taiwan?

[Alexko]

What's a real source?

[LordEC911]

Originally Posted by Alexko

What's a real source?

True, you don't know if it is a "real" source until you can verify the info first hand.

[Florin]

double

[Florin]

Originally Posted by Alexko

What's a real source?

Well, like someone at Nvidia or a major OEM, or maybe some reputable reporter. 'Some guy on a forum' is kinda dodgy.

[Sontin]

Originally Posted by LordEC911

Until neliz fails us, I don't see any reason to doubt his info.
Hell, even if he does fail, he has been spot on with the vast majority of info he has passed and would still take his word for it.

I think you believe him because his predictions are not goot for nVidia. Do you think that GTX380 is a GT212 card?

Edit- You also don't like Charlie's source in Taiwan?

His track record behind tape-out dates is really bad. Not a great source...

[neliz]

Originally Posted by Sontin

I think you believe him because his predictions are not goot for nVidia.

My predictions are not good? or nVidia is dropping the ball? bad choice of words my friend.

Do you think that GTX380 is a GT212 card?

uhm what? haven't kept up or selective reading?

[Razor1]

Originally Posted by neliz

My predictions are not good? or nVidia is dropping the ball? bad choice of words my friend.


uhm what? haven't kept up or selective reading?

I don't think the die size has even been revealed to anyone yet........

[CarstenS]

For all we know, GT200 was supposed to be pushing the upper reticle limits already. Nvidia's in a kind of difficult situation right now - they're having problems with margins in the high end for about 1.5 yrs now and they are late to the DX11 game. Plus, they've said, Fermi would be much more modular than previous generations.

I for one could imagine a solution to this.

[Florin]

Originally Posted by CarstenS

For all we know, GT200 was supposed to be pushing the upper reticle limits already. Nvidia's in a kind of difficult situation right now - they're having problems with margins in the high end for about 1.5 yrs now and they are late to the DX11 game. Plus, they've said, Fermi would be much more modular than previous generations.

I for one could imagine a solution to this.

This is probably more for the 'signs of strain' topic, but do you reckon that the margins in the consumer high end really matter that much to Nvidia? It's a small volume sector, and Nvidia makes no secret of the fact that most of their profit comes from the professional sector - where margins are still pretty strong.

[neliz]

Originally Posted by Razor1

I don't think the die size has even been revealed to anyone yet........

So, you're saying that no one knows how big the chip is that they have to design their boards for?

[Razor1]

Originally Posted by neliz

So, you're saying that no one knows how big the chip is that they have to design their boards for?

hmm no noone knows the exact size kinda like the g80. No one knew the size outside of what nV told them.

[neliz]

Originally Posted by Razor1

hmm no noone knows the exact size kinda like the g80.

I find your G80 part deux very hard to believe.

[Razor1]

Originally Posted by neliz

I find your G80 part deux very hard to believe.

yeah its hard to believe, but effective flops on fermi is 2.5 to 3 times that of the gt200. 633 gflops vs 1.5 -1.8 tflops.

if we look at the gt 200b, its ~2.5 times more

But wasn't talking about performance anyways, die size I haven't seen anything solid at all outside of it might be around these numbers.

[ShaidarHaran]

Originally Posted by Razor1

yeah its hard to believe, but effective flops on fermi is 2.5 to 3 times that of the gt200. 633 gflops vs 1.5 -1.8 tflops.

if we look at the gt 200b, its ~2.5 times more

But wasn't talking about performance anyways, die size I haven't seen anything solid at all outside of it might be around these numbers.

Wait - I thought they rectified the MADD/MUL co-issue with GT200 and FLOPs were at 900-1000 (depending on clocks).

[Ailuros]

Originally Posted by LordEC911

Just need a little clarification on your post. The clockspeeds you stated you mentioned them regarding the target clockspeeds, correct? Not the A2 clocks.
Thanks.

Yes. But I have severe doubts that if A1 was already at 495/1100, that A2 ended up at only 500/1200 as some indicate. I think some just get a bit confused with Tesla frequencies. Afaik frequencies on final SKUs will scale as follows from higher to lower:

GeForce--> Quadro--> Tesla

Originally Posted by neliz

So, you're saying that no one knows how big the chip is that they have to design their boards for?

Depends where someone starts to measure and there are always some differences in the end. GT200@65nm was supposed to be 575 and we concluded in the end that it's 583mm2 here at B3D I think. From what I've heard GF100 is 22.3*22.3, but I'm not laying my hands into fire for it either. But then again I separate myself from hearsay and knowledge.

[neliz]

Originally Posted by Ailuros

But then again I separate myself from hearsay and knowledge.

Let's say it was hearsay first and became knowledge last week.

[mboeller]

Originally Posted by neliz

Let's say it was hearsay first and became knowledge last week.

What size?

22,3 * 22,3 or 23,x * 23,x ??

[Ailuros]

Originally Posted by neliz

Let's say it was hearsay first and became knowledge last week.

Knowledge in the strict sense means you've seen it with your own eyes.

[CarstenS]

Originally Posted by Florin

This is probably more for the 'signs of strain' topic, but do you reckon that the margins in the consumer high end really matter that much to Nvidia? It's a small volume sector, and Nvidia makes no secret of the fact that most of their profit comes from the professional sector - where margins are still pretty strong.

Yes, I do. FWIW, Nvidia and it's partners had to sell their lower-high-end part as of late at a middle class price point, which has led to middle class products being sold even lower and so on.

I've never seen the space from 120 euros downward so cramped with quite differently performing products - that cannot be healthy in the long term for a regular company.

[Silus]

Originally Posted by neliz

GT300 is the same size as GT200, i.e. ~24x24. Any lower (like speculated by some here since before may) is unfounded. Btw, You promised us pics of Fermi back then, still waiting for your sources to show any signs of credibility.

So it's 576 mm2 ? I have some doubts about that one...
Tech-Report speculates ~470 mm2- Jawed speculated about the same (a bit larger) and rumor sites (except of course the "notaccurate" one) all mention ~500 mm2, so around the size of GT200b, not GT200.

And what do you mean "I" promised pics of Fermi ?

[Razor1]

Originally Posted by ShaidarHaran

Wait - I thought they rectified the MADD/MUL co-issue with GT200 and FLOPs were at 900-1000 (depending on clocks).

no the dual issue never was rectified.

[ShaidarHaran]

So then how do they get away claiming such inflated SP GFLOP numbers?