The GT214 will have GDDR5:
http://www.hardware-infos.com/news.php?news=2609
http://www.hardware-infos.com/news.php?news=2609
ELSA hints GT206 and GT212
- Thread starter AnarchX
- Start date
Ok but this is the only difference between GT214 and GT216? GDDR5 vs GDDR3? I don`t think so. Maybe GT214 will have 192SP and 256-bit Mem bus but then NVIDIA wouldn`t have to release GPU with specs like GT216 linked above because to get 160SP with 192-bit mem bus is very simple - disable one cluster (probably 32SP/8TMU/64-bit MC/4 ROPs.
You really need to stop posting circumstantial evidence in a factual way. They are simply pointing to that Zenggang guy who had GT214 in his linkedin profile. That is hardly proof of anything.
I wonder how HW-Infos arrived at that conclusion? Their source, which is the infamous Linked-In-entry, does not state that. Only that Mr. Zenggang did FB-sims for various SKUs (G96- and GT214-based) with different memory configurations - among them GDDR5.
But G96-boards did not use GDDR5 either, as we all know...
Yeah that's why sticking with a 512-bit bus makes sense to me - for those massive Tesla framebuffers. Also, how would you get 6GB on a 384-bit bus? I thought the maximum configuration was 2 chips per 32-bit channel? I suspect Nvidia will stick to 512-bit GDDR5 on GT300.
Jawed
Legend
As posted by Shtal in the GT300 thread:
http://vr-zone.com/articles/nvidia-40nm-desktop-gpus-line-up-for-2009/6359.html?doc=6359
Jawed
http://vr-zone.com/articles/nvidia-40nm-desktop-gpus-line-up-for-2009/6359.html?doc=6359
Hmm, this is quite a different sequence on 40nm than was generally expected
Jawed
Makes sense to me.
Since june timeframe i guess, they realized that they need to carry over GT200-performance on a cheaper price per die as fast as they can.
Plus, with larger chips you usually do not have such a high risk (financially) when switching to/testing a state of the art fabrication process.
You won't need as much units shortly after launch like in the volume segments, usually you do not have to meet strict OEM-cycles for high-end-parts, so a delay for a respin is not that crucial and you have the option to sell binned-down versions of a GPU - a luxury, an entry-level-product usually cannot afford.
Since june timeframe i guess, they realized that they need to carry over GT200-performance on a cheaper price per die as fast as they can.
Plus, with larger chips you usually do not have such a high risk (financially) when switching to/testing a state of the art fabrication process.
You won't need as much units shortly after launch like in the volume segments, usually you do not have to meet strict OEM-cycles for high-end-parts, so a delay for a respin is not that crucial and you have the option to sell binned-down versions of a GPU - a luxury, an entry-level-product usually cannot afford.
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? =)
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? =)
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.
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.
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.
So do I, my expectations for GT212's die size are too large for it to make much sense in my mind.
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?
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.
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.
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.
What are you expectations for GT212's die size?
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.
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.
