ELSA hints GT206 and GT212

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.

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)

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).

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:
Code:
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.

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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 :D 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.
 
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
 
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...

expect them to be much more aggressive on 40nm.
Well i sure hope they will be -- for their own sake.

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)
 
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.php?tid=17608&extra=page=1
;)
 
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

ambientocclusionxo1.png
 
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 :LOL:

Jawed
 
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 :LOL:

Jawed

Supported games:
Games supported by AO:
Assassin Creed
Bioshock
COD4
COD:WAW
CS:Source
Company of heroes
crysis (warhead not suported)
devil may cry 4
Fallout 3
Far Cry 2
Half-life 2: Episode Two (only!!)
Left 4 Dead
Lost Planet
Mirror's Edge
The Call of Juarez
World in conflict
World Of Warcraft

Neeyik did some testing over at FM forums
Crysis No AO - 19FPS
http://www.neeyik.info/pix/crysis with no driver AO.png
Crysis High AO - 9FPS
http://www.neeyik.info/pix/crysis with High AO.png
Bioshock no AO - 63 FPS
http://www.neeyik.info/pix/bioshocknoAO.png
Bioshock High AO - 14 FPS
http://www.neeyik.info/pix/bioshockHighAO.png
Fallout 3 no AO - 60 FPS
http://www.neeyik.info/pix/fallout3noAO.png
Fallout 3 High AO - 21 FPS

In short, 50-75% loss in FPS, but looks quite tasty gfx wise
 
It's most probably SSAO as a pure post process and just darkening (+maybe some gain to compensate), so goodbye specular etc. And if the games don't write everything (particles etc) to the zbuffer it would be a problem. But if it works with the game it's a quite obvious driver thing to do for maybe a better IQ/performance compromise. A bit funny that Crysis (which pioneered the SSAO technique and doing it already) is one the list.
The performance hit is surprisingly high, must be a pretty big filter.
It seems to be vista only btw, so couldn't investigate it yet.
 
What res was Crysis being played at? Was it 32 or 64bit? What game settings? What video card?

I run Vistau x64 with a eVGA GTX260 SC and get 40+ average @ 1680x1050 with game setting at high no AA in 64bit mode and 32 or so in 32bit mode with same settings. CPU is a Q6600@ 3.0 and 4GB ram.
 
Back
Top