ELSA hints GT206 and GT212

[Ailuros]

576 is what you get is if you estimate it at 24x24, 600 is what you get if you estimate it with a ruler based on the package size, and and 583 is the official number from NVIDIA. Happy now? In fact to be even more precise, NVIDIA claims it's a 24.3x24 chip...

I'll be happy if you keep those disrepancies in mind when estimating future dies *har har har*

And don't forget - GT300 is the real LRB competitor from NV so i wouldn't be very surprised if it'll have loads of programmable memory/cache on die - Larrabee style.

Well I personally doubt that LRB could shoot up to such magnitudes of die area as GT3x0 and even then power consumption might be higher for the first.

 

[Domell]

I think if there will be really no GT212 as a chip with rumoured 384SPs and 96TMUs, the best NVIDIA could do is releasing GPU (GT215??) with 256SP, 64TMU, 16 ROPs and 256-bit MC (or 24 ROPs and 384-bit MC) with GDDR5. Chip with these specs should have small die size and should be even faster than GTX285 and could be worthy competitor to Rv790.

 

[Ailuros]

I think if there will be really no GT212 as a chip with rumoured 384SPs and 96TMUs, the best NVIDIA could do is releasing GPU (GT215??) with 256SP, 64TMU, 16 ROPs and 256-bit MC (or 24 ROPs and 384-bit MC) with GDDR5. Chip with these specs should have small die size and should be even faster than GTX285 and could be worthy competitor to Rv790.

Even if GT212 is a 384SP/4*64bit it would depend on its final frequencies if it would set itself above the 285 or slightly below.

While NV most certainly needs above all budget to mainstream 40nm chips for all its markets to further reduce manufacturing costs, it still remains that it doesn't make much sense in the longrun to NOT have a 40nm performance chip when GT3x0 arrives.

 

[CarstenS]

Even if GT212 is a 384SP/4*64bit it would depend on its final frequencies if it would set itself above the 285 or slightly below.

Now, that's a nice oxy moros we have here.

A chip with a much more advanced process technology and paper-specs that seemingly blow the old one out of the water and yet supposedly it depends on clock frequencies if it's faster or not - even though theoretically, 40nm-tech should be guaranteeing a healthy increase in frequency headroom.

 

[Domell]

Even if GT212 is a 384SP/4*64bit it would depend on its final frequencies if it would set itself above the 285 or slightly below.

While NV most certainly needs above all budget to mainstream 40nm chips for all its markets to further reduce manufacturing costs, it still remains that it doesn't make much sense in the longrun to NOT have a 40nm performance chip when GT3x0 arrives.

There is no option that GT12 could be positioned below GTX285. Why? Because NVIDIA wouldn`t pack such a big number of SP and then such a big increase of transistors if they have planned to make a "performance" chip. There would be very bad move if we take a performance/produce costs ratio.

The most NVIDIA need is a worthy successor of G92. They need this chip to have a worthy competitor for Rv790 and other Rv7xx 40nm GPUs from ATI.
So i think a good move for NVIDIA could be make GPU with specs something like these:
-256SP ~ 1,8-2 Ghz
-64 TMUs
-16 ROPs (or 24 but more possible is 16)
-256-bit GDDR5
-clock domain for TMUs and ROPs about 750-800 Mhz.

To get these clocks in 40nm shouldn`t be a problem and die size of this GPU shouldn`t be bigger than 250mm^2 and performance will be above GTX285 in overall.
I hope that chip something like this is now a mysterious GT215.


For a another highend GPU of GT2xx family i`m still staying that 320SP/80TMU/512-bit/32ROPs (the same number of clusters as a GT200/GT200B has) will be enough to beat any ATI single solution and it will still give a possibility to make GX2 variants. IMO NVIDIA doesn`t need GT212 chip with specs which leaked some weeks ago.

 

[Ailuros]

Now, that's a nice oxy moros we have here.

Oxymoron (don't mind the greek spelling police...)

A chip with a much more advanced process technology and paper-specs that seemingly blow the old one out of the water and yet supposedly it depends on clock frequencies if it's faster or not - even though theoretically, 40nm-tech should be guaranteeing a healthy increase in frequency headroom.

Apart from the significant increase in arithmetic performance due to probably 60% more ALUs, there's only a rather mediocre increase in texel fillrate and not necessarily an increase in all other fillrates considering that rumoured specs speak of 4 ROP partitions and not 8.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a 20% increase in frequencies for a chip with similar complexity as today's GT200b just on 40nm. The usual up to date 212 scenarios suggest a higher complexity than that of a hypothetical 200b shrunk to 40nm. I'm merely having second thoughts if 40nm isn't that troublefree to allow at the same time roughtly the same increase of chip complexity and frequency.

For a another highend GPU of GT2xx family i`m still staying that 320SP/80TMU/512-bit/32ROPs (the same number of clusters as a GT200/GT200B has) will be enough to beat any ATI single solution and it will still give a possibility to make GX2 variants. IMO NVIDIA doesn`t need GT212 chip with specs which leaked some weeks ago.

The supposed GT212 specs didn't leak just a couple of weeks ago, yet rather weeks before that ELSA roadmap picture in the original post in this thread. There's no GT21x model with 8*64bit afaik and I have severe doubts you'll see such a wide bus configuration even with the next D3D11 generation.

 

[Domell]

So do you think even the fastest GT21x 40nm GPU will have 256-bit MC? Don`t you think it is going to be a bottleneck in higher resolutions? Maybe not caused by 256-bit Mem bus because of using GDDR5 but 256-bit means only 16ROPs and i don`t think that NVIDIA is going to improve them in 40nm GT21x GPUs.

So what about "a good old" 384-bit MC which is doing great even was introduced 2,5 year ago?

 

[Jawed]

256-bit means only 16ROPs and i don`t think that NVIDIA is going to improve them in 40nm GT21x GPUs.

NVidia appears adamant that per ROP they don't need more bandwidth, so indeed it will be interesting to see how many ROPs there are on a GT2xx GPU with GDDR5.

Jawed

 

[Domell]

Well, 16 ROPs with GPUs as GT215 - supposed "Performance" level - could be enough but it seems that all GT21x GPUs will have 256-bit/16ROPs confoguration so i don`t see a point to make a GPUS with 1,5X or more shader power than current top end GPUs (GTX280/285) with nearly 2X less ROPs bandwidth.

Other thing is if NVIDIA does something like 256-bit/32ROPs configuration (but i doubt it). Then ROPs performance will be at the same level as nowadays or a little higher and GDDR5 will do their job as well

PS. While about Rv790 rumours are more and more detailed then NVIDIAs GPUs specs are still mysterious and unknown for anyone. Moreover we still don`t know even GT212 is alive or canceled.

 

[Ailuros]

Well, 16 ROPs with GPUs as GT215 - supposed "Performance" level - could be enough but it seems that all GT21x GPUs will have 256-bit/16ROPs confoguration so i don`t see a point to make a GPUS with 1,5X or more shader power than current top end GPUs (GTX280/285) with nearly 2X less ROPs bandwidth.

I'm not sure what you mean with ROP bandwidth exactly, since such a hypothetical GPU's final bandwidth depends obviously on the GDDR5 they'd use.

There's definitely going to be a significant Z-/Pixel Fillrate reduction if you cut the amount of ROPs in half.

I've never really understood the reasoning behind the concept of such a configuration myself to be completely honest.

Other thing is if NVIDIA does something like 256-bit/32ROPs configuration (but i doubt it). Then ROPs performance will be at the same level as nowadays or a little higher and GDDR5 will do their job as well

IMHLO it would be way easier (in a purely hypothetical speculation exercise) to think of increasing capabilities per ROP than doubling the amount of the existing ROPs per partition. That is of course if the current ROPs actually need any increases. Recent driver versions point rather in the direction that they might finally woke up and are optimizing them for better 8xMSAA performance.

PS. While about Rv790 rumours are more and more detailed then NVIDIAs GPUs specs are still mysterious and unknown for anyone. Moreover we still don`t know even GT212 is alive or canceled.

In what way are 790 rumours more detailed? Has the rumour mill up to now made up it's mind how many units that one contains? It sounds more like just a frequency increase to me and one reason more for me to believe that increasing both the amount of units as well as frequencies for 40nm could be a too tough exercise for anyone at this point. If GT212 is alive and it truly has the rumoured config, I'm having second thoughts on noteworthy frequency increases that's all.

 

[KonKort]

I have not got good messages for you. I heard from Nvidia that it is not sure if GT212 really comes. So Charlie could be right with his report.
The good message is that the development of G300 runs well. It looks like he will launch this year, but he is not taped out yet.

 

[Ailuros]

Many of us I guess were suspecting something like that. It's far more reasonable for any IHV at this point to concentrate more on the next generation than anything else.

GT3x0's final tape out under 40nm is the critical point of the entire story.

 

[Domell]

Yea, releasing such a chip like GT212 with rumoured 384SP doesn`t make sense when it is really planned for Q3/09. Moreover the most important thing for NVIDIA at the moment is make and releasing new Mainstream and Performance GPUs in 40nm to compete with Rv740/Rv790 in this generation. So i wonder what specs can we expect from GT216, GT215 and GT214 if all these GPUs are going to be released.

What does GT212 cancel mean? Could it be that GT300 is doing well and maybe is there any chance releasing it , hmm, somewhere about September/October? Or maybe GT300 is still scheduled for Q4 (Nov/Dec)? I hope that first option is right

 

[Arun]

Or maybe the high-end market is just dead right now because of the economy? *shrugs*

 

[Domell]

So you want to say GT300 maybe won`t be a real Highend chip too like G80 or GT200 have been?

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Or maybe the high-end market is just dead right now because of the economy? *shrugs*

I don't know, I just purchased a GTX 285 and my roommate just bought a 4870X2. Prices were too good to pass on, despite the economy. We each still have jobs and our bills haven't changed, plus we just got our tax returns so timing was right. I suspect plenty of others will do the same with their tax returns.

 

[Davros]

Remember every time you framerate is higher than his you must point and laugh

 

[suryad]

Well this kind of settles it. I will grab me a couple of 285s in the coming months.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Remember every time you framerate is higher than his you must point and laugh

no, that wouldn't be good since I recommended all the hardware he purchased for his new Core i7 rig. If my year old 4GHz C2D system outperforms his and cost less to build I think he might be a bit unhappy with me...

 

[Domell]

So i don`t get it at all

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12422&Itemid=1

It is said that NVIDIAs 40nm GPU (GT218 there mentioned as a performance chip) is going to be a real beast (maybe "the second G92"??). But as we remember GT218 was said to be a low-end GPU. It could be great to see again a great chip from NVIDIA, worthy successor of GF8800GT but it`s some strange to me if it is going to be released in Q3 this year and compete with new AMDs architecture. IMO most likely GT3xx is a Rv8xx competitor not another GT2xx chip even in 40nm.

I think if GT218 stands against Rv870 NVIDIA will be defeated with no doubt.

So i wonder when and what 40nm GPUs from NVIDIA we will see this year. They need them against current ATIs GPUs (cheap to produce and great in performance) and following Rv740/790 as well.