NVIDIA GF100 & Friends speculation
- Thread starter Arty
- Start date
It means nothing. I've looked at a few chips and there's no correlation between the size of the inner square and the die. Also, some ATI dies are rotated on the package yet the pins are not so it's obvious from this example that there's not a direct correlation of die to pins.Unless of course that gap in the balls means nothing
Yeah sorry looked again at picture as soon as i posted it... My memory is telling me the orginal GTX280 board had 14 and with the GTX285 they reduced it to 10 for the reference deisgn....is that correct?
Really? G92 was as large as Cypress. That can't be good.
So the larger-than-g92 chip isn't even 256shader/256bit mem interface? That doesn't sound right. AMD got a half-cypress part at roughly 55% die size of cypress. But larger than g92 would be ~70% of the rumoured 500mm^2 GF100, and it doesn't fit half the shaders (though admittedly that would be more than half the memory bandwidth and thus likely rops too)?
Quote from cncfc(post #172) after someone else comes out about the "GF104's" diesize:
Slightly contradicting, others in the thread claim the part is 'pair of 256' also performance round 5830-5850 and priced below GTX285 level.
The die size seems to be fairly concrete, other information which pointing to around that expected performance and pricepoint is maybe not quite as strong. Are you absolutely sure the GF100 is only around that die size?
FenderBender
Newcomer
Sorry if these were posted before... they were new to me anyway.
Negative logic though - he is eliminating things isn't he? ie the 256shader/256bit specification
A few pages before:
ie if have translated correctly the before he is saying nvidia should spend time optimizing their die size.
There is another post yesterday in a dffierent thread:
ie GTX480 has been cut down,as others saying probably 480shaders. Cannot supply market with sufficent product to meet demand therefore working on chip below which they think will get close in performance to GF100 once it tapes.
Above G92@65nm die area chimes in well with what I heard about it some time ago. As far as the unit count/memory interface goes I'd place my bets on two variants from the same chip and not just one and yes that might be very well a point all this confusion comes from.
Blazkowicz
Legend
GF104 and GTX 470 may feel a lot like geforce 6600GT vs 6800 - the 6800 was much more beefy and had much slower clocks, making the cards almost equal with a very slight edge for the 6800.
I wonder if the GF104 is a version without DP, or maybe DP running quarter rate instead of half rate.
probably GF104 is a good contender against 5850, it can target both Cypress and the "missing GPU" between Juniper and Cypress.
(speaking out of my buttocks, hope the smell is ok)
I wonder if the GF104 is a version without DP, or maybe DP running quarter rate instead of half rate.
probably GF104 is a good contender against 5850, it can target both Cypress and the "missing GPU" between Juniper and Cypress.
(speaking out of my buttocks, hope the smell is ok)
GF104 sounds more like half a GF100 if all indications are correct. It shouldn't have anything to do with a 470 which is obviously a castrated GF100 chip.
The plain 6800 and all other 6800s for that matter came from the same chip.
Blazkowicz
Legend
that precisely is the way I look at it - 6800 the castrated chip, 6600GT the half-spec chip that goes high on clock.
With one eye closed (NV40 had 3 and not 2 variants at launch) it could work. Officially announced so far we have a GTX480 and a GTX470. Considering how low the specificiations for the latter already seem to be I doubt they will kick off another (<470) variant from the same chip at launch.
GF104 isn't slated for March anyway afaik.
I can read enough Chinese that that statement says:
Is not pair of 256
So not 256/256 is what he wrote
leoneazzurro
Regular
IIRC (and I should do as I had one) the 6800 came in several "flavours" at launch (6800 Ultra, GT and vanilla) and it's true that the plain 6800 was not much faster than the 6600GT (except for corner cases, i.e. bandwidth limited, but also 6600 GT came some time after 6800's launch) but at that time you could also try to re-enable "sleeping" pipelines and the overclock usually was very good on that parts. And there were some 6800 GT - 128 Mbyte parts (standard parts came with 256 meg) which costed not so much more than the 6600 GT but packed a lot more performance (and not considering that almost all reached 400+MHz on the core without modifications or strange cooling systems)...
Of course, it is possible that the GF104 can compete successfully with the 5850 if the clocks are in the 1,5+ GHz range or if it is a 384 SP part (but I wonder then what the die size could be).
Of course, it is possible that the GF104 can compete successfully with the 5850 if the clocks are in the 1,5+ GHz range or if it is a 384 SP part (but I wonder then what the die size could be).
I'd always gone with the outer ring being for power and ground plane(s), with the inner block for I/O, but with the gap still marking the chip edge. Throw out ~500mm/sq again then I guess, you both make good points.
NathansFortune
Regular
So what are we saying, smaller than 500mm2?
That seems awfully small after everything we seem to have learned from it...
If it comes in at around 22x22mm that would be quite a surprise no? I was expecting something closer to 24x24mm.
That seems awfully small after everything we seem to have learned from it...
If it comes in at around 22x22mm that would be quite a surprise no? I was expecting something closer to 24x24mm.
Similar threads
