I also wonder that how in the heck ATI has RV770 clocked @ 1050MHz-GPU, then it has to be 45nm tech - shrink from 55nm.
That would go a ways towards explaining that chiphell shot claiming to be a rv770 that looks approx the size of of rv670, if it is indeed 45nm. Maybe it is relatively the same size, but just pumped with more juice to achieve a higher clock hence the higher TDP??
___________________________________________________________________
At any rate, so broken down we're looking at an x2 product with >2TF.
My question is how will this stack up to a nvidia 384 shader product with 2000mhz shaders, equaling roughly 2.3TF. Does the MUL reach a point where it has diminishing returns for it's capabilities, therefore bringing the actual used computational power somewhere between the 2x MADD number (1.536TF) and the full specced 2.3TF lower in actual utilization percentage than what we see in say G92? Is the color interpolation etc a fairly static usage of the MUL, or will it increase with the usage of the shaders? I know this is probably a question for the GT200 thread, but I wonder if the 2+1 approach could bite them in the ass compared to ATi's full-on MADD approach.
Also, since PhysX will be accessible through CUDA, could the non-used functions by the MUL (since it's not used in general shading) be doing these computations therefore allowing for potentially free physX performance?
_________________________________________________________________
At any rate, pretty happy to see these specs. It's more or less what I personally expecting TDP/Spec-wise, although I was thinking it would keep directly in line with RV670 and have 24 RBE/ROPs and 24 TMUs. While the increase in TMUs (however it comes to be, TF or otherwise) is welcome and long overdue, I wonder how 4 quads of RBE/ROPs is still going to work going on it's umpteenth implementation.
Also, while some may think these parts may sound tame in comparison to what Nvidia is bringing to the table, and may question if the X2 crossfire-esque implementation will be competitive with Nvidia's single huge chip, remember this speculatory thought: We'll probably see <~$200-250 priced RV770's, similar to 37xx is, similar in price to G92 but by looking at the specs, trumping it. Nvidia will probably have the more powerful chip on the high-end, but I don't see how they can cut it down to be priced/performance comparable to what we'll see out of RV770, considering how much that die will cost to fab and how many shader/texture/etc units they would need to salvage from a cheaper part to make it feasible. We'll probably see a GTS (384-bit,288 shaders or something?) priced smack dab in between the rv770 and the GT200, maybe competing with the X2, but again, I don't see how it could feasibly compete with it. I question if that part will be worth the ching over Rv770, or if it won't be beaten handily by an x2. To me, it looks like ATi could truly have a great performance category chip on their hands with no competition other than the 8800gt and could very-well replace it in the eyes of the consumer...and I know I'm not alone when I say that's the market I look at; just something that will keep crysis (and such) for example a decent amount over 30fps at 1920x1200 with half-decent settings. If that's true, and if it is as moderately as successful as the 8800gt, this could be great news for ATi. One would think the possibility is even more-so because of the ability for cards to run crossfire on intel chipsets like the upcoming p45, unlike the 8800gt.
Not trying to rant, but I think this could be exactly what AMD is shooting for, and they could very well hit the mark...for the first time in quite a while.
