That's tantamount to suggesting that AMD/ATI is doing its R&D in public.
AMD: R7xx Speculation
- Thread starter Unknown Soldier
- Start date
- Status
That's tantamount to suggesting that AMD/ATI is doing its R&D in public.
Jawed
Legend
I pretty much agree with everything here. They seem to be preparing for this so far. It look like a great plan, and a big risk at the same time. Let's hope for the best.
Again, I think this is very close to the truth. Very good speculation.
Sound_Card
Regular
So we can kind of expect to see the 512bit bus again?
Whats kind of intresting is that "2" chips will be used for mid range, perhaps called the HD 4670. But if each chip is roughly the same performance of RV670(if fudo is right), that would be some pretty crazy performance for a mid range. Even if the chips perform more like R580 than RV670, that would still be pretty impressive.
Scalability is what intrest me the most here. A four chip 512bit, could be perhaps scaled down to a 2 chip 256bit SKU, and further down to 1 chip 128bit.
Whats kind of intresting is that "2" chips will be used for mid range, perhaps called the HD 4670. But if each chip is roughly the same performance of RV670(if fudo is right), that would be some pretty crazy performance for a mid range. Even if the chips perform more like R580 than RV670, that would still be pretty impressive.
Scalability is what intrest me the most here. A four chip 512bit, could be perhaps scaled down to a 2 chip 256bit SKU, and further down to 1 chip 128bit.
Yep. Let's hope that's not true though, as 4x RV630 isn't much of a step up from where they are now, let alone where NV will be at when R700 is released. Also if true, we can likely look forward to yet another 16 ROP architecture from AMD.
They'd better be clocking those cores at >1GHz or they're in for a world of hurt.Sound_Card
Regular
That would be disapointing for sure. Considering RV630 is little less than 1/3 the performance of R600.
Sound_Card
Regular
Actully the more I think about it Jawed, you may be right. Does not sound far fetched at all. Assuming the 4 chips scale as one, the specs assuming close to RV630 level or perhaps even RV635 may actully make for nice fast GPU.
So what sounds about right for a 72mm2 300 million transistor chip? Maybe two RBE's, two TEU's, 32sp? One RBE, two TEU, 24sp?
Jawed
Legend
128-bit bus, 8 TUs, 4 RBEs, 120 SPs ~150mm2 on 65nm. On 45nm it'd be about 75mm2
So, four of those would add up to 512-bit bus, 32 TUs, 16 RBEs, 480 SPs.
I know, RV630 is 390M transistors. Something's gotta give... Prolly TUs, and with them some SPs (otherwise the ALU:TU ratio goes "too high")
Jawed
Sound_Card
Regular
Perhaps the 300m number was a rough sketch or perhaps ATi cut some other redundant or usless parts.... maybe one being tessalation.
You dont need UVD, I/O on each of these cores, shave some transistor budget off that way.I know, RV630 is 390M transistors. Something's gotta give... Prolly TUs, and with them some SPs (otherwise the ALU:TU ratio goes "too high")
I think that there will be 1 master core containing UVD and IO and the slave core without it. So, the value part might be only the master core and mainstream part might be composed by the master core and a single slave core.
That rather goes against the whole scalability and yield concept though... More likely to see these things on a separate chip on the PCB.
The low-end part needs full-speed video-decode and should be able to deal with a full-width PCIe connection. So, why would one care about scaling those things?
Anyway, if this is really what R700 is, then I hope the master core is able to delegate work to slave dies (i.e. that you get similar scaling characteristics to monolithic designs), rather than this AFR crud. With a 4 tile design, AFR and a 60fps game, you'd have the input lag of a 15fps framerate.
Anyway, if this is really what R700 is, then I hope the master core is able to delegate work to slave dies (i.e. that you get similar scaling characteristics to monolithic designs), rather than this AFR crud. With a 4 tile design, AFR and a 60fps game, you'd have the input lag of a 15fps framerate
.Silent_Buddha
Legend
A master + slave cores would be unecessarily messy IMO. And ruin easy scalability. If all "cores" were the same then won't have to worry about matching "good" masters with an appropriate amount of "good" slaves. And when you have to order thousands of wafers at a time (I'm assuming), then if either masters or slaves has a particularly unlucky bad batch you've just not given yourself potentially hundreds if not thousands of usless master or slave cores.
A rather more elegant solution IMO...
Would be one controller/dispatcher chip that contains all features that don't require massive parrallelism. For example - UVD, RAMDAC, thread dispatcer, ec...
Then you have multiple cores speciallizing in all those parrallel tasks that can benefit from more units.
Each part would then be smaller allowing for more chips or more redundancy to improve yields and greater granularity.
This would also allow for the whole to act as one big monolithic GPU, thus doing away with the need for AFR or other multi-GPU algorythms. However, how much latency would there be? And would it be possible to effectivel hide i?
Then again I'm not a chip designer so all this might be virtually impossible or impractical for one reason or another.
Regards,
SB
A rather more elegant solution IMO...
Would be one controller/dispatcher chip that contains all features that don't require massive parrallelism. For example - UVD, RAMDAC, thread dispatcer, ec...
Then you have multiple cores speciallizing in all those parrallel tasks that can benefit from more units.
Each part would then be smaller allowing for more chips or more redundancy to improve yields and greater granularity.
This would also allow for the whole to act as one big monolithic GPU, thus doing away with the need for AFR or other multi-GPU algorythms. However, how much latency would there be? And would it be possible to effectivel hide i?
Then again I'm not a chip designer so all this might be virtually impossible or impractical for one reason or another.
Regards,
SB
A rather more elegant solution IMO...
Would be one controller/dispatcher chip that contains all features that don't require massive parrallelism. For example - UVD, RAMDAC, thread dispatcer, ec...
Then you have multiple cores speciallizing in all those parrallel tasks that can benefit from more units.
Each part would then be smaller allowing for more chips or more redundancy to improve yields and greater granularity.
This would also allow for the whole to act as one big monolithic GPU, thus doing away with the need for AFR or other multi-GPU algorythms. However, how much latency would there be? And would it be possible to effectivel hide i?
Then again I'm not a chip designer so all this might be virtually impossible or impractical for one reason or another.
Regards,
SB
That's what I'm thinking, see of it as the current clusters placed off of the die, but effectively still on the same package.
Although data now has to travel through the external bus, as I mentioned before, I think the ring-bus controller will be the essential part in this setup.
remember http://beyond3d.com/content/reviews/16/5
and
http://beyond3d.com/content/reviews/16/9
It is basically essential for the system to work this way if it does not want to fall back to "DieFire" (crossfire on a die)
SB, but now you are stuck with multiple chips even for the low end, which strikes me as less than ideal, or a separate low-end design, which supposedly is one of the things his type of design is trying to avoid. Also, I don't understand why matching good slaves and masters is such a problem - what you describe requires exactly the same, it's just that your master has no ALUs/TMUs.
The fact that one can mix and match cores with different leakage/power characteristics to reach an overall frequency-at-a-certain-power target for the final package is one of the few things (yield being the other) that to me seems a convincing reason to go with this kind of approach (*). So even with completely homogeneous cores, one might want to invest some thought into how cores are matched up.
That said, I'm also not a HW engineer.
The fact that one can mix and match cores with different leakage/power characteristics to reach an overall frequency-at-a-certain-power target for the final package is one of the few things (yield being the other) that to me seems a convincing reason to go with this kind of approach (*). So even with completely homogeneous cores, one might want to invest some thought into how cores are matched up.
That said, I'm also not a HW engineer.
I think that Shader works in double speed like G80.
- Status
Similar threads
