AMD: Southern Islands (7*** series) Speculation/ Rumour Thread

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by UniversalTruth, Dec 17, 2010.

  1. UniversalTruth

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,747
    That is what I have found: :mrgreen:


    Radeon HD 7990 Specifications
    • Dual graphics processing units
    • Compute Power: 12.16 TFLOPS (single-precision), 3.04 TFLOPS (double-precision)
    • Process Technology: First-generation "gate-first" 28 nm High Performance Process
    • Stream Processors: 6400
    • Texture Units: 256
    • Texture Fillrate: 243.2 GTexel/s
    • Color ROP Units: 96
    • Pixel Fillrate: 91.2 GPixel/s
    • Z/Stencil ROP Units: 384
    • Memory Bus Width: 384-bit
    • Memory Type: 6 GB GDDR5+
    • Memory Bandwidth: 576 GB/s
    • Bus Interface: PCI Express 3.0
    • Board power (Idle/Load): 30W/300W
    • Form Factor: Dual Slot
    • Cooling Solution: Fansinks with Vapor Chamber
    • Graphics API:
      • DirectX 11
      • OpenGL 4.2
      • OpenGL ES 2.0
    • Accelerated Parallel Processing:
      • DirectCompute 11
      • OpenCL 1.1
    • AMD EyeSpeed: Yes
    • AMD Eyefinity: Yes
    • AMD HD3D: Yes
    • Unified Video Decoder 4.0:
      • Multi-View Codec (MVC)
      • HEVC
      • MPEG-4 AVC/H.264
      • VC-1, VC-2
      • MPEG-2
      • DivX/XviD
      • WebM
      • Flash
    • AVIVO HD: Yes
    • Display Outputs:
      • Dual-link DVI
      • Mini DisplayPort
      • HDMI 1.4
    • AMD CrossFireX: Quad GPU Scaling
    • AMD PowerPlay: Yes
    • Ultra Low Power State: Yes


    http://www.semiaccurate.com/forums/showthread.php?p=84917#post84917

    I'd like to see your comments about it. And if there is any information of the expected pipe cleaner @28 nm.


    I have also found this:



    From the same thread:

    http://www.semiaccurate.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3825&page=10
     
  2. DarthShader

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    350
    Location:
    Land of Mu
    Those are just next dual card guestimates. :nope:
     
  3. 3dilettante

    Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,756
    Location:
    Well within 3d
    Aren't those just made up numbers? I don't think it even counts as speculation. The rates and an implied 950 MHz clock are consistent with the unit counts, but the unit counts are not consistent with each other within AMD's current batch and SIMD constraints.

    Maybe if we're lucky, Fudzilla or its ilk will print it as a rumor next year.
     
  4. NathansFortune

    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Messages:
    559
    Get rid of that dirty AMD logo. ATi will live forever! :grin: :twisted:
     
  5. mczak

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,909
    Ahem, is that supposed to be a x2 card???
    The specs don't make sense, not even in theory. For a single card, you can just about forget the SP count imho, and for the dual card the 384bit interface doesn't make sense (though the memory bandwidth quoted would indicate 2x384bit probably).
    I think it would make more sense speculating about the single chip solutions first.
    For these I take 2 things for granted:
    - pcie 3.0 (according to anandtech, this was planned for Cayman already, and in any case graphic cards always adopted new pcie specs quickly)
    - VLIW-4 units. AMD wouldn't have gone from VLIW-5 to VLIW-4 just for Cayman if they didn't intend to keep the units for a little while longer. And hence the one-fourth DP to SP ratio should be true too (for MUL/FMA at least).

    If AMD is aiming for a small chip, my guess would be about this:
    - 2 graphic engines (AMD notes these scale separately from the shader engines, so this should be possible, but maybe 4 is a better number to at least catch up with GF110...)
    - 4 shader engines (dispatch processors) with 8-10 simds each - that would be 2048-2560 SPs

    On the ROP/mem interface no idea. I think there's some problem scaling memory bandwidth with gddr5 in that timeframe to a lot more. OTOH a 384bit memory interface has no place on a small (< 300mm²) chip really. Also 32 ROPs offers "enough" color fill rate - if anything maybe they could be beefed up to handle twice the z/stencil rate, so I'd guess AMD will stick to 256bit (with the fastest gddr5 memory they can get) and 32 ROPs. With naturally 2GB of memory.

    Other than that, I'd expect it to scale better to higher simd counts (otherwise that increase would be useless), hence front-end or other bottlenecks (cache hierarchy, internal bandwidth, or whatever these are on current gen) to be addressed.
    It could also have reworked simds - I'd expect AMD to stick to VLIW-4, but the simds could be grouped differently, so 2 simds share a TMU (as seen in the patents Jawed quoted). (Though if that's the case I would expect the tmus to have full-rate FP16 filtering - also for 32 simds this would only give 64 tmus which sounds like it might not be quite enough, might make more sense if there are 40 simds).

    This is of course pure speculation which might be off pretty far. So with all the rumblings about 28nm delays, when exactly do we expect HD7xxx? Do we even expect it on 28nm at all?
     
  6. fellix

    fellix Hey, You!
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,337
    Location:
    Varna, Bulgaria
    My wish-list for the S.I. architecture:

    * Keep the "sweet spot" strategy on 28 nm tech, i.e. a die size equal or less than Cypress';
    * 30~36 SIMD multiprocessors on VLIW4 format;
    * Three SIMD blocks (10~12 MPs each, see above), each one with dedicated front-end (geometry assembly, tessellator HiZ, etc.), similar to Cayman;
    * Cached global memory via L2 with coherent reads&writes (finally!);
    * Double the Z/Stencil throughput;
    * ...can I ask for XDR memory interface (d'oh!) :p

    But to be honest, this is as far as the evolution could drive the R600 architectural legacy. Still too much graphics centric, IMHO.
    Parallel geometry processing and GPGPU is still not as "organic" part of the architecture as Fermi's approach. For this, I think, AMD probably must go for a new fresh direction in the future, not just piling and patching over and over.
     
  7. Jaaanosik

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    146
    Hey, how about Fusion? :)
    1-2 CPU cores with doubled Cayman. How big it would be?
    Some driver workload could be offloaded to GPU.
     
  8. hkultala

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    276
    Location:
    Herwood, Tampere, Finland
    Trivially fake, SP and TMU counts don't match.

    There should always be one TMU/16 SP's on that architecture.

    (one processor core has 16*4 = 64 SP's , and 4 TMU's)
     
  9. rpg.314

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,298
    Location:
    /
    In what universe is flash a video codec?

    Also, the first thing that post says is

    Go figure.
     
  10. LordEC911

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    772
    Location:
    'Zona
    IMO a 28nm Barts would be the best bet for a 28nm pipe cleaner.
    Should stay around 150mm2 with a 128bit bus. What's the over/under on 2H '11?
     
  11. eastmen

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    8,554
    I wouldn't mind seeing a 28nm bart as the 76x0 line and a 28nm cayman in the $100+ price point.
     
  12. Erinyes

    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    587
    Yea i would agree with that. Barts with 128 bit mem controller(and maybe an increase to 1280 Shaders) would be a good choice to go with for a pipe cleaner. IMO we can even expect it in Q2 2011 as it is meant to be an early part, followed by the rest of the parts in Q3/Q4

    Assuming 60% scaling, 28 nm cayman will be ~230 mm2. They may be pad limited so they may increase die size a bit like they did with RV770. Would probably be priced at around Cypress' launch prices as 28nm wafers wont be cheap initially.

    The limiting factor for the next gen will probably be GDDR5 speeds i think. According to AnandTech we aren't going to see speeds greater than 6 gbps even though the standard was desiged to go to 7 gbps.
     
  13. UniversalTruth

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,747

    What about the so mentioned by Charlie GDDR5+? What is it? When should we see anything faster like GDDR6, or XDR, or whatever?
    And also, although the wafer prices may be high enough initially, they form only a part of the equation for the final street price. So I don't think that may serve as an excuse for the current overpriced products and the future ones.
     
  14. EduardoS

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Messages:
    131
    Ok, it's just a guess, but let's think about Hecatonchires.
     
  15. Squilliam

    Squilliam Beyond3d isn't defined yet
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Location:
    New Zealand
    So any word as to whether they are likely to go Global Foundries 28nm because im pretty sure they have a contract which requires them to source X quantity of their GPUs from that foundry or whether they will likely stick with TSMC 28nm? It'll be an interesting question to find out which 28nm process is better and whether either of them can reach any sort of volume on that process in 2011.

    P.S. Of course my fantasy is that we get a 28nm pipecleaner part in Q2 of next year. :)
     
  16. Alexko

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,932
    I believe the part in bold is correct. Whether AMD decides to use GloFo's process for low-end or high-end parts is the big question…
     
  17. Squilliam

    Squilliam Beyond3d isn't defined yet
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Does the foundry where they intend to produce fusion products count at all in this decision? Would you call Llano a mid range or low end product? If so I would expect them to keep their CPU + GPU fusion products and low end GPUs on the same foundry. Also TSMC has more experience producing relatively larger die GPUs on cutting edge process nodes.
     
  18. Alexko

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,932
    I don't think Fusion products count, at least that's not the impression I got from the way AMD (Dirk Meyer, if I recall correctly) presented things, but I haven't read the contract, which is probably confidential.

    I guess TSMC does have more experience making big chips… then again, is 40nm experience really all that relevant to 28nm challenges? Plus, GloFo has been making Istanbuls (~350mm² I believe) with far higher yields than TSMC has been making GF100s, so… Plus, GloFo is currently making 32nm HK/MG Llanos and Bulldozers for AMD, while TSMC has yet to demonstrate their ability to make anything below 40nm and with HK/MG.

    Actually, I'd expect AMD to just give the high-end to the foundry with the best process, and the rest to the foundry with the cheapest one, unless of course there's a big performance or time-to-market difference.
     
  19. racca

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    51
    GloFo have zero experience on GPU parts, and there's no proof that they can get the density of what TSMC is getting.

    So no, it's not really a big question. GloFo will be contracted with mid-low end parts or direct die shrink of current parts (a la 4770), probably both.

    If they really need the pipe cleaner, I'd say a 12SIMD+/128bit "Barts" (~150mm² and/or a 20SIMD+/256bit "Cayman" (~200mm²) sounds about right.
    They are both large enough to be real pipe-cleaners yet not too risky. They are both sensitive to cost and power but reduced R&D should be more than enough to make up the risk involved.

    I'd say since Fusion/SB would have already been on shelves, a sub 100mm² part (8SIMD) would have to be very compatitive to survive, better leave it to the king of cost down. TSMC will also be contracted with a high end part (>300mm²) possibly another lower part (150~200mm²) if GloFo only got one part.
     
  20. rpg.314

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,298
    Location:
    /
    WebM is possible though. I'd welcome it.
     

Share This Page

Loading...