Architectural differences and die size

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by Voltron, Oct 7, 2005.

  1. Voltron

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    3
    So the GTX with 6 quads with 2 ALUs has fewer transistors than an X1800 (counting methods aside). Regardless, an equivalent GTX in terms of die size on 90 nm would ostensibly be smaller than an X1800 and its 4 quads. And although there have not been apples-to=apples comparisons, in situations where fillrate is similar (XL vs. GT), the 7800 holds its own.

    So what are the extra transistors or die space going towards on the X1000 series. Could it be cache? The improved dynamic branching (seems like an expensive price to pay)? Does not including partial percision increase transistiors (I doubt it but what do I know)? Or has NVIDIA just done a better job with layout and circuit design ( wouldn't be all the surprising since this is probably one reason they had relative success on .11 on such products like the 6600 GT and the Go 6800 Ultra)?. Maybe some combination of these or some other factors?

    EDIT: This thread may be similar to the the R520 die size and transistor count redux, but the intent is to foster discussion of the differences in architectures, and in particular, why NVIDIA's design is seemingly so much more efficient.
     
    #1 Voltron, Oct 7, 2005
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 7, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...