ELSA hints GT206 and GT212
- Thread starter AnarchX
- Start date
Might also be because 40nm is ahead of schedule. I don't know if it's NV, ATI or Altera... but either way that would seem to bode well for the first 40nm GPUs to be available in late Q1: http://eetimes.com/news/semi/showAr...PANTNEQSNDLOSKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=212100139
Given that NV is barely starting to ship 55nm GPUs in the G94-G98 area, and that this new GPU will likely phase out G94 (and maybe G92 too), if they were the ones in the lead you'd expect them to try to minimize inventory beyond historical levels. Of course, if it's ATI...
Given that NV is barely starting to ship 55nm GPUs in the G94-G98 area, and that this new GPU will likely phase out G94 (and maybe G92 too), if they were the ones in the lead you'd expect them to try to minimize inventory beyond historical levels. Of course, if it's ATI...
DegustatoR
Legend
AFAIK current yields on GT200 are very good (quite a bit better than was planned), G200-103 and -203 are chips working on GTX260/280 frequencies on lower voltage levels.
GT200b (i'm still not sure wether it's the same as GT206 or not) is likely shipping in QFX5800 right now. But there won't be any desktop line-up updates this year. They may silently switch GT200 to 55nm in GTX260/280 but won't introduce new names/positions.
GT200b (i'm still not sure wether it's the same as GT206 or not) is likely shipping in QFX5800 right now. But there won't be any desktop line-up updates this year. They may silently switch GT200 to 55nm in GTX260/280 but won't introduce new names/positions.
Cookie Monster
Newcomer
So are they will doing a "8800GTS", and release a 2nd revision of GTX260 and 280 with the new GT206?
Also maybe they've decided to reserve the GTX270/290 monikers for the 40nm refresh since the 40nm parts could be ahead of schedule since its ready for volume production right now.
Also maybe they've decided to reserve the GTX270/290 monikers for the 40nm refresh since the 40nm parts could be ahead of schedule since its ready for volume production right now.
From the RV740 thread:
I'd be very surprised if Nvidia stuck to 3 SIMDs in the TPC's for the lower end GT2xx stuff. It just wouldnt match up well with what's out there now. 3T/72A will probably not impress vs the current 4T/64A of G94b and I don't think they'll jump all the way to 5 SIMDs just yet.
If I were a betting man my completely unfounded guess for a 40nm GT2xx lineup using your notation would be:
GT212: 10T/320A @ ~ 1650Mhz (Q2/Q3 09) with 8T/256A yield-enhancing SKU.
GT214: 5T/160A @ ~ 1650Mhz (Q1/Q2 09)
GT216: 2T/64A @ ~ 1650Mhz (Q1/Q2 09)
GT218: 1T/32A @ 1500Mhz (Q3/Q4 09)
I'm betting Nvidia will try to go small and fast this time around like they did with G71 and G92. Which would mean their first big 40nm part will be GT3xx ~ Q1 2010. Every generation most people bet too high, so I'm gonna play devil's advocate and bet low this time
Whatever their plans in the $100-$200 segment, I'm sure RV740 screwed them all up though.
I'd be very surprised if Nvidia stuck to 3 SIMDs in the TPC's for the lower end GT2xx stuff. It just wouldnt match up well with what's out there now. 3T/72A will probably not impress vs the current 4T/64A of G94b and I don't think they'll jump all the way to 5 SIMDs just yet.
If I were a betting man my completely unfounded guess for a 40nm GT2xx lineup using your notation would be:
GT212: 10T/320A @ ~ 1650Mhz (Q2/Q3 09) with 8T/256A yield-enhancing SKU.
GT214: 5T/160A @ ~ 1650Mhz (Q1/Q2 09)
GT216: 2T/64A @ ~ 1650Mhz (Q1/Q2 09)
GT218: 1T/32A @ 1500Mhz (Q3/Q4 09)
I'm betting Nvidia will try to go small and fast this time around like they did with G71 and G92. Which would mean their first big 40nm part will be GT3xx ~ Q1 2010. Every generation most people bet too high, so I'm gonna play devil's advocate and bet low this time
Whatever their plans in the $100-$200 segment, I'm sure RV740 screwed them all up though.
I'm lost here: T = TPC so it's Cluster or SIMD, too?
A SIMD with 5 Cores (or multi-processors)? Possible? Yes. Usefull and Efficient? Hm...
Dual-Issue would be a real fun with 5 cores per Cluster/SIMD.
A SIMD with 5 Cores (or multi-processors)? Possible? Yes. Usefull and Efficient? Hm...
Dual-Issue would be a real fun with 5 cores per Cluster/SIMD.
Hmmm - what are those clocks? If those are core clocks, what do the shader clock look like - 5GHz? If those are shader clocks, isn't that a bit low given the claimed 40nm performance boosts by TSMC?
Arnold: Yeah, that comes from people using AMD nomenclature for NV products, since in AMD's case it makes sense there are 4 SIMDs in R600 and 10 in RV770, while in NVIDIA's case clearly there are multiple instructions per cluster. I meant 5 multi-processors per cluster personally, with the "half-MUL/SFU" catch I explained in another thread.
If those are shader clocks, isn't that a bit low given the claimed 40nm performance boosts by TSMC?Arnold: Yeah, that comes from people using AMD nomenclature for NV products, since in AMD's case it makes sense there are 4 SIMDs in R600 and 10 in RV770, while in NVIDIA's case clearly there are multiple instructions per cluster. I meant 5 multi-processors per cluster personally, with the "half-MUL/SFU" catch I explained in another thread.
From the RV740 thread:
I'd be very surprised if Nvidia stuck to 3 SIMDs in the TPC's for the lower end GT2xx stuff. It just wouldnt match up well with what's out there now. 3T/72A will probably not impress vs the current 4T/64A of G94b and I don't think they'll jump all the way to 5 SIMDs just yet.
If I were a betting man my completely unfounded guess for a 40nm GT2xx lineup using your notation would be:
GT212: 10T/320A @ ~ 1650Mhz (Q2/Q3 09) with 8T/256A yield-enhancing SKU.
GT214: 5T/160A @ ~ 1650Mhz (Q1/Q2 09)
GT216: 2T/64A @ ~ 1650Mhz (Q1/Q2 09)
GT218: 1T/32A @ 1500Mhz (Q3/Q4 09)
I'm betting Nvidia will try to go small and fast this time around like they did with G71 and G92. Which would mean their first big 40nm part will be GT3xx ~ Q1 2010. Every generation most people bet too high, so I'm gonna play devil's advocate and bet low this time
Whatever their plans in the $100-$200 segment, I'm sure RV740 screwed them all up though.
Well, i think those specs sounds very reasonable and they are very possible IMO. I think NVIDIA wants to do the same thing with GT2xx 40nm like they have done with G71 and G92 as well. That could be definitely right move.
PS. How do you think how big could be GT212 with specs like above in 40 nm? Is there any chance to have below 300mm^2?
Hmmm - what are those clocks? If those are core clocks, what do the shader clock look like - 5GHz?
Arnold: Yeah, that comes from people using AMD nomenclature for NV products, since in AMD's case it makes sense there are 4 SIMDs in R600 and 10 in RV770, while in NVIDIA's case clearly there are multiple instructions per cluster. I meant 5 multi-processors per cluster personally, with the "half-MUL/SFU" catch I explained in another thread.
I'm really a lucky guy being so far away, that you can't hit me by a frying pan.
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/reviews/51/3
My understanding: The multi-processors work on their own warps, but they all execute the same instruction (the same TCP of course)?
I meant it the way Arun did. A "T" is a TPC or thread-processing cluster. When I referred to SIMD count earlier I was referring to the number of SIMDs per cluster, not the width of each SIMD (which presumably stays at 8). Nvidia's SIMDs are also referred to as Streaming Multi-processors (SM). I probably didn't make this clear but the configs I laid out assumed 4 SIMDs per cluster for a total of 32 processors per cluster, up from 24 on GT200 and 16 on G8x.
From the article
Hmmm - what are those clocks? If those are core clocks, what do the shader clock look like - 5GHz?
Shader clocks of course!! It might seem low but I'm aiming low - promises never seem to pan out with these things
And even with those clocks GT212 could see a healthy 50% advantage over GTX 285.Yeah I think there's a good chance of ending up < 300mm^2. The shrink to 55nm wasn't nearly linear so there's a good chance that the move to a full node at 40nm cuts a lot of fat. In addition to any pipeline stage reductions Nvidia is able to pull off on the new process a la G71.
Seems that they are really working on GT214 and even considering GDDR5:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/3/255/6b3
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/3/255/6b3
Wasn't that the SPMD model (Single Program/Process, Multiple Data), or in a shader "wording" -- single kernel on multitude of batches?
Poor guy is soooo fired (or maybe it's a smoke screen)
I wonder if nVidia keeps the naming scheme that would put GT214 in the lower midrange, GT212 into upper midrange and so on... if so, then why do we have rumours about GT212, GT214 and GT216 but no GT210 as a high-end monolithic monster chip?
(or maybe it's a smoke screen)I wonder if nVidia keeps the naming scheme that would put GT214 in the lower midrange, GT212 into upper midrange and so on... if so, then why do we have rumours about GT212, GT214 and GT216 but no GT210 as a high-end monolithic monster chip?
Meh, GT212/GT214/GT216/GT218 codenames were leaked, what, in 3Q07? If he gets any real trouble for putting that on his resume, his boss should seriously reconsider his value to humanity.Poor guy is soooo fired
As for considering GDDR5, it's strange that he mentions that for GT214 - of course he says "simulation" so it really doesn't mean anything concrete as to the final part... And you'd expect them to experiment with all possibilities at one stage or another anyway, so once again doesn't tell us all that much.
GT300-or-whatever-it's-called was still slated for 4Q09 last time NV talked about it I think - clearly they want to be able to showcase a performance boost there. I wouldn't be surprised if GT212 was 384-bit GDDR5 and GT300 was 512-bit GDDR5, but then again I really have no idea about the memory config of either TBH.
DegustatoR
Legend
I'm still thinking more in lines of...
- 256-bit GDDR5 40nm GT212 @ ~150% GT200 performance, two of those for AFR top end
- 384-bit GDDR5 40nm GT300 @ ~300% GT200 performance
512-bit bus probably won't come back until the second DX11 generation line-ups.
Oh, yeah, i heard that GT200 has GDDR5 support in the MCs but NV doesn't see any reason to use GDDR5 on GT200 boards (which is understandable considering that AFAIK GDDR5 costs 3-3.5 times more that GDDR3 right now while GT200 isn't nearly bandwidth starved even with GDDR3).
- 256-bit GDDR5 40nm GT212 @ ~150% GT200 performance, two of those for AFR top end
- 384-bit GDDR5 40nm GT300 @ ~300% GT200 performance
512-bit bus probably won't come back until the second DX11 generation line-ups.
Oh, yeah, i heard that GT200 has GDDR5 support in the MCs but NV doesn't see any reason to use GDDR5 on GT200 boards (which is understandable considering that AFAIK GDDR5 costs 3-3.5 times more that GDDR3 right now while GT200 isn't nearly bandwidth starved even with GDDR3).
