The GT214 will have GDDR5:
http://www.hardware-infos.com/news.php?news=2609
http://www.hardware-infos.com/news.php?news=2609
The GT214 will have GDDR5:
http://www.hardware-infos.com/news.php?news=2609
I wonder how HW-Infos arrived at that conclusion? Their source, which is the infamous Linked-In-entry, does not state that. Only that Mr. Zenggang did FB-sims for various SKUs (G96- and GT214-based) with different memory configurations - among them GDDR5.The GT214 will have GDDR5:
http://www.hardware-infos.com/news.php?news=2609
Also remember GT212 might be used for CUDA even if GT300 hits its ETA, so being able to easily support massive amounts of memory (3-6GB) makes some sense there too.
Hmm, this is quite a different sequence on 40nm than was generally expectedThis transition to 40nm will first take place with their high end GT212 GPU in Q2 follows by the mainstream GT214 and GT216 as well as value GT218 in Q3. GT212 will be replacing the 55nm GT200 so you can expect pretty short lifespan for the upcoming GTX295 and GTX285 cards.
Very nice theory indeed, in practice on 65/55nm things weren't so pretty because of a variety of factors that resulted in the 80nm G84/G86 competing with 55nm chips for nearly 6 months (although from an OEM design cycle perspective it wasn't as big of a problem).Two generations? What generations are those? Significant? 65nm vs 55nm with 55 being a version of 65? Or 90nm vs 80nm with 80nm chip coming half year late and gaining nothing from 80nm?
Indeed. The fundamental problem however is they could not easily at the same time work on some chips being 65nm and others 55nm; the "optimal" line-up both for NVIDIA and TSMC would have had a mix of both from the start, but this was not an option apparently.The reason why NV was avoiding 55nm in RV670 timeframe has nothing to do with them being scared of a new process. It was more of an availability thing.
Pretty much, although I think it has been the plan for a long time that NVIDIA/AMD would both be very aggressive with 40nm. Nearly all handheld capacity will remain on 65 until well into 2010, and companies like CSR are only going to ramp 90nm for products like Bluecore7 in 2H09, so capacity reductions in older nodes shouldn't be catastrophic because of the shift to 40nm.With 40nm being the main and only TSMC node for the time being and general economy slow down nothing is stopping them from going to 40nm with AMD.
So do I, my expectations for GT212's die size are too large for it to make much sense in my mind.But i have severe doubts about GT212 being the first 40nm chip from NV.
My guess, FWIW, is that it is a G98 replacement that got canned. The fact there was a 'i' (i.e. integrated) version of the same is a strong hint in that direction; given the debacle that is NVIDIA's chipset division, it probably got killed in favour of focusing on future 40nm products.Btw, what the hell is GT206? =)
My guess, FWIW, is that it is a G98 replacement that got canned. The fact there was a 'i' (i.e. integrated) version of the same is a strong hint in that direction; given the debacle that is NVIDIA's chipset division, it probably got killed in favour of focusing on future 40nm products.
Two generations? What generations are those? Significant?
The reason why NV was avoiding 55nm in RV670 timeframe has nothing to do with them being scared of a new process. It was more of an availability thing.
With 40nm being the main and only TSMC node for the time being and general economy slow down nothing is stopping them from going to 40nm with AMD.
But i have severe doubts about GT212 being the first 40nm chip from NV. Even ATIs engineers prefer to go with the simplier chip first now. And for NV it's like a tradition of sorts since NV43. So i'm still pretty sure that we'll see GT216 or GT214 before GT212.
So do I, my expectations for GT212's die size are too large for it to make much sense in my mind.
I think NVIDIA will do 32SP per cluster (24SP at now) so then we could see something like this - 320ALU,80TMU,32ROP,512-bit MC. This is my opinion about GT212.