ELSA hints GT206 and GT212

No, G86 has got 16 SPs.

I only have listed those news, where I am convinced that they are also in the entry segment encounter.

Can we agree that the GT218 with the same number of processing units need more transistors than G9x? That was my only intention.

G86: 16 SPs, 8 TMUs, 8 ROPs, 128 Bit
G98: 8 SPs, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, 64 Bit
G96: 32 SPs, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, 128 Bit

 

Yes, no, yes. G98 is the same config as MCP78, fwiw...

 

G98 based products are 8400 GS (not all), 9300 GE and 9300 GS and all have got only 8 SPs.
Have you good a link, who shows that G98 has got 16 instead of 8 SPs? By Wikipedia.de G98 has got 8 SPs, too.

 

http://laptoping.com/nvidia-geforce-9500m-gs-9300m-g.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_9_Series#GeForce_9200GS.2F9400GT

 

Woah, you're actually right - I apologize. G98 is 8 TMU/8 SP, and MCP78 is 4 TMU/16 SP. And MCP79 is 8 TMU/16 SP. And they all have differences beyond that, too! Hopefully the genius who came up with NV's roadmap in that timeframe has already been fired by now... Especially given the other consequences that insanity had, which I won't go into here.

XMAN26: Those are, believe it or not, rebranded G84/G86s. And now that I think about it, it's indeed mobile GPU branding which confused me too, I suspect (along with MCP78)...

 

What?
Anyway, if Fuad's right then GT216 looks like low end chip. (And GT218 is probably a 'zero end' chip then...)

 

29mm per side for the package upon which the die is mounted? Do we know the sizes for prior GPUs in this class, e.g. G96?

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=574&card2=513

Jawed

 

Yes.

G96: 144 sqmm
G96b: 119 sqmm

 

That can't possibly be 29mm per side...that'd be absolutely Huge. 841 sqmm?

Regards,
SB

 

I'm talking about the packages, not the dies! Just a minor curiosity, to find out if the cards I linked have packages that are 29mm on each side.

Jawed

 

You mean that the package size hints 128-bit bus? With GDDR5, why not...

 

GDDR5 on the card cheaper then $100? Not likely for another year or so.

 

=>Jawed: I did some quick measuring on GF 8600 and 9500 photos I found on the net, using PCI Express slot length for reference. G96 package seems to be about 30 mm, G84 came out to ~35 mm.

 

I wouldn't read too much into package sizes, although it would definitely seem to exclude a 200mm² chip... I don't think we can conclude much about the number of TMUs based on this either, since the difference between 24 and 32 TMUs on 40nm is literally ~7mm²(!!!) - this number comes from TMUs being ~1/4th of GT200, which has 80 TMUs on a 583mm² die on 65nm, so ~145mm² which becomes <7mm² on 40nm.


I'm still betting on 192-bit GDDR3/32 TMUs/128-160 SPs personally. The only truly strange factor would be the 45W TDP according to Fudzilla, although perhaps that is just for the chip and doesn't include the DRAM... In which case it'd still be <75W, which is nice.

 

it makes no sense to me anyway, that laptop is going to melt or severy burn you.

 

Isn't that quite a lot, if we're talking about GT216? If the "codename +2 = half specs" system is still valid, then GT212 would have to have approximately four times the units - 512-640 SPs and ~128 TMUs.
The specs you're proposing better fit GT214.

 

I suspect it roughly is (remember G98, for example, isn't quite exactly 1/2th G96 either), but more in terms of bus width than the number of SPs this time around; i.e. 192-bit GDDR3->384-bit GDDR3->384-bit GDDR5 for example... Of course, roadmaps can change and what was very simple and seemingly elegant on a piece of paper can turn out quite differently in the end.

Another argument in favour of GT216 having 32 TMUs is that both G84 and G96 had 16 TMUs; therefore if they sticked to the same kind of nomenclature, you'd expect GT216 to be more similar to G94 - which certainly had 32 TMUs, didn't it?

In the end, I wouldn't expect codenames to be such a reliable indicator of, well, anything at all - so we'll have to wait until more reliable leaks come out, IMO.

 

Those bus widths sound quite plausible, except for one thing: there was only one chip in history with an unconventionally wide bus, that being G80. Other than that, all chips had 128, 256 or 512 bits, although for G92 a wider interface would have made sense.

Not necessarily. I think that number will depend on whether nVidia keeps the 3:1 physical ALU:TEX ratio from G200, or goes for 4:1 as you suggested with the 128 SPs, 32 TMUs educated guess. So what if TMUs are not the reference point? Maybe SPs aren't either.
So GT216 could end up having 24 TMUs (it's still an increase) 72-96 SPs. Not an asphalt grinder in Q3'09, but it's value chip anyway.
Then GT218 could have exactly half these specs (36-48 SPs, 12 TMUs, 64-bit bus) and GT214 double them, like 144-192 SPs, 48 TMUs, 192 or 256-bit bus.
I don't know whether such specs are possible for those interface widths, but the 384 SPs/96 TMUs rumour has been around for some time concerning GT212.

And don't think I don't hate having to guess from codenames and package sizes, but it seems we've hit a drought this season, so I'm quite happy even for the Fudzilla info.

 

Sigh, why don't people get it? 384 SPs/96 TMUs is probably wrong. It was one of the original rumours for GT200, which also claimed G80-Ultra was a 80nm chip and GT200 would be 55nm, IIRC. The odds that it suddenly becomes spot-on one generation later aren't all that high IMO, although it's obviously not impossible either...

I don't necessarily disagree with you on anything (except for the fact NV's TMUs are grouped in groups of 8 nowadays and so they're unlikely to have a chip with 12), I'm just constantly shocked at how dubious the foundations of most discussions are in the speculation thread nowadays. If a rumour is probably wrong, what's the point of basing your analysis on it instead of, you know, your own speculation that you can try to justify somehow? It probably won't be right, but at least it won't necessarily be wrong.