I keep confusing GT200b with GT212.
Never mind me.
Never mind me.
What I meant is that 8 ROPs or 4 fat ones are essentially the same, you just double everything. So the problem with lower-end parts will be there all the same. I do, however, see a solution. It's not necessary to use the new ROPs, they can use the old ones. I don't think they'll go putting GDDR5 on cheap cards, they'll probably stick with GDDR3....they'll have to re-architect the MC and at the very least re-organize the ROPs into partitions of 8 units. (...) The other option is as you suggest - to maintain ROP organization of 4 per partition, but re-architect the ROPs themselves to create "fat" ROPs with higher fillrates than their current ROPs.
Both options have drawbacks. The first option would create an abundance of fillrate for entry-level GT2xx-derived SKUs because the base unit for ROP partitions would now be 8 instead of 4.
Are we talking about GT206? I can certainly imagine it with 24 ROPs and 384bit interface. Sort of, GT206 would be to GT200 what G92 is to G80. The problem in my opinion is that production of GDDR3 will gradually cease and we could see the same phenomenon as with old SDRAM and DDR SDRAM modules: when they became obsolete, they kept selling, but the prices were way higher than the then-mainstream parts. I'm not sure, but maybe their price even rose due to being EOL'ed.ShaidarHaran said:It will be interesting to see what route they take. Maybe they'll choose an altogether different option. I've seen some suggest a 24 ROP/384-bit MC arrangement coupled with higher clocks to hopefully offset the lower fillrates. I somewhat doubt the 55nm process would enable the sort of clockspeeds necessary to achieve ~ parity with GT200's fillrates, though.
What I meant is that 8 ROPs or 4 fat ones are essentially the same, you just double everything.
I'm imagining GT206 with 16 ROP/256bit and 1GB low grade GDDR5, good core clock; GT212 with 24 ROP/384 bit and 1.5GB higher grade GDDR5 (maybe there won't be much mem clock difference).
Lower end GT206 card with fast GDDR3 (isn't 1.1GHz nice?), full 256bit bus, one cluster disabled, lower core clock. Likewise, a 320bit 1280MB GT212 with one cluster disabled.
If GT212 is a 40nm GPU made with GX2 card in mind then the possibility of 384-bit bus in it are slim.
---
Hmm...
Maybe. Maybe not.The refresh is GT200b.
The refresh is GT200b.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Is it?
That doesn't mean anything.Have you seen any confirmation of tape-out of either GT206 or GT212? I sure haven't.
GT212 is early 2009 part at best.GT212 is on 40nm anyway, a process that is not yet ready for volume production so I doubt we'll be seeing anything which utilizes it next month
As i've said, maybe. Maybe not. We'll see.The part that is launching next month is GT200b. It's just common sense.
That doesn't mean anything.
GT212 is early 2009 part at best.
As i've said, maybe. Maybe not. We'll see.
Yes, the huge drop is a bit strange - you'd expect it to achieve the same zsamples/s throughput at msaa 8x as at msaa 4x (like the rv770 or rv670 - heck the rv770 even needs at least msaa 4x to achieve its peak zsamples/s throughput), but there's a factor 3 drop. Maybe z buffer compression doesn't work with 8xMSAA (would be strange though)?I'm still expecting to hear what there's to be "doubled" exactly in the current ROPs. If you bother to look at the two links from hardware.fr I posted before, their only problem is with 8xMSAA and that on G80/92/200 irrelevant of the amount of ROPs each architecture has. At least for GT200 neither the 1GB framebuffer nor it's 140+GB/s bandwidth are holding it back with 8xMSAA.
I'd say that it's pretty much useless for games right now.Not sure if that would really matter somewhere though
I don't believe NV had enough foreknowledge of GT200's yield rates to start design on a true successor early enough to push it out this quickly.
The only downside with 320/384bit wide busses is that the driver team would want to rip its hair out due to the different ram confirugations.
Not that I disagree with your general statement, but other than conforming to the rules of English grammar, this particular sentence doesn't make, uhm, sense. Why would yield rates have anything do with the decision to design something earlier or later?
Pretty much all designs are started long before yield rates are known.
You just assume that the mathematical models are more or less correct... and they usually are.
Yields rates are fine (as in as expected) but ASPs are not.The low yield rates are one of the single biggest factors in NV's decision to transition away from GT200 ASAP, by my understanding.
Yields rates are fine (as in as expected)
but ASPs are not.