ELSA hints GT206 and GT212

Actually, it's to remove process steps and therefore very slightly reduce the wafer price (while also reducing risk a bit). It barely even saves any space on the main die...

 

Obviously (we do) not (know that or take it for a fact).

You responded to

with

So please - if you could stop going on about statistics for a second - tell us, where - from what you claim to have heard, GT200s yields are lower than Nv expected them to be.


--

Actually, that was not what you were saying above.


edit:
Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh.

 

Maybe.

If it has been cancelled, how do you know at what stage exactly it has been cancelled?

Who said anything about GT212 within 2008 anyway?

Who exactly has an attitude here? I asked a simple question and if you should have any weird sensitivities on simple questions then the problem is all yours aside with attitude problem for which I suggest you buy a couple of mirrors if you shouldn't have any.

If (no make that IF) GT206 replaces GT200b then its hardly "just" a name change.

***edit: almost forgot...

Most certainly yes.

 

GT206=GT200B+GDDR5. 21 October.
IMHO.

 

No =)

 

I wonder whether the GT206 will be faster than a GTX280. At least the posts in nvnews forums indicate so.

 

---

 

All right. So what?

 

I suppose the GT200b has been cancelled in favor of other chips (GT206, GT212). The GTX260 refresh would have been a good opportunity for a die shrink.

 

I'm 99% certain that GT206 has 256-bit bus. So it's not a GT200b which is a simple shrink of GT200.
Plus it makes no sense at all to use GDDR5 with 512-bit bus for GT200-level GPU. I'd say that GT200 as it is has too much bandwidth, no need to increase it even further.
So GT206 is either 8 24/8 TPCs or 6 32/8 TPCs with 256-bit GDDR5 and has nothing to do with GT200b. I think it's the first one.

 

OK.

 

Why even post that?

Well unless I were an insider I wouldn't *know* this, and if I were an insider I wouldn't be sharing this. I'm speculating. Which is the purpose of this thread, last I checked.

There are three rumored successive parts to GT200, GT212 being one of them. I was simply ruling out the possibility of it coming out this year so we could narrow the field down to GT200b or GT206 being next month's mystery part.

Your tone is unmistakable.

I hardly think the following was an appropriate response:

Certainly not a useful post. If you have something to share, share it.

How would any outsider know this? We don't even know what GT200b/GT206 are, nor when they were first designed. For all we know, GT200b was the original plan, but perhaps they've decided to use only numeric codenames with the GT200 series, hence my change in nomenclature comments.

Well certainly they had a budget to work within, I was trying to be more specific though.

 

I'm not aware of any chip that has reached what is usually known under "final tape out" and has been cancelled, but I might be wrong also.

Can you stick to the point and stop being so senstitive about something that wasn't even intended to be offensive? Unless you equal someone giving a one liner as offensive as killing your dog or your mother.

I don't see it breaking any TOS of the board, nor being inappropriate. As I said you obviously have issues I cannot and will not solve.

Or maybe I'm speculating with a bit more common sense.

Something like GT200b should have been on shelves for quite some time now and something like along the line of the 216SP/GTS but on 55nm doesn't really cut the cake either as we've seen. Either NV changed its plans on relative short notice or whatever is to come at 55nm is going to be as boring as that thing above on 65nm. And pardon me if you would had bothered reading the thread from the beginning I have already suggested what I would consider an interesting possibility for something like a "GT206" and in extension a "GT212" next year, which might be just based on a theory that might or might not make sense and might or might not reflect reality.

Any IHV that cannot predict a chip's die size before it's done, is IMHLO doomed. There might be minor mistakes in their "estimates" but these are negligable. For GT200 NVIDIA had given a quite long time before its release a die size to some of its partners and it was too exact on the last square millimeter to be an "estimate" after all.

 

No. GT200 launched in June. Your statement has no historical precedent to back it up.

Sounds exactly like what I've said in this thread and others.

 

I think he is referring to the GT200b in late August/early September rumor on Fud/NordicHardware/Inq (and many others).

 

My point is that never before has such a thing occurred. Ship a high-end chip, shrink it, and re-release 2-3 months later?

 

These days are hard for Nvidia .

 

GT200's launch had been postponed. Its been said over and over again that there had been endless internal negotiations whether to release it or not. A simple shrink doesn't take that long after all; unless of course their sitting again on another finished design and are breading on it.

Meaning in other words that a GT200b@55nm wouldn't be the wisest move to make after all.

Even Fudo seems to "think" along that line:

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9597&Itemid=1