Equate what you expect from the revolution with a graphics card

[Ooh-videogames]

If Nintendo were to go for a dual core procesor, what kind affect having one core clocked lower than the other be?

Oh, I'm hoping for X1600 technology in Hollywood. Also what is the polygon performance numbers for ATI's latest cards(X1000)?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

How's about Nintendo save on the vertex power and focus more on pixel shaders? With 1/3 the resolution of 720p, polygons will be much smaller and so less noticeable. They could get the same vertex density (vertices per pixel ratio) with 1/3rd the vertices of XB360. As an example, if 6 vertex shader units can produce 60 million polygons per second, that's 1,000,000 per frame. On a 720p display that's one polygon for each pixel. Now on 480p that's up to 3 polygons per pixel. That could be used for smoother objects. OR for the same model quality as the 720p image on a smaller display, they could go with 2 vertex shaders, 20 million polys second, 1 poly per pixel, same as 720p, and have an extra 4 pixel shaders instead.

I think PS would have a more noticeable effect overall. It'd be better for post effects too. Though which is better for AA if any?

 

[pc999]

That goes close to thishttp://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24438

I guess you will not have more answers than already are on this thread.

 

[see colon]

I believe the optional extra playback is to cover the licensing fees. Like XB, the inclusion of DVD playback seems rather daft as most people will already have a DVD player by now, and so MS losing $20 or whatever it is, or charging an extra $20 licensing fee per console for a feature most people won't want is pointless extra cost. If like XB you move the license fee onto a peripheral, only those who actually want that feature have to pay for it.

wouldn't the licensing fees already be paid by ati to make the hardware compliant? the xbox's dvd solution is almost completely software, while anything ati has done in the PC space since the rage 128 has been a nearly complete hardware solution.

 

[PC-Engine]

Good.

In other words, we can get a more powerful GPU than X1300 Pro taking out the AVIVO from the core and adding more Shader units.

The Flipper has 25 milions transistors in the core and 26 milion transistors in the eDRAM.

The X1300 has 100 milions transistors in the core with AVIVO included and in 90nm process we can put 204 milions transistors in the same area of the entire Flipper.

In other words, 100 milions transistors for the memory and 100 milion transistors for the eDRAM but in this scenario the eDRAM will be 12MB but we can reduce it to 8MB and adding the transistor count to the main core for adding more Vertex and Pixel Shaders.

Even though eDRAM takes half the number of transistors in Flipper it only occupies 1/3 the die area so you have to take that into account with respect to your X1300 + 8MB eDRAM suggestion. My back of the napkin calculation says that 8PS + 3VS units alone uses around 54 million transistors MAX and 5MB of eDRAM uses about 44 million transistors. If you were to use a X1300 core as a basis taking out the AVIVO, it would be about 140 million transistors with 5MB of eDRAM though the eDRAM would only take about 1/10 of the die area.

If you wanted to increase the total transistor count to around 170 million, you'd be able to add 4 additional PS and 2 additonal VS which brings the total count to 8PS and 4VS with 5MB of eDRAM with a die area that's VERY reasonable at 90nm. This leads me to believe that even a X1600 (12PS/5VS) with 5MB of eDRAM at 90nm would be pretty reasonable after taking out the AVIVO. It would be around 200 million transistors but the die area would be even smaller than Xenos' mother die and would not even need two separate packages while running at 600MHz. Also the die area at 90nm would only be slightly bigger than Flipper at 180nm. This is acceptable though if Nintendo sells Revolution for $249.

 

[pc999]

This is acceptable though if Nintendo sells Revolution for $249.

They sold GC at 199 (euro in Europe at least).

 

[pc999]

The Flipper has 25 milions transistors in the core and 26 milion transistors in the eDRAM.

The X1300 has 100 milions transistors in the core with AVIVO included and in 90nm process we can put 204 milions transistors in the same area of the entire Flipper.

BTW anyone know the numbers and can do the maths for the CPU

 

[PC-Engine]

BTW anyone know the numbers and can do the maths for the CPU

Well it depends on which CPU you want to base Broadway on. We know the transistor counts for a dual core 970MP. The die size of Gekko was around 40mm^2, but there's no reason why Broadway would need to be restricted to that die area. Anything around 100mm^2 for the CPU would be reasonable.

 

[pc999]

It is only to have a idea of how many transistores could they spend on the CPU and get the same price for GC ( althought in the CPU the transistores count may not be a good indicator, at least not so good as it is in the GPUs), ie the same die size (of curse assuming that the others components cost the same, which I think they dont once that a DVD drive now shuld cost much less than their DVD one in the GC, but the control should balance it), and then compare it to others CPUs with the same transistores count.

BTW how compares a dual core 970MP to Gekko?

 

[V3]

Well it depends on which CPU you want to base Broadway on. We know the transistor counts for a dual core 970MP. The die size of Gekko was around 40mm^2, but there's no reason why Broadway would need to be restricted to that die area. Anything around 100mm^2 for the CPU would be reasonable.

970MP with 1 MB L2 is about 154 mm^2
970FX core is about 66 mm^2
Those are on 90nm.

 

[pc999]

970MP with 1 MB L2 is about 154 mm^2
970FX core is about 66 mm^2
Those are on 90nm.

Are those dual or single core?

 

[V3]

970MP is dual, with 1MB L2. 970FX is single with 512K L2.

IBM also has the 750, which what Gekko is base on. The 750GX managed to get up around 1GHz. That's about 52mm^2 on 130nm.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

As I understand it...

970FX core is a single Core at 66mm^2 (according to V3's figures. Dunno if they're right)
The MP is basically dual core 970FX at 154 mm^2

So a dual-core CPU could be managed in about 150 mm^2, smaller if they wait for 65nm.

 

[pc999]

Thanks.
Interesting a 970FX only have 58M of transistores (p 16), a dual core would have less than 120M that isnt big for 90nm , meybe we could see something similar/based to this in Rev...

 

[V3]

The MP has 1 MB L2 for each core, they can cut that down to make it smaller.

And average power consumption for 970FX optimised power part (according to clockspeed)
1.0 GHz => 10 W
1.2 GHz => 13 W
1.4 GHz => 15 W
1.6 GHz => 17 W
2.0 GHz => 40 W
2.2 GHz => 48 W

 

[PC-Engine]

Also keep in mind that a scaled down PPU would be pretty small too. A scaled down PPU would have 62 million transistors and only be about 44mm^2@90nm. I think the ideal CPU for Broadway would be a single core G5 + a scaled down PPU coprocessor. So you're looking at about 120 million transistors total (G5+PPU) and a die of about 110mm^2.

 

[V3]

Even though eDRAM takes half the number of transistors in Flipper it only occupies 1/3 the die area so you have to take that into account with respect to your X1300 + 8MB eDRAM suggestion. My back of the napkin calculation says that 8PS + 3VS units alone uses around 54 million transistors MAX and 5MB of eDRAM uses about 44 million transistors. If you were to use a X1300 core as a basis taking out the AVIVO, it would be about 140 million transistors with 5MB of eDRAM though the eDRAM would only take about 1/10 of the die area.

If you wanted to increase the total transistor count to around 170 million, you'd be able to add 4 additional PS and 2 additonal VS which brings the total count to 8PS and 4VS with 5MB of eDRAM with a die area that's VERY reasonable at 90nm. This leads me to believe that even a X1600 (12PS/5VS) with 5MB of eDRAM at 90nm would be pretty reasonable after taking out the AVIVO. It would be around 200 million transistors but the die area would be even smaller than Xenos' mother die and would not even need two separate packages while running at 600MHz. Also the die area at 90nm would only be slightly bigger than Flipper at 180nm. This is acceptable though if Nintendo sells Revolution for $249.

At 640x480, IMO they should forget about eDRAM and just concentrate on shading performance. They should have good amount of bandwidth using 128 bit wide bus.

Unless they're planning to use 64bit bus, in which case eDRAM would serve its purpose better.

Also they don't need that ring bus, so they can save more die space for something more useful.

 

[PC-Engine]

At 640x480, IMO they should forget about eDRAM and just concentrate on shading performance. They should have good amount of bandwidth using 128 bit wide bus.

Unless they're planning to use 64bit bus, in which case eDRAM would serve its purpose better.

Also they don't need that ring bus, so they can save more die space for something more useful.

Wouldn't a 64-bit bus be a lot cheaper though in terms of PCB cost? I say keep the eDRAM because most of the bandwidth is used for framebuffer math which eDRAM is efficient at.

 

[pc999]

At 640x480, IMO they should forget about eDRAM and just concentrate on shading performance. They should have good amount of bandwidth using 128 bit wide bus.

Even using 4X AA and HDR , also they already used a 128bit bus, in GC so I dont think, they will go backward.

 

[London Geezer]

Even using 4X AA and HDR , also they already used a 128bit bus, in GC so I dont think, they will go backward.

It's not about "going backwards", it's about what's needed and what isn't. It's a bit like PS3, it "only" has a 128-bit bus (while PC cards have had 256-bit buses for years now). The point is that on that architecture, a 128-bit bus is more than enough. Anything bigger would be wasted unless the whole system gets upgraded.
I think PS2 has a 128-bit bus (or is it 64?), but you don't see people going round saying "OMG PS3 has the same bus width as PS2!! Sony aren't going forward!!"...
:smile: