However, it's strictly a matter of classification so no big implications if a chip is a refresh or new arch
HD 5000 series: New architecture or more a major refresh?
- Thread starter CarstenS
- Start date
However, it's strictly a matter of classification so no big implications if a chip is a refresh or new arch
If you want to get really strict about this, I'd lay it out like so.
NV: NV1, NV3, NV10, NV30, G80
ATI: Rage, R100, R200, R300, R600
I think that's about as skeletal as you can go but it really does hide some major improvements. The faster we get though the more the lines blur.
NV: NV1, NV3, NV10, NV30, G80
ATI: Rage, R100, R200, R300, R600
I think that's about as skeletal as you can go but it really does hide some major improvements. The faster we get though the more the lines blur.
Last edited by a moderator:
You count NV40 as a refresh? I can't really see much in common between nv30 and nv40, with the former having the fugly register combiners + real shaders mixed hardware.RV770 was an NV40 style refresh. It's heavy.
R600 was an NV30 style new architecture. It's ugly
I'd have to squeeze NV40 in there, as the NV30 branch was a dead-end. NV40 was more akin to the R300 arch. Agree on Ati lineup.
To be fair, it was neatened up with the NV35 refresh but the arch damage was done.
PSU-failure
Newcomer
NV40 was an heavily refreshed NV30, no doubt there.
They corrected some major NV30 issues but the basis remained the same.
Exactly what AMD did with RV770 wrt R600, nothing comparable to R520/R420.
NV30 and NV40 were two rather opposite architectures. NV30 was engineered to be narrow and "deep" featured pipe, and for that reason relayed on high clock-rate speeds to gain performance, while NV40 turned the tables and embraced the wide and scalable parallel design with simplistic quad-based processing.
Blazkowicz
Legend
the high clocks were maybe an after-the-fact thing, as the R300 was so strong. I remember reading the FX5800 non ultra may have been the intended card, as it ran warm and quiet, not hot and loud.
ironically, everyone laughed at the leaf blower design but a big cooler has been a desirable feature for a long while.
I believe the NV30 was a one quad architecture, while NV40 is four quads, plus heavily fixed design. also new AA and AF rather than reusing those from the geforce 3.
I never understood the praise for the NV35 as it was still the same outcome : crap for every PS 2.0 game except doom 3.
I was looking for a used FX5800 years ago, to use it as a geforce 4 on steroids, ended up with a NV40.
ironically, everyone laughed at the leaf blower design but a big cooler has been a desirable feature for a long while.
I believe the NV30 was a one quad architecture, while NV40 is four quads, plus heavily fixed design. also new AA and AF rather than reusing those from the geforce 3.
I never understood the praise for the NV35 as it was still the same outcome : crap for every PS 2.0 game except doom 3.
I was looking for a used FX5800 years ago, to use it as a geforce 4 on steroids, ended up with a NV40.
It's more fare to state that NV30 is an upgraded NV25 part, than to dig for any close links to NV40.
NV35 doubled the FP ALU capacity per pixel pipe (making it even more "deep" and complex) and introduced 256-bit bus into the architecture, but it was too little and too late by the time.
NV35 doubled the FP ALU capacity per pixel pipe (making it even more "deep" and complex) and introduced 256-bit bus into the architecture, but it was too little and too late by the time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrong design decisions still don't mean that an architecture is based too much on it's predecessor. In any case with a FLOP the first attempt after that can hardly come very far (NV35/RV670); I don't think that it's a coincidence that the 2nd attempt after that is typically from a lot better to a major success (NV40/RV770). Three words: not enough time.
It's probably because it was the first child brought by the ex-3Dfx R&D team, swallowed by NV.
It's more accurate to say that about NV40, since Kilgariff had such a prominent role there, and he was the Rampage dude. Oh my, I've just complied with the second law, the one that states no thread is complete without mentioning Rampage, the greatest chip ever 1111oneoneone!
Done.
Nice to hear@CarstenS: Looks like you were right about the ALU reorder stuff
I'd rather see it a major evolution, because both archs share the same principles (and therefore adv/disavantages) as tightly coupled texturing within the ALU pipe for example.
But then, as you can see from this thread, I'm still not decided, where I'd draw the line for a whole new arch. And that's despite PR guys often saying that almost everything was created from a clean slate.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
After thinking about it a bit, I'd have to agree with the general consensus that Rv870 (I still can't bring myself to use tree names ) is just a culmination of a path started with R600.
While it does see some increased capability, major additions, and tweaks, it's still the same basic architechture continually refined.
And although not part of the thread topic, I'd also side with Nv40 being a major refresh of Nv30 being the same basic architecture but greatly revamped, similar in many ways to R600 -> Rv770.
Regards,
SB
) is just a culmination of a path started with R600.While it does see some increased capability, major additions, and tweaks, it's still the same basic architechture continually refined.
And although not part of the thread topic, I'd also side with Nv40 being a major refresh of Nv30 being the same basic architecture but greatly revamped, similar in many ways to R600 -> Rv770.
Regards,
SB
I voted borderline, nothing more comfy than sitting on a fence post.
There is a structure that, when looked upon at a high level, has similarities. There (more or less) isn't a single part of the architecture that hasn't changed though. Dig through the documentenation and play with some of the stream arch and you'll see it. (And note, internally this is deemed a new graphics IP number)
Definitely not a simple refresh, which I usually associate with a tweaked chip (higher clocks, reduction/increase in transistors, etc) or just a shrink from one process node to the next.
But it's definitely not a new architecture either. Cypress is basically a HD 4870 X2 on one chip or 2 x RV770. I call it a major refresh, as per poll options.
But it's definitely not a new architecture either. Cypress is basically a HD 4870 X2 on one chip or 2 x RV770. I call it a major refresh, as per poll options.
