NVIDIA GF100 & Friends speculation

The current condition seems to be more complicated for Nvidia to design chips with features targeted for either Quadro/Tesla or Geforce product lines. I believe that all GF10X series will be remodified architecture based on GF100. and most of them ( except low-end ) may contain different streaming multiprocessor (SM) architecture as compared to old GF100 series.
Sounds like far too much engineering work to me. The more likely thing is that the GF104 will just be a GF100 with a different number of computational units, perhaps with one or two features added to better support the part's market.

Bear in mind that there will also be professional versions of these parts just as there are with the GF100.
 
http://translate.google.com.hk/tran...010/0526/919/000000919076.shtml&sl=auto&tl=en

GTX460 Specifications:
336 CUDA Core,
192bit 768MB,
Core / Shader / memory 675/1350/1800MHz.

e6832e5c62085e6b.jpg


Crysis Warhead 1920x1200 VHQ 1x AA/4x AA 23.4/18.7FPS

Power Consumption about 130W
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://translate.google.com.hk/tran...010/0526/919/000000919076.shtml&sl=auto&tl=en

GTX460 Specifications:
336 CUDA Core,
192bit 768MB,
Core / Shader / memory 675/1350/1800MHz.

883df46e4bb6e8f3.jpg


e6832e5c62085e6b.jpg


Crysis Warhead 1920x1200 VHQ 1x AA/4x AA 23.4/18.7FPS

Power Consumption about 130W

Err... is it just me, or does that GF104 die look an awful lot like a GF100 that has been stretched and squeezed, as in the laziest Photoshop job ever?

Also, 336 is not a multiple of 32 (336/32 = 10.5).
 
A SM has 48 SP instead of 32 and 8 TMUs instead of 4.
The full GF104 should be 384 SPs, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs and 256bit interface. Performance with 700Mhz should be GTX470 level.
 
GTX460 Specifications:
336 CUDA Core,
192bit 768MB,
Core / Shader / memory 675/1350/1800MHz.
Very interesting. This is quite a bit crippled from the full part though. Also the 336 cores are certainly interesting - so SM only 16-wide (with no DP)?

The "die shot" of gf104 is totally pointless though as it's just stretched GF100.
Power Consumption about 130W
2 pcie power connectors look quite generous for that, though the board layout is for full chip hence might make sense.
btw I also find the asymmetric memory chip layout on the pcb a nice touch :)
 
A SM has 48 SP instead of 32 and 8 TMUs instead of 4.
The full GF104 should be 384 SPs, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs and 256bit interface. Performance with 700Mhz should be GTX470 level.

It has less shaders, but higher frequencies, so in essence its not that much better, in architectural terms.

Possibly it will be better in terms of yields and power consumption maybe. And open way to a GTX490?

I guess I was expecting a more efficient core :p Like that it doesnt seem more efficient, but less castrated by power consumption, derived from the trade-off between shaders and clocks.
 
2 pcie power connectors look quite generous for that, though the board layout is for full chip hence might make sense.
btw I also find the asymmetric memory chip layout on the pcb a nice touch :)

It says 130W when benchmarking Crysis, It could certainly go the direction of 180W if you take the delta of the GTX480, where it's usage in Crysis was quite modest compared to Furmark usage.
 

Wow they actually managed to get a Fermi down to 100W! But it they could do this, why didn't they ever release a mobile GT200b?

And im pretty sure ATI could offer a mobile Cypress in the same power budget that would smoke this card. The HD 5850 already has a worst case TDP of 151W(and this is when its driving three monitors according to dave). The mobile part should be limited to 2 monitors i guess, and along with process improvements since the 5850 released, they should be able to offer either a full or slightly cut down cypress at around 600 Mhz


Edit: Oh and i wish someone would finally end the confusion and reveal the actual specs of GF104 ! There seems to too much of "thats a gtx 465... no wait its a 460" going around :LOL:
 
Err... is it just me, or does that GF104 die look an awful lot like a GF100 that has been stretched and squeezed, as in the laziest Photoshop job ever?

Also, 336 is not a multiple of 32 (336/32 = 10.5).

Assuming the first pic with the two dies is real why am I counting in the GF100 shot 16 SMs and in the supposed GF104 shot 8 SMs?
 
Assuming the first pic with the two dies is real why am I counting in the GF100 shot 16 SMs and in the supposed GF104 shot 8 SMs?

I think you need some new glasses(or more powerful ones if you already have some :p). The second pic is clearly a stretched version of the first one, and plus there are 16 SM's in too
 
It says 130W when benchmarking Crysis, It could certainly go the direction of 180W if you take the delta of the GTX480, where it's usage in Crysis was quite modest compared to Furmark usage.

It also says an obvious photoshop is the die... I'm thinking grains of salt are in order.
 
I think you need some new glasses(or more powerful ones if you already have some :p). The second pic is clearly a stretched version of the first one, and plus there are 16 SM's in too

Yes they are. Thank God I don't need any glasses yet; even if I'd wear binoculars it wouldn't help if I only see what I'd want to see LOL.
 
Back
Top