Nvidia GT300 core: Speculation

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by Shtal, Jul 20, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Shtal

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    3
    Hardspell released is list of possible specifications for the GeForce GTX 350 graphics processor (GPU):

    * NVIDIA GeForce GTX 350
    * GT300 core
    * 55nm technology
    * 576 sq.mm die area
    * 512bit GDDR5 memory controller
    * GDDR5 2GB memory, doubled GTX280
    * 480 stream processors
    * Grating operation units are 64 the same with GTX280
    * 216 GB/s memory bandwidth
    * Default clock speeds of core: 830MHz, shader: 2075 MHz, memory: 3360MHz (effective)
    * Pixel fill-rate 36.3G pixels/s
    * Texture fill-rate 84.4Gpixels/s
    * DirectX 10, no DX 10.1 support yet.
    http://futuremark.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85567
     
  2. AlphaWolf

    AlphaWolf Specious Misanthrope
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2003
    Messages:
    8,476
    Likes Received:
    325
    Location:
    Treading Water
    That'd be quite the trick if they could pull it off. Double the units and 50% faster shader clock in the same area with an optical shrink. I really don't know why they'd bother with 2GB of ram.
     
  3. AlBran

    AlBran Ferro-Fibrous
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    20,719
    Likes Received:
    5,815
    Location:
    ಠ_ಠ
    Is it just me or are the fillrates a little weird with the 830MHz core clock :???:
     
  4. willardjuice

    willardjuice super willyjuice
    Moderator Veteran Alpha Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,373
    Likes Received:
    242
    Location:
    NY
    They've learned nothing (if true).
     
  5. Anarchist4000

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    359
    Without simply killing off an entire chip I doubt we'll see the transition to a smaller chip happen right away. It's likely still to soon to have decided that massive monolithic chips were a bad idea.
     
  6. Florin

    Florin Merrily dodgy
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,648
    Likes Received:
    219
    Location:
    The colonies
    What should they have learned and when?
     
  7. CJ

    CJ
    Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Messages:
    816
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    MSI Europe HQ
    Maybe that it's not always the size of the boat, but the motion of the ocean?
     
  8. dkanter

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    20
    What should they have learned?

    Don't produce >400mm2 chips unless you can sell them for >$1K.

    Intel can get away with it because Xeon MP and IPF chips sell for $600 minimum, whereas an entire GT200 was $600 and included DRAM, heatsink, board, etc.

    DK
     
  9. Florin

    Florin Merrily dodgy
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,648
    Likes Received:
    219
    Location:
    The colonies
    What is it with all the armchair experts here? Nvidia has been operating a highly profitable business for years and years. The low volume high-end segment halo effect is just one aspect of this.

    Are you guys saying they should be looking to AMD for advice on how to run a business, just because they managed to pull off one promising videocard generation now?
     
  10. CJ

    CJ
    Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Messages:
    816
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    MSI Europe HQ
    No, but when a company lowers the prices of it's latest highend graphicscard from $649 to $449 within 3 weeks after the launch, and partners are already offering cash-backs to early adopters of up to $120... then something didn't go as planned and there is a lesson to be learned. You're probably smart enough to figure out which lesson that is.
     
  11. Arun

    Arun Unknown.
    Moderator Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    5,023
    Likes Received:
    299
    Location:
    UK
    I really don't get the point of all this. The only lesson to be learned out of it is that GT200's architecture, relative to RV770's, sucks. And that it pays to have a better architecture and not underestimate the other guy.

    The rest has very little to do with it, TBH (unless you think GT200 could be clocked at 800MHz if only intra-chip variability wasn't such a problem, which seems a tad extreme to me; and that's not the main problem anyway).
     
  12. Florin

    Florin Merrily dodgy
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,648
    Likes Received:
    219
    Location:
    The colonies
    Cancel all current chip designs immediately and scramble to go the way of the Rage Fury Maxx and the Voodoo 5?
     
  13. no-X

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    247
    NV40 (GF6800) was big, fast, expensive and technological leader. NV43 was small, very fast and NV40 created quite positive light for sale of this product.

    G70 (GF7800) was big, expensive and still technological leader. G73 was very small, not as fast, as users expected, but good and very popular. Margins must have been very good.

    G71 (GF7900) was very small, expensive, but not technological leader. nVidias margins must have been extreme.

    G80 (GF8800) was very big, expensive and technological leader. G84 was quite big, not very fast, but it was the only mainstream part supporting DX10 and many useres bought it just because of G80's succes.

    G200 (GTX200) is huge, inexpensive (for customers), it isn't technological leader. Margins must be low. G200 simply can't help with mainstream sales, because there is no profitable ~150mm2 mainstream, only 290mm2 G92 (G92b is not highly available). So the whole point of advertisement of mainstream parts by high-end products doesn't work in this case.
     
  14. CJ

    CJ
    Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Messages:
    816
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    MSI Europe HQ
    And we have a winner. You can either choose to go for the washingmachine or for door number 3!
     
  15. pjbliverpool

    pjbliverpool B3D Scallywag
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,583
    Likes Received:
    703
    Location:
    Guess...
    To produce those fill rates (or close to them anyway) would require 44 ROPs and 102 texture units at those speeds.

    I find that highly unlikely. I guess there could be other clock domains but I think its more likely that these specs are simply fake.
     
  16. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    14,891
    Likes Received:
    2,309
    /Davros applauds No-X for puuting in the actual card names
    eg: NV40 (GF6800)
     
  17. Panajev2001a

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,187
    Likes Received:
    8
    Yes, but did not people like PdM (was he really banned from RWT ?!?) and others report in the past those 400+ mm^2 IPF chips cost Intel like $150 (more or less) to actually make ?

    (I remember an old RWT discussion about manufacturing costs of Itanium 2 chips)
     
  18. Humus

    Humus Crazy coder
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    77
    Location:
    Stockholm, Sweden
    That'd be laughable if true.
     
  19. willardjuice

    willardjuice super willyjuice
    Moderator Veteran Alpha Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,373
    Likes Received:
    242
    Location:
    NY
    What? The Nvidia focus group members tell me DX 10.1 is pointless. :grin:
     
  20. AlBran

    AlBran Ferro-Fibrous
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    20,719
    Likes Received:
    5,815
    Location:
    ಠ_ಠ
    DX ten point one. :???: nvidia am fail. :yep2:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...