R420, NV40 launch info at Anand's

Two thoughts on why 512MB of RAM

1) A better texture and shader memory management system, given ATi has said their next architecture will implement a virtual memory system similar to the way a operating system implements page memory to provide better performance by keeping in use code and data blocks (assuming nested code) rather than swap an entire program in and out of RAM. I remember ATi saying rather than load all textures for a scene we will focus on loading what's needed as or just before its needed. Bigger memory means simply more cache hits and fewer cache misses!

2) Indirectly speed. When you generally design an algorithm you want to run super fast you have a few variables to consider:

i) simplify the results - approximate the real function or reduce the precision of the data as low as it can acceptabley go

ii) assign multiprocessors so long as the process intercommunication needs are managable

iii) change your algorithm to trade memory for code complexity

This last one is the possibly interesting one. There was/is a field of parallel computing that looked at ways of speeding up algorithms as basic as an addition or a sort to quite complex problems by trading memory for algorithm complexity. If you have both alot of processors and alot of memory you can redesign some algorithms to consume more resources and perform alot quicker. Possibly this approach could be considered one day for 3d graphics? I am unsure if that sub-field of parallel processing study blossomed or died.
 
Quitch said:
Wouldn't this lend credence to the rumour that the R500 was originally going to be the R400? I mean, something coming out that early would suggest it isn't a DX Next part, but rather a high performing SM 3 part, perhaps with a view to laying the ground for DX Next?

That's my first ever industry guess. I feel so proud... and inaccurate :D

That's my guess as well. :)

I said it in an earlier thread: it wouldn't surprise me if the R500 is "only 1 year" behind the R420, since there's probably a lot of R&D work already behind the chip, since it's supposedly a re-worked R400.

So, a SM 3.0+ (but not DX10) part in Spring '05 seems perfectly reasonably to me.

That being said: I have my increasingin suspicions now that X-Box Next is also built primarily on SM 3.0+ variant, and not DX10. I still think the chip will be markedly different than whatever PC parts are on the market at the same time, but I'm guessing that either it won't be full-bown DX10...or that DX10's scope will be reduced from what we currently know it as.

Perhaps we'll even get a "real" DX 9.1 interim release between DX 9 / SM 3.0 and DX 10?
 
What gets me most excited about all this is the X800SE... I wonder if this will still be a 3-quad chip...? :?:
 
That being said: I have my increasingin suspicions now that X-Box Next is also built primarily on SM 3.0+ variant, and not DX10. I still think the chip will be markedly different than whatever PC parts are on the market at the same time, but I'm guessing that either it won't be full-bown DX10...or that DX10's scope will be reduced from what we currently know it as

Who is to say that dx 10 wont be sm 3.0+?

3.0+ may be the baseline for it as 2.0 was for dx 9.

I don't have enough info on dx 10 to comment. Question is do you ?
 
in regards to 512 MB on a GPU:

wouldn't floating point in the frame/back buffer quickly eat up this extra space? After all, you're going from 32 bits per pixel to 128 bits per pixel for a colour value (Z/stencil-buffer would stay 32 bits I think).
 
Padman said:
in regards to 512 MB on a GPU:

wouldn't floating point in the frame/back buffer quickly eat up this extra space? After all, you're going from 32 bits per pixel to 128 bits per pixel for a colour value (Z/stencil-buffer would stay 32 bits I think).

Wouldn't fsaa also eat up alot of ram. 6x fsaa would eat up like a 110mbs by itself wouldn't it ?
 
What gets me most excited about all this is the X800SE... I wonder if this will still be a 3-quad chip...?

Surely they will be producing a 2-quad chip on the 0.13 low-k process? A kind of 9800Pro+, if you will.

Would certainly be useful in the performance mainstream market if clocked over/around 500MHz.
 
jvd said:
That being said: I have my increasingin suspicions now that X-Box Next is also built primarily on SM 3.0+ variant, and not DX10. I still think the chip will be markedly different than whatever PC parts are on the market at the same time, but I'm guessing that either it won't be full-bown DX10...or that DX10's scope will be reduced from what we currently know it as

Who is to say that dx 10 wont be sm 3.0+?

Um, re-read what I just put in bold. ;)

Conventional wisdom is that it's expected that DX10 will be well beyond SM 3.0/3.0+. But as I just said, it's possible that DX10 might be "changed" to not be quite as ambitious as it's thought to be.

I don't have enough info on dx 10 to comment. Question is do you ?

Nothing other than past threads on this board which had links to Meltdown / DX10 presentations.

My overriding point is that I'm not expecting the X-Box Next GPU to be much beyond PS 3.0+ capabilities in terms of feature set.

I would, however, expect more PS operations per second per pixel. (Moreso than the analogous PC part).
 
Um, re-read what I just put in bold.

Conventional wisdom is that it's expected that DX10 will be well beyond SM 3.0/3.0+. But as I just said, it's possible that DX10 might be "changed" to not be quite as ambitious as it's thought to be.

sorry joe . Can barely read have one side of my face swollen badly waiting for a ride to the doctors.

But okay we have the same thoughts then and we also know about the same which is next to nothing ;)
 
Mariner said:
What gets me most excited about all this is the X800SE... I wonder if this will still be a 3-quad chip...?

Surely they will be producing a 2-quad chip on the 0.13 low-k process? A kind of 9800Pro+, if you will.

Would certainly be useful in the performance mainstream market if clocked over/around 500MHz.

Certainly the performance gap between RV380 and the two X800 parts would seem to be huge. Will it be feasible (and/or most cost-effective) to boost clocks on RV380 or to introduce a 2-quad, clocked-down R420 SE?

But my main concern remains with the *apparently* rushed XT launch. If prior speculation on B3D was accurate and the XT chips will be those gems that come out of the fab with 16 functional pipelines, what kind of yields and early product availability can one expect?
 
Maybe ATi is waiting on a bigger supply of 800MHz GDDR3 to launch the XT, as the Pro is supposedly using ~600MHz GDDR3?

Those are still amazing memory clocks, to me. Wouldn't all that bandwidth be sort of wasted on a 12-pipe card?

Edit: OK, so 800MHz is right out--for now and the near future, at least. So XT will be PEG? Isn't PEG slated for May release? I'm not fully up to speed on MB tech.
 
Pete said:
Those are still amazing memory clocks, to me. Wouldn't all that bandwidth be sort of wasted on a 12-pipe card?

Nope...

Though...that all depends on the clock speed of said 12 pipe card of course. Just going by today's clock rates:

R360XT 256 MB: 23.4 GB/Sec per 6.592 Gig AA Samples / Sec = 3.5 GB/G AA Sample (or 3.5 Bytes per AA Sample.)

So lets assume we want to keep a constant B/AA Sample ratio in the R420, and assume the memory clock is 600 Mhz (38 GB/sec).

38 GB/Sec / 3.5 GAA Samples/Sec= 10.9 Gig AA Samples / sec.

If we assume (like R300), that R420 does 2 AA samples per pipe per clock, this would mean that a 12 pipe chip:

10.9 Gig AA Samples/sec /(2*12 AA Samples / clock) = 0.454 Ghz = approx 450 Mhz.

In other words, if a 12 pipeline R420 core is clocked at 450 Mhz, it would take 600 Mhz, 256 Bit DDR to give the same Bandwidth to AA Sample ratio that exists today with the top of the line R360.
 
Waltar said:
I don't understand, what is the point of a 512 meg card? We're barely using all of what 128 can do, UT2K4 at highest settings barely takes 170 megs of ram, Call of duty with the extra settings takes about 150.. Is there an actual game thats going to need 256? hl2 nvidia wise is completely shader crippled, bandwidth means jack shit. On the ATi side its all CPU bound from physics and AI (check shader day if you need confirmation on this one..)

It just seems stupid to me.
No doubt that many people thought and said the same thing 18 months ago when we were all laughing at the notion of 256MB graphics cards.
 
Neeyik said:
No doubt that many people thought and said the same thing 18 months ago when we were all laughing at the notion of 256MB graphics cards.

Same here... 640k jokes, anyone? ;)
 
DaveBaumann said:
I'm currently trying to establish when R500 will appear. I'd actually previously pinned it as a Longhorn / DX Next product, but that appears to have been very wide of the mark - seems that it will be here much earlier than I'd expected.
Yes, quite. (<---And it feels AWFULLY damned good to finally know something Dave don't and to be able to be annoyingly cryptic about it! Best birthday present ever. :cool: )

PatrickL said:
Don't know but if R20/R423 are launched in may june do you really expect R500 before spring 2005 or fall 2005 ?
Definately. 8)
 
Back
Top