R520: 32 PS pipelines? Any truth to this?

Sure. Brent Justice isn't aware of the other line of thinking on this subject? All that means is that ATI hasn't told him it is 32 pipes. Unless he's much less informed than I think he is, he's still considered the competing lines of thot here and made a choice.

 

So, looking at ye olde Events Calendar, we have:

Game Developer Conference Europe, Aug 30-Sep 1

ATI Game Developer Conference, Sep 6-7

And this little banner ad that someone at R3D pointed at:

http://www.overclockers.com.au/ads/ads/ati_ocau_468x60_2.gif

 

Anyway, on topic: I'm pretty sure this topic has more pages than R520 pipeline count

 

you forgot to multiply the pipeline count by 1.4

 

...and add vertex pipelines (if you say "pipelines")

 

Correction:

I'm pretty sure this topic has more pages than R520 ROP count

 

Na...

R520 is going to supreme Core clock speed. somewhere around 700mhz is possible.

Its going to be 3x shader Vs Texture and a goodly increase in Vertex.

i am still going with

16-48-(10+)

What you guys are going to like most is all the cool shader type stuff that Nvidia "should have" included.

 

As in 16 ROPS, 48 pixelpipes, 10+ vertexpipes?
Man, that's too much.

You say that like you know something. Care to elaborate?

 

8 or 10 vertex pipelines

24 or 32 pixel pipelines / pixel shader pipelines - 16 ROPs - 600 MHz+ core

that should be enough to significantly outperform G70 ~ 7800 GTX


any more functional units above & beyond that would be reserved for R580

 

dang, double post.

 

I`d be extremely surprised to see a 32-pipe part clock at 600Mhz :?

 

R9800PRO: 8p, 380MHz, 150nm

X800XT-PE: 16p, 520MHz (+140MHz), 130nm low-k

R520: 32p, 600MHz (+80MHz), 90nm low-k

I'm not sure if R520 will use 32 pipelines, but I don't think that this combination (600MHz + 32p) is impossible (X800XT-PE was a greater jump)

 

even with 24 or 32 pixel shader pipelines, the R520 is still going to be a "true" 16 pixel pipeline chip, like the G70. because R520 will probably have only 16 ROP units.

since G70 has 24 pixel shader pipelines (but is not a true 24 pixel pipe part) then the R520 could have 24 also, thus matching G70. It is also plausible that R520 has 32 compared to G70's 24. it's not beyond reason that R520 could have 32 pixel *shader* pipes (8 more than G70) thus dramatically increasing pixel shader performance - but still outputing 16 pixels per clock, like G70, because both have 16 ROPs.

the most likely senerio though, is 24pipes / 16rops - like G70

 

Its not pipelines anymore y'all.

16-48-10 Does not mean 48 "pipelines".

 

ALUs?

 

48 LIES units, made up of ALUs that can only issue NOP.

 

Ya gotta get out of the mode of thinking "pipes = ROPs" these days. There's not a modern game out there...even relatively low-feature ones...where these graphics chips actually draw out 16 pixels per clock. In fact, even 8 ROPs would probably be enough. But some older games, in the ancient "two or three texture blend" days, would be much slower.

Going up to 24 ROPs would be a huge waste of space on a 24-pixel shader pipe chip. The actual difference in performance between 16 and 24 ROPs would be, oh, less than 5%.

On all the advanced engines/games, even 8 ROPs would probably be fine, because the limiting factor is shader math, texture address ability, etc. Much older games could benefit from more ROPs, but they're CPU limited anyway.

 

How difficult, then, is it to load up a pipe with a ton of ALUs?

 

Al, ask nVidia.

Rys, .

Yeah, HB likely meant ROPs-ALUs-vertex crushers. 24 shader pipes with two ALUs per doesn't sound that far-fetched, as that's what nV's packing now. 16 with three, well, I don't know how many shader ops typically happen per pixel per clock. I hope we don't end up with a R100-ish underutilized overabundance. (I, on the other hand, overutilize my underabundance of 3D knowledge.)

 

Wow, thats new to me.

Care to back that up with a source.