AMD RV790 & RV740 in 40nm in March 2009

[fgw]

got this from techpowerup:

It will be a current-generation GPU built on the next generation 40nm manufacturing technology. There is a lot of speculation surrounding the RV790's specifications, with some of the more plausible ones hinting it has two additional SIMD clusters (960 SPs) and a total 48 texture memory units (TMUs). Both the RV740 and RV790 are slated for March, there's also a little indication of AMD using the occasion of CeBIT for its announcements and product launches.

full article can be found here: http://www.techpowerup.com/

and the source of this information is here: http://www.hardware-infos.com (german)

[[XC] gomeler]

Can you explain your post for the uninitiated? What is "pad limited" etc?

All the chips have pads/wires on the backside that are soldered to the boards they are attached to. As the chips get smaller, you can put only so many of these wires on the backside of the chip, limiting input/output/power. So, for RV770 with a 256-bit memory controller let's say you need 400 pins. On 55nm the size of the chip gives you enough space that you can fit all these 400 pins but if you keep the logic(transistor) count of the chip the same but shrink to 40nm, you will have much less physical space for these pins and may only be able to attach 300 pins. So this requires either a smaller memory controller or making the chip larger, ie adding more logic, to get enough surface area for all the pins.

I hope that all made sense

[Calmatory]

TSMC or TFC?

dominance?

GTX260 costs the same as 4780, is just as fast in real games people actually play instead of crap like call of juarez (minimum framerates often get ignored), overclocks better, uses less power, has better drivers (ati is always releasing hotfixes, still no game profiles), better looking anisotropic filtering, is quieter and cooler. ATI just now got a north american partner with lifetime warranty.

Obviously Ati does it with a much smaller gpu and nvidia's margins on the GTX are crap but from a consumer point of view the GTX series is just as good in price/performance and imo better when you consider reliability and support.

I guess you are going to bring up the 4870x2 but I don't consider multi-gpu viable.

LET THE WARS BEGIN!

It took Nvidia how many months to get the GTX 260 to be what it should have been from the very beginning? Even if it had been such a great card from the beginning, it is far from complete, or any, Nvidia dominance for 2008 - thus it makes your point useless!

End it. Now.

[Sly Fox]

I can't believe that guy went and edited his post to "further own" me. After I explained the history of my comment...

I mean that, I literally can't. Because it didn't happen.

[shiznit93]

I can't believe that guy went and edited his post to "further own" me. After I explained the history of my comment...

So sad...

I didn't do that, the edit was before I saw your response. I was actually gonna post "doh", letting you know that I hadn't realized you were being sarcastic, but I didn't want to contribute any further to a nv vs ati war I had no intention of starting.

[Sly Fox]

I didn't do that, the edit was before you responded. I was actually gonna post "doh", letting you know that I hadn't realized you were being sarcastic, but I didn't want to contribute any further to a nv vs ati war I had no intention of starting.

Well I'll take your word for it, I was just going off the post times.

In any case, the idea of any company having "dominance" is a bit laughable in itself. The tech industry shifts so often and so dramatically... You can never really predict the future with 100% accuracy.

40nm Nvidia / ATI should both be nice, but after 55nm Nvidia, I'm going to give ATI a bit more benefit of the doubt.

[shiznit93]

I often think of something else to say and then add it into my post without checking if the person I quoted has responded, it's a bad habit I know...

[LiquidReactor]

Ati won the AA war in 2008 and so far is still beating Nvidia in it. Just watch how fast GTX 295 crumbles in front of 4870x2 when you go for 8xAA or higher in modern games.

[situman]

Hmm when's Intel coming out with their thingy again?

[LordEC911]

All the chips have pads/wires on the backside that are soldered to the boards they are attached to. As the chips get smaller, you can put only so many of these wires on the backside of the chip, limiting input/output/power. So, for RV770 with a 256-bit memory controller let's say you need 400 pins. On 55nm the size of the chip gives you enough space that you can fit all these 400 pins but if you keep the logic(transistor) count of the chip the same but shrink to 40nm, you will have much less physical space for these pins and may only be able to attach 300 pins. So this requires either a smaller memory controller or making the chip larger, ie adding more logic, to get enough surface area for all the pins.

I hope that all made sense

Surface area isn't what would be limiting the chip but the perimeter.

Hmm when's Intel coming out with their thingy again?

Late 2009 was the initial target, so sometime in 2010.

[Sr7]

Ati won the AA war in 2008 and so far is still beating Nvidia in it. Just watch how fast GTX 295 crumbles in front of 4870x2 when you go for 8xAA or higher in modern games.

Uhmm not so simple. There is less memory on the 295, so it's more likely to run out of FB.

[Carfax]

Ati won the AA war in 2008 and so far is still beating Nvidia in it. Just watch how fast GTX 295 crumbles in front of 4870x2 when you go for 8xAA or higher in modern games.

Yep, because we all know, nearly everyone plays at 2560x1600 with 8xAA

[Macadamia]

"FINISH HER!"
-Shao Kahn

Uhmm not so simple. There is less memory on the 295, so it's more likely to run out of FB.

In normal cases it wouldn't be a big disadvantage, but nVidia's memory management is less optimized compared to ATI's. The initial amount used is more, which is why their 256-512MB cards run out of steam fast.

[Martin.v.r]

???5870x2???

[Sly Fox]

Yep, because we all know, nearly everyone plays at 2560x1600 with 8xAA

Well no, but when it comes to quad SLI/CF you could assume that.

Although in brand new graphically demanding games, both sets of cards fall apart at that res/AA... So it's almost moot.

I suppose you could say the X2 has an advantage in slightly older games at super high res/AA or something.

[Sr7]

"FINISH HER!"
-Shao Kahn




In normal cases it wouldn't be a big disadvantage, but nVidia's memory management is less optimized compared to ATI's. The initial amount used is more, which is why their 256-512MB cards run out of steam fast.

lol.. any evidence to back that up? sounds like a bit of an outlandish claim.

[STaRGaZeR]

???5870x2???

Great, just beautiful

[Macadamia]

lol.. any evidence to back that up? sounds like a bit of an outlandish claim.

The B3D dudes have talked about it a long time before, IIRC during/before the G92 launch period.

It's hard to compare to ATI at that period because the 3850/70 were bad performers with AA on, and only AA would tax memory usage extensively enough to limit you to <1600x1200.


At raw speed tests it's harder to determine, but there are still cases where the 256MB on the 8800GT runs out first compared to the 3850.



There are also cases where the 8800GT 512MB flat-out dies off at 1920*1200 8x AA while the 3870 still holds on, although not very playable. I think this one can be referred to in the Computerbase tests.

[Sly Fox]

Yea, I remember seeing some tests where they measured video memory usage in the same games at the same settings with the same OS and processes, and ATI used less memory.

Dunno why that's hard to believe. It seems logical that Nvidia and ATI would have their own memory management systems, and I highly doubt they would both be
100% equally efficient.

[Macadamia]

Anyway, RV790 is Performance 55nm process, not 40nm.


RV740 is the sole 40nm chip for now. I'm not sure if 790 still actually exists or is just a sandbag pipedream.

[LiquidReactor]

Yep, because we all know, nearly everyone plays at 2560x1600 with 8xAA

Well %!@, if you don't need AA why do you even need to buy modern graphics cards for ?

[Sr7]

The B3D dudes have talked about it a long time before, IIRC during/before the G92 launch period.

It's hard to compare to ATI at that period because the 3850/70 were bad performers with AA on, and only AA would tax memory usage extensively enough to limit you to <1600x1200.


At raw speed tests it's harder to determine, but there are still cases where the 256MB on the 8800GT runs out first compared to the 3850.



There are also cases where the 8800GT 512MB flat-out dies off at 1920*1200 8x AA while the 3870 still holds on, although not very playable. I think this one can be referred to in the Computerbase tests.

Even if that were definitive proof of what you describe, it's been over a year since those products were introduced, and there have been many new driver schemes with new memory optimizations on both sides... This isn't an all-true fact of life written in stone though you describe it as though today you know definitively what's happening with memory usage.

All I'm saying is there are so many variables here, and since there are also architectural limitations contributing, it's oversimplifying to sit here and write about how one brand uses more memory than another.

[NapalmV5]

1ghz so easy vmod probably not required

vmoded @ 1.1ghz easy

bring it amd!

[hurleybird]

???5870x2???

Where's that from?

[Sly Fox]

Where's that from?

Adobe?