Newsgroup: it.comp.hardware.video-3d
Titolo: le innovazioni di GT200

nada
We chat with a lot of knowledgeable people in the industry and we've learned 
some quite interesting truths behind the GT200 chip. Our developer friends 
called it brute force chip, with not so much brains.
Putting 240 Shader units in the chip that basically remains on G80 and G92 
design will naturally get things moving faster. More Shader units at faster 
clocks will always make your card faster, especially at higher resolutions.
G92 with 65nm design has 128 Shaders, while GT200 has 240, or almost twice 
as much. The die size of GT200 is much bigger than G92 and that is how you 
get the fastest chip around.
Our developer friends added that the last innovation that Nvidia did was G80 
and that G92 is simply a die shrink of the same idea. You can look at GT200 
as G92 with 240 Shaders.
This results in GT200 running quite hot, but it will compensate with sheer 
power, so let's just hope that Nvidia's yields of such a huge chip (rumoured 
bigger than 550mm2) will be acceptable.
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7604&Itemid=1
 

 at higher resolutions.
wow che innovazione :D
-- 
-------------------------------
SimBus82 sta per rinascere...
Scopri la nuova reincarnazione 
http://tinyurl.com/2d7byh
Firefox Download World Record! ADERISCI ANCHE TU!
http://www.spreadfirefox.com/it/worldrecord/
 

 wow che innovazione :D
Inoltre per ovviare ai problemi di resa che avrebbero probabilmente 
coll'attuale processo a 65nm date le dimensioni elevate del die, stanno 
cercando di portare il tutto con quello a 55nm......
http://www.tomshw.it/news.php?newsid=14203


beh ci credo.... si vocifera 250w per il single chip.... mi pare tantino 
dopo le esperienze della 2900xt....



Una resa del 40% è bassa, troppo bassa.
Del resto tutti i rumors fin qui giunti sono concordi nel dire che il chip è 
grande, grosso, affamato e costoso all'origine.
Se non vogliono fare un inutile forno tipo X2900 o (peggio) NV30 come taluni 
dicono, sarà bene che esca subito a 55 nm....
A.CiD

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:48400658$0$29981$5fc...@news.tiscali.it...

Se diamo credito ai rumors della rete, anche questa non sarà 10.1, il che di 
fatto sarebbe già da sè prova di "innovazione zero".
Cmq bisogna aspettare, nVidia non è nuova né a celare molto bene i fatti 
propri né a fare cazzate.
Certo che un chip da 500 euro che consuma quanto un intero PC per essere 
solo più veloce....mah...
A.CiD 

 cercando di portare il tutto con quello a 55nm......
si, tra la fine dell'estate e l'autunno...
sto G80 gli sta esplodendo tra le mani
ma dopotutto è la terza reincarnazione della stessa gpu 

 wow che innovazione :D
e 
quello a 55 nm è il SUCESSORE di GT200....
ahia nvidia, la vedo 
male
Nvidia GT200 sucessor tapes out
THE LAST TIME 
Nvidia's CPU mouthed off about Intel, the firm followed it up with the stunning 
NV5800 'Dustbuster'. This time, he mouthed off, and the successor to the GT200 
had already taped out. NV is in deep trouble once again.
You heard that 
right, the successor for the GT200 chip has already taped out, and it too will 
be nothing special. Documents seen by the INQ indicate that this one is called, 
wait for it, the 
GT200b, it is nothing more than a 55nm shrink of the 
GT200
. Don't expect miracles, but do expect the name to 
change.
There are several problems with the GT200, most of which are near 
fatal. The first is the die size, 576mm^2, bigger than most Itanics. One might 
trust Intel to make a chip that big with decent yields, especially if it is 
basically an island of logic in the middle of a sea of cache. Nvidia using a 
foundry process doesn't have a chance of pulling this off.
Word has come 
out of Satan Clara that 
the yields are laughable. No, make that abysmal, 
they are 40 per cent
. To add insult to injury, that 40 per cent 
includes both the 280 and the 260 yield salvage parts. With about 100 die 
candidates per wafer, that means 40 good dice per wafer. Doing the maths, a TSMC 
300mm 65nm wafer runs about $5000, so that means each good die costs $125 before 
packaging, testing and the like. If they can get away with sub-
$150 
costs
 per GPU, we will be impressed.
So, these parts cost about 
$150, and the boards will sell for $449 and $649 for the 260 and 280 
respectively, so there is enough play room there to make money, right? Actually, 
most likely yes. There are costs though, but not enough to kill profit for any 
one touching these.
The biggest cost is memory. The 512b memory width 
means that they will have to use at least 16 chips. This ends up making the 
board very complex when you have to route all those high speed signals, and that 
means more layers, more cost, and more defect fallout with the added steps. You 
also have to solder on eight more memory chips which costs yet more.
To 
add insult to injury, 
the TDPs of the 260 and 280 are 182W and 236W 
respectively
. This means big copper heatsinks, possibly heatpipes, and 
high-end fans. Those parts cost a lot of money to buy, assemble and ship. Not 
fatal, but not a good situation either. It also precludes a dual GPU board 
without losing a lot of speed.
Basically, these boards are going to cost 
a lot of money to make, not just to buy. The $449 price is justified by the 
cost. The last round of GX2 boards cost OEMs about $425, meaning that NV charges 
OEMs about 70 per cent of retail for high-end parts. After packaging, shipping 
and add-ins, there is almost nothing left for the OEMs, quite possible 
explaining why one of their biggest one is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, 
kept alive because NV won't call their debt while still shiping to them. Watch 
for this to melt down once NV loses the high end.
So, you end up with an 
expensive chip on an expensive board that makes few if any people money. Fair 
enough, bleeding-edge parts mean bleeding-edge prices. The problem is that ATI 
is going to make a chip that competes with GT200, and lines up with it point for 
point. NV wins big Z Fill, ATI crushes them on Shader Flops. What this 
translates to in the real world is still up in the air, but it 
looks 
like the 770 and the 260 will be about equal for most 
things
.
The GT200 is about six months late, blew out their die 
size estimates and missed clock targets by a lot. ATI didn't. This means that 
buying a 
GT260 board will cost about 50 per cent more than an R770 for 
equivalent performance
. 
The GT280 will be about 25 per cent 
faster but cost more than twice as much
. 
A month or so after 
the 770 comes the 700, basically two 770s on a slab. This will crush the GT280 
in just about every conceivable benchmark and likely cost le
ss. Why? 
Because.
So, what is a company to do when it promised the financial world 
that ATI was lost, and GT200 would raise their margins by 100 basis points or 
so? Surely they knew what was coming a few weeks ago during their financial 
call, right? I mean, if word was leaking days later, the hierarchy surely was 
aware at the time, right?
The answer to that is to tape out the GT200b 
yesterday. It has taped out, and it is a little more than 400mm^2 on a TSMC 55nm 
process. Given that TSMC tends to price things so that on an equivalent area 
basis, the new process is marginally cheaper than the old, don't look for much 
cost saving there. Any decrease in defectivity due to smaller area is almost 
assuredly going to be balanced out by the learning curve on the new process. 
Being overly generous, it is still hard to see how the GT200b will cost less 
than $100 per chip. Don't look for much cost savings there.
The new 
shrink will be a much better chip though, mainly because they might fix the 
crippling clock rate problems of the older part. This is most likely not a speed 
path problem but a heat/power issue. If you get a better perf/watt number 
through better process tech, you can either keep performance the same and lower 
net power use, or keep power use the same and raise performance.
Given 
NV's woeful 933GFLOPS number, you can guess which way they are going to go. This 
means no saving on heatsinks, no savings on components, and a slightly cheaper 
die. For consumers, it will likely mean a $50 cheaper board, but no final prices 
have come my way yet. It will also mean a cheaper and faster board in a few 
months.
The GT200b will be out in late summer or early fall, 
instantly obsoleting the GT200
. Anyone buying the 65nm version will end 
up with a lemon, a slow, hot and expensive lemon. Kind of like the 5800. It 
would suck for NV if word of this got out. Ooops, sorry.
What are they 
going to do? Emails seen by the INQ indicate they are going to play the usual PR 
games to take advantage of sites that don't bother checking up on the 'facts' 
fed to them. They plan to release the GT200 in absurdly limited quantities, and 
only four AIBs are going to initially get parts.
There is also serious 
talk of announcing a price drop to put them head to head with the R770 and 
giving that number to reviewers. When the boards come out, the reviews are 
already posted with the lower numbers, and no reviewer ever updates their 
pricing or points out that the price performance ratio was just blown out of the 
water. There is also internal debate about giving a few etailers a real price 
cut for a short time to 'back up' the 'MSRP'.
We would hope the reviewers 
are able to look at the numbers they were given on editors' day, $449 and $649, 
and take any $100+ last minute price drop with the appropriate chunk of NaCl. 
Just given the component cost, there is no way NV can hit the same price point 
as the 770 boards. "We lose money on each one, but we make it up in volume" is 
not a good long term strategy, nor is it a way to improve margins by 100 basis 
points.
In the end, NV is facing a tough summer in the GPU business. They 
are effectively out of the Montevina market, and they 
are going to lose 
the high end in a spectacular way. Nvidia has no effective countermeasure to the 
R770
, the GT200 was quite simply botched, and now they are going to pay 
for it. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a 5800.


 


 


http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/05/29/nvidia-gt200-sucessor-tapes



 
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/05/29/nvidia-gt200-sucessor-tapes
bene, cioè male... ati potrà tenere alti i prezzi se nvidia a parità di 
prestazioni avrà schede che costeranno troppo di più!


 resolutions.
Beh, a me la storia di G80 ricorda molto quella di R300: un chip 
geniale, molto avanti rispetto alla concorrenza, che la casa madre ha 
sfruttato per il maggior tempo possibile. Chi comprò una Radeon 9700, ai 
tempi, per quanti anni poté struttarla senza problemi? Tanti. Allo 
stesso modo hanno potuto fare gli early-adopters delle GeForce 8800. 
Anche l'ostinazione con cui Nvidia continu*erebbe* a supportare solo le 
directx 10.0 ricorda molto quella di ATI con lo shader 2.0. Alla fine, 
una strategia troppo conservativa non ha premiato più di tanto e dubito 
che Nvidia non ne abbia tratto degli insegnamenti. Insomma, prima di 
dipingere G200 come l'ennesimo refresh di G80 preferirei vederlo di 
persona, poi potrò fare le mie considerazioni a cuor leggero.
In ogni caso, se lo scenario dipinto da Fudo fosse quello vero, Nvidia 
semplicemente piazzerà le sue schede a 1000 dollari e troverà certamente 
qualcuno disposto a comprarle, fine del problema. Questi furbacchioni 
piangeranno un po' quando, sei mesi dopo, uscirà la versione shrinkata a 
metà prezzo, e poi magari quella a frequenze 10% inferiori a un quarto, 
ma del resto è la storia di ogni buon early-adopter che si ripete.
Tenete comunque presente che la grafica per Nvidia comincia a essere 
soltanto l'ultimo dei problemi. La chiave di lettura di un chip come 
G200 è CUDA: riuscire a mettere sulla piazza un processore in grado di 
eseguire operazioni generiche con un simile grado di parallelizzazione 
(240 sp a quelle frequenze... quanti gigaflop macinano?), prima che 
Intel possa dire la sua con Larrabee, per Nvidia è fondamentale. 
Prendere accordi con tutte le grandi società di software, e non solo con 
iD e Ubisoft, per accelerare tutte le grandi applicazioni con CUDA è una 
mossa dall'altissimo valore strategico perché, se proprio non 
riusciranno ad avere la potenza del marketing dalla loro parte, almeno 
potranno fronteggiare Intel con una piattaforma software già ampiamente 
definita, adottata e standardizzata. Un bell'accordino in tal senso con 
Microsoft non ci starebbe nemmeno tanto male.
p.bes


Infatti in quest'ottica l'accordo con Adobe su CS4 la dice molto lunga.
Vale più questo IMHO di qualsiasi accordo in ambito gaming.
A.CiD 

AndreaCD® scriveva il 31/05/08 :

Il core business rimane l'ambito gaming comunque... prima che 
"l'ambaraddn" CUDA venga supportato da un numero elevato di applicativi 
ne dovrà scorrere di acqua sotto i ponti.