ATI already taped out a 40nm chip

[JPB]

ATI already taped out a 40nm chip

According to our sources ATI has got its working silicon of 40nm next generation chips, and we've learned that the company is happy with the first results.


This might mean that ATI is ahead of Nvidia in 40nm and we all know by now, that Nvidia has to win the 40nm round, as its reputation is in stake.

We don?t know much about the 40nm RVxxx chip but we do know that it features should be based on RV770 fundaments. You should see this new card as an improved, shrinked, higher clocked and faster RV770XT, but we still don?t know much more than that.

Nvidia might do the same, base the next gen 40nm on the existing GTx00 architecture that will naturally benefit from lower, voltage, higher clock and less of a heat.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Little Dragon!

 

[Concillian]

I thought there were supposed to be issues with fitting 256bit pads on a small die? if it's just a true shrink it'll be close to 1/2 the size.

Seems like if this is the case, it would work it's way into a 128 bit low end of the performance segment, then you'd have a beefy card with more core units for the midrange and high end 256bit segment. Seems like if they can successfully complete this transition, they'll have room for 2-3x the core units on the high end die. Maybe run them slower to fit the power envelope and at the high end you'd have essentially a 4870x2 or maybe a little better in terms of GPU power, but single chip. At the low end you'd have ~4850-4870 with a choked memory interface.

It will be great if it happens, but I'm not really holding my breath or anything.

 

[cmdrdredd]

"Nvidia has to win 40nm round"?

Huh? How does this make sense...i mean their single GTX280 is faster than the 4870 and it takes 2 4870s to beat it. Even the GTX260 x216 which is priced around $240 bests the 4870, and again it needs crossfire (or x2) to compete.

How does ATI getting 40nm chips out really mean anything. Specs, fancy digital PWMs, and all that doesn't sell cards. Benchmarks do. It's my opinion that ATI needs to win here, not NV.

Unless I missed something between the lines.

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
"Nvidia has to win 40nm round"?

Huh? How does this make sense...i mean their single GTX280 is faster than the 4870 and it takes 2 4870s to beat it. Even the GTX260 x216 which is priced around $240 bests the 4870, and again it needs crossfire (or x2) to compete.

How does ATI getting 40nm chips out really mean anything. Specs, fancy digital PWMs, and all that doesn't sell cards. Benchmarks do. It's my opinion that ATI needs to win here, not NV.

Unless I missed something between the lines.

The single 4870 was never to compete with the GTX280, but even then there's times where it overtakes the GTX280. In one of the last reviews the 4870 1GB beat the GTX280 in 3 out of 9 games.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...formance-part-1-a.html

I'm sure whatever both companies do it's going to be a close race, until new chips come out.

 

[OCGuy]

LOL @ that "article".


AMD "needs" to win the next round more than anyone. nV has cash.

It's right on one thing though: We all could use higher clocks and "less of a heat".

 

[AzN]

Fud spreading fud as usual. RV870 with 40nm should be vastly superior other than clocks.

I'm hoping for 384bit memory bus with 24ROPS based on RV770 style.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
nV has cash.

Had much did Nv's stock drop after their GT200 pricing fiasco and their slew of defective mobile chips?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
"Nvidia has to win 40nm round"?

Huh? How does this make sense...i mean their single GTX280 is faster than the 4870 and it takes 2 4870s to beat it. Even the GTX260 x216 which is priced around $240 bests the 4870, and again it needs crossfire (or x2) to compete.

How does ATI getting 40nm chips out really mean anything. Specs, fancy digital PWMs, and all that doesn't sell cards. Benchmarks do. It's my opinion that ATI needs to win here, not NV.

Unless I missed something between the lines.

The single 4870 was never to compete with the GTX280, but even then there's times where it overtakes the GTX280. In one of the last reviews the 4870 1GB beat the GTX280 in 3 out of 9 games.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...formance-part-1-a.html

I'm sure whatever both companies do it's going to be a close race, until new chips come out.

3 out of 9 and in those 3 the GTX280 isn't unplayable in any of them. I'd like to see these cards overclocked and tested too. I'm sure many people want to see where they fall in line with some boosts to the core/shader/memory

 

[ArchAngel777]

I am really hope for a new arch from both companies... Die shrinks alone are good, but not what I am hoping for...

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
nV has cash.

Had much did Nv's stock drop after their GT200 pricing fiasco and their slew of defective mobile chips?

AMD is trading at around $2. Last I read NVIDIA has enough cash to buy AMD which has a market cap of under 1.4 billion.

When AMD bought ATI they were up around $40. I think it killed them.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
nV has cash.

Had much did Nv's stock drop after their GT200 pricing fiasco and their slew of defective mobile chips?

AMD is trading at around $2. Last I read NVIDIA has enough cash to buy AMD which has a market cap of under 1.4 billion.

When AMD bought ATI they were up around $40. I think it killed them.

What killed AMD is AMD's imability to make a viable desktop CPU to compete with Intel's Core2

 

[lavaheadache]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
nV has cash.

Had much did Nv's stock drop after their GT200 pricing fiasco and their slew of defective mobile chips?

AMD is trading at around $2. Last I read NVIDIA has enough cash to buy AMD which has a market cap of under 1.4 billion.

When AMD bought ATI they were up around $40. I think it killed them.

What killed AMD is AMD's imability to make a viable desktop CPU to compete with Intel's Core2

Um there is nothing wrong with phenom... clock for clock Kentsfield isn't too much quicker, they just OC much higher. Plenty of people "get by" using them. I enjoy overclocking so i got Q6600. Believe it or not, a lot of people don't give a hoot about running the absolute Best hardware out there, just stable hardware that is good priced, which in that respect .. it is.

 

[lavaheadache]

Just like how intel was dominated for so long by the A64's, they had no trouble keeping customers. It's a see-saw that i don't see changing anytime soon

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Concillian
I thought there were supposed to be issues with fitting 256bit pads on a small die? if it's just a true shrink it'll be close to 1/2 the size.

Unless ATI is planning to more than double the core configuration again, as it did from HD 3xxx to 4xxx. e.g.

HD 3600's 120 SPU --> HD 4600's 320 SPU
HD 3800's 320 SPU --> HD 4800's 800 SPU

Which might look something like (assuming it will be named HD 5000):

HD 4600's 320 SPU --> HD 5600's 640? SPU
HD 4800's 800 SPU --> HD 5800's 1600? SPU

That would friggin rock, provided the price points were not substantially higher.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: lavaheadache

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
nV has cash.

Had much did Nv's stock drop after their GT200 pricing fiasco and their slew of defective mobile chips?

AMD is trading at around $2. Last I read NVIDIA has enough cash to buy AMD which has a market cap of under 1.4 billion.

When AMD bought ATI they were up around $40. I think it killed them.

What killed AMD is AMD's imability to make a viable desktop CPU to compete with Intel's Core2

Um there is nothing wrong with phenom... clock for clock Kentsfield isn't too much quicker, they just OC much higher. Plenty of people "get by" using them. I enjoy overclocking so i got Q6600. Believe it or not, a lot of people don't give a hoot about running the absolute Best hardware out there, just stable hardware that is good priced, which in that respect .. it is.

This isn't the CPU forum so it's off topic. Last thing I'll say then I'll leave it alone. ATI is doing pretty well at the tail end of this year considering everything. The 4870 is a real competitor. AMD's CPUs are not as competitive. They get beat in almost every way.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: lavaheadache

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
nV has cash.

Had much did Nv's stock drop after their GT200 pricing fiasco and their slew of defective mobile chips?

AMD is trading at around $2. Last I read NVIDIA has enough cash to buy AMD which has a market cap of under 1.4 billion.

When AMD bought ATI they were up around $40. I think it killed them.

What killed AMD is AMD's imability to make a viable desktop CPU to compete with Intel's Core2

Um there is nothing wrong with phenom... clock for clock Kentsfield isn't too much quicker, they just OC much higher. Plenty of people "get by" using them. I enjoy overclocking so i got Q6600. Believe it or not, a lot of people don't give a hoot about running the absolute Best hardware out there, just stable hardware that is good priced, which in that respect .. it is.

This thread is going way off topic, but I'm going to throw in:
Love my AMD 9850BE Phenom. I've bought AMD CPUs for years just in the spirit of supporting competition. There are very few users who wouldn't be satisfied with a 9850 or 9950.

As far as 40nm taping out goes, grats ATi, and good news for consumers most likely.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Azn
Fud spreading fud as usual. RV870 with 40nm should be vastly superior other than clocks.

I'm hoping for 384bit memory bus with 24ROPS based on RV770 style.

I'd love to see 384bit but honestly I don't see the business case for it unless gddr5 supply somehow dries up.

 

[wwswimming]

why do CPU's use 65 & 45 & 32 nM, and GPU's use 55 nM & 40 nM ?

 

[Powered by AMD]

Originally posted by: wwswimming
why do CPU's use 65 & 45 & 32 nM, and GPU's use 55 nM & 40 nM ?

Cos GPUs are much more complex and require better yields in order not to waste many GPUs in the wafer.
CPUs have a lot of cache which is more likely not to fail.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: wwswimming
why do CPU's use 65 & 45 & 32 nM, and GPU's use 55 nM & 40 nM ?

CPU: full process reductions. 180, 130, 90, 65, 45, 32 etc.

GPU: full process reductions and optical shrinks. 180, 130, 110, 90, 80, 65, 55, 40 etc.

Bold are optical shrinks. Optical shrinks need little to no architecture redesign for the shrink. It simply is a "die shrink", whereas full process reductions usually need an architecture overhaul.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: wwswimming
why do CPU's use 65 & 45 & 32 nM, and GPU's use 55 nM & 40 nM ?

CPU: full process reductions. 180, 130, 90, 65, 45, 32 etc.

GPU: full process reductions and optical shrinks. 180, 150, 130, 110, 90, 80, 65, 55, 45, 40 etc.

Bold are optical shrinks. Optical shrinks need little to no architecture redesign for the shrink. It simply is a "die shrink", whereas full process reductions usually need an architecture overhaul.

You missed a couple
Plus it would be more expensive for AMD/Intel to regularly retool their fabs for half node processes (presumably), while other places like TSMC etc can afford more easily to do it due to the more varied client base, where they can continue to use older processes more easily, so from a manufacturing standpoint it might make less sense for AMD/Intel, but since manufacturing of GPU's is outsourced it's not the GPU designer's job to worry about the process and tooling of a fab.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I hope both companies have learned from their past mistakes and will put out competitive products in the upcoming generations. Most of us don't want to pay $600+ for a graphic card upgrade, I like prices like they are now... and the only way that happens if they'r both competitive.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I hope both companies have learned from their past mistakes and will put out competitive products in the upcoming generations. Most of us don't want to pay $600+ for a graphic card upgrade, I like prices like they are now... and the only way that happens if they'r both competitive.

Most people don't spend 600+ on a GPU upgrade. I usually bought 1 or 2 tiers below the top card out at the time. Not to mention I always sold off my old card after I got my new one to recoup a little cash. GPU recycling. I agree prices are very very good right now. Not only for GPU's, but across the board. Cheap but powerful CPU's, DDR2 is almost free. (almost ) .
Good times.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Which might look something like (assuming it will be named HD 5000):

HD 4600's 320 SPU --> HD 5600's 640? SPU
HD 4800's 800 SPU --> HD 5800's 1600? SPU

That would friggin rock, provided the price points were not substantially higher.

HD 4800's 800 SPU --> HD 5800's 960? SPU

but we may get to see two dies under one IHS, like dualcore cpus.