GeForce GTX 580

[n0x1ous]

Just like the 990X Intel chip then.

IDC, what are your thoughts on what this 580 might be? I am interested in what your perceptions are as you clearly have followed this industry for much longer than me

ie
a) rebadge, with clockspeed bump
b) dual GF104
c) total rework with more texture units etc etc..

 

[GaiaHunter]

Wow it looks like Charlie got GF100's die size right for a change. It only took 7 months to accidentally admit the chip is smaller than he claimed it was before, during, and after it's launch.

I recommend you to take off those green glasses before reading the following.

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/07/29/miracles-happen-gt300-tapes-out/ :

Miracles happen, GT300 tapes out!
Warning: flying pigs and huge chips
by Charlie Demerjian

July 29, 2009

See July 29 2009.

Back to the chip itself. Our moles say it is 23mm * 23mm, or about 530mm^2, and considering they told us that GT200 was 24*24 months before it came out, we will take their word for it. This puts GT300 almost dead on even between GT200 on 65nm and GT200 on 55nm. If you recall all those charts about alleged GT300 sizes and specs floating months ago, we will say the same thing we said then, complete fabrications.

For those that don't know or forgot GF100 die size is 529 mm^2

So more than 1 year later you still refuse to acknowledge Charlie was right about the GF100 die size?

I guess while Charlie has a problem with NVIDIA some people really have a problem with him.

Or are you bashing Fudo too because he kept saying GF100 would be out before the end of 2009?

 

[Idontcare]

IDC, what are your thoughts on what this 580 might be? I am interested in what your perceptions are as you clearly have followed this industry for much longer than me

ie
a) rebadge, with clockspeed bump
b) dual GF104
c) total rework with more texture units etc etc..

Any of the above and maybe a little of all of the above?

Seriously. Option (c) is guaranteed to be in the works. The only question regarding option (c) is when we will get the opportunity to buy option (c) at Newegg.

The timing of option (c) will determine whether we consumers get left with the impression that it was intended to compete with HD6xxx or merely be the mid-life kicker that displaces GTX4xx inasmuch as HD6xxx is intended to displace HD5xxx.

Options (a) and (b) probably could have been rolled out anytime in the past 3-4 months if Nvidia felt compelled to do so. Kinda like how Intel probably could have released a 990X 4 months ago if they wanted, or AMD could have released a HD5890 if they felt it would have made a compelling impact to their EPS.

So I wouldn't be surprised if option (a) and (b) show up this fall if the timing for option (c) really is shaping up to be Q1'11 instead of Q4'10.

But just as the likelihood of an HD5890 has now gone to zero with the impending release of HD6xxx SKU's, the liklihood of Nvidia releasing SKU's that embody option (a) or (b) will go to zero the closer we get to Q1'11 (which imo is the latest likely date that Nvidia would be targeting to release their 40nm mid-life kicker).

Is that wishy-washy enough of an answer for ya :biggrin:

Cliffs: Option (c) is happening, period, only question is whether option (c) happens soon enough to internally negate the perceived market relevance of pursuing options (a) and (b).

 

[n0x1ous]

Any of the above and maybe a little of all of the above?

Seriously. Option (c) is guaranteed to be in the works. The only question regarding option (c) is when we will get the opportunity to buy option (c) at Newegg.

The timing of option (c) will determine whether we consumers get left with the impression that it was intended to compete with HD6xxx or merely be the mid-life kicker that displaces GTX4xx inasmuch as HD6xxx is intended to displace HD5xxx.

Options (a) and (b) probably could have been rolled out anytime in the past 3-4 months if Nvidia felt compelled to do so. Kinda like how Intel probably could have released a 990X 4 months ago if they wanted, or AMD could have released a HD5890 if they felt it would have made a compelling impact to their EPS.

So I wouldn't be surprised if option (a) and (b) show up this fall if the timing for option (c) really is shaping up to be Q1'11 instead of Q4'10.

But just as the likelihood of an HD5890 has now gone to zero with the impending release of HD6xxx SKU's, the liklihood of Nvidia releasing SKU's that embody option (a) or (b) will go to zero the closer we get to Q1'11 (which imo is the latest likely date that Nvidia would be targeting to release their 40nm mid-life kicker).

Is that wishy-washy enough of an answer for ya :biggrin:

Cliffs: Option (c) is happening, period, only question is whether option (c) happens soon enough to internally negate the perceived market relevance of pursuing options (a) and (b).

That's the kind of insight I was looking for. Thank You for the response.

 

[GaiaHunter]

If part X from company A gets delayed, in no way does that mean part Y is also going to be delayed. Different teams, different parts of the design process.

And just because AMD has some product launch scheduled for October NVIDIA has to have one as well?

Not saying NVIDIA wont be releasing a refresh of the GF100 line (or based on the GF104) but it is also a fact that NVIDIA refreshes since at least the GF 7 have included a node shrink - G70 110nm -> G71 90nm; G80 90nm -> G92 65nm; GT200 65nm -> GT200b 55nm.

Of course that NVIDIA generally (since Geforce FX) didn't release a new generation in a new node and that changed with GF100. On the other hand even the GT200b was gigantic to start with.

 

[Grooveriding]

And in truth it is actually a mode of operation that is shared by virtually all industries - be it technology, refrigerators, autos, ship-building, road-repairs, etc.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a business that operates profitably without having embraced parallelism in virtually every aspect of their business units (from manufacturing to R&D).

The reason I suspect we encounter a fair number of forum members who don't comprehend this reality is that, and this is just a guess, these folks simply haven't been exposed to or experienced the aspects of life that bring them to realize the reality of today's business.

I'm not making it an age or maturity thing, but they do tend to be correlated.

If you don't work as a professional, having lived long enough to accumulate the education and the experience it requires, then you probably haven't been exposed to the realities of how businesses operate in pretty much any industry and as such the preconceptions you have in your mind in terms of how they operate are limited by your life experiences which may be little more than the environment at high school or working the floor at Frys.

The point being that it isn't fair to your fellow forum members to expect them to know things they have no way of knowing about, just as it isn't fair to yourself to expect these things to need go without saying and finding yourself frustrated having to repeat them for each new "generation" of forum members.

Think about how often we have the "its econ 101 people, simple supply vs. demand" threads and discussions.

That discussion will happen every year as new members join until the forums no longer exist. So too, I suspect, will the "product development happens in parallel, not serial" discussions. It may be old news, and frequently discussed new, to you but I'd be willing to bet its the first time they've heard of it or spent any time really contemplating it.

I think everyone works in an environment that has 'multiple teams' and parallelism is a commonly thrown about concept in current business. That does not necessarily lend its self to the situation you see in firms that design processors where one team is working on one iteration of the product for X release date while the other team is working on a different iteration of the same product for X+1year release date being a circumstance you find in any production business.

In the industry I work in we have hundreds of different teams in hundreds of different locations around the world all working on different projects or different aspects of the same project. Once we complete development, we do not start on an improved revision of the same product. It's create one product and then make something else or carry on with a different project that is not yet completed.

Granted the development term of our products is much longer than a technology product due to both regulation, complexity and market conditions, but I give this example to show that different industries are just that, different. Some people will not come from that perspective and not be aware. It's not so simple as being young or working at McDonalds.

Technology firms like Intel or AMD or Nvidia are for the most part, one-trick ponies, Nvidia standing out the most as fitting this classification. They make one thing and then improve on it and make the same thing but better. Not every industry fits this mold, albeit it is common in the technology field where there are always new models around the corner, whether it be next year's HDTV, Blu-Ray player or video card.

 

[taltamir]

Just like the 990X Intel chip then.

pretty much, yes
To quote bill gates "this is just sound business practices"... Re badging is disappointing to me as an enthusiast, but it is a very sound business decision.