Skurge
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2009
- 5,195
- 1
- 71
Apparently the memory bus is the hardest thing to scale down. That is, if we pretend that shaders can be scaled down linearly with the process size, the memory bus wouldn't scale linearly. Thus it costs a lot more to do 384-bit than 256-bit (not to mention you'd have to add more memory chips, and PCB complexity increases)
Actually, AMD is 1600/5 = 320 SIMDs
Shader groups matter in real world benchmarks because apparently, it was extremely hard to feed AMD's 5-way configuration. In fact, it was rumored that internal benchmarks showed that the 5-way was only being used 80% of the time - meaning the 1600SP Cypress acted more like it was a 1280 SP card. Synthetic benchmarks, coded specifically to use all 5, however, were able to utilize the 1600
Going to 4D apparently puts it VERY close to the equivalent in 5D - meaning that a 320 SIMD 4D configuration is very close to the 320 SIMD 5-way config currently existing.
Thus SIMD count matters a lot.. going from 320 -> 480 is a 50% increase
And apparently a more real slide:
![]()
Nice, it says November 18 2010 at the bottom.

