SemiAccurate Forums  

 
Go Back   SemiAccurate Forums > Main Category > GPUs

GPUs Talk about graphics, cards, chips and technologies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-17-2010, 11:33 AM
integrated integrated is offline
2^10
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,425
integrated will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandrey View Post
Agreed. If drivers improve performance on VLIW4, which is very likely, a 768sp part would be on par or even better than Barts Pro. Normally, overlapping products is not desirable. So a 10 SIMD (640sp) Turks makes more sense, in a way that it would be cheaper to manufacture and would align better on product portfolio. I only disagree with the Pro variant, I believe they will disable only 1 SIMD, regardless of the total amount, just as they did with smaller Evergreen chips (Juniper and Redwood).
Don't the Cayman-family (dual-graphics architecture) need to add SIMDs in pairs?

How many parts will they be squeezing into the low-end anyway?

6700 seems obvious below Barts @ 640. Could sell at 139-179.
6600 @ 512, using weak parts from 6700 would still be much faster than Llano in the high-volume 100-120 zone.
6500 @ 384 should still beat Llano significantly, especially considering BW, and sell shedloads at <$100.
6400 @ 256 (weak 6500s?) as the low-end retail part.
6300 @ 128 as the ultimate OEM special, or would AMD bother making something smaller?
Aren't the cards more expensive than the GPUs at this point?

5-chip lineup? Seems like a lot...

Last edited by integrated; 12-17-2010 at 11:51 AM. Reason: clarity
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-17-2010, 12:33 PM
eRacer eRacer is offline
8-bit overflow
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 395
eRacer is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by integrated View Post
6700 seems obvious below Barts @ 640. Could sell at 139-179.
Radeon 6950 has 12% fewer shaders than the Radeon 5870 and are roughly equal performance.
Turks @ 640 would have 20% fewer shaders than Radeon 5770 so why would Turks be worth purchasing over a cheaper 5770?

The way the 6000 series has turned out Turks 6770 could be 640SP and a bit slower than the 5770. That would certainly fit the pattern of 6870<5870 and 6970<5970.
__________________

Primary System: Athlon II X4 635 - Radeon HD 5770
Secondary System: Core 2 Duo E6850 - GeForce GTX 460
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-17-2010, 04:28 PM
fusion fusion is offline
640k who needs more?
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 745
fusion is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eRacer View Post
Radeon 6950 has 12% fewer shaders than the Radeon 5870 and are roughly equal performance.
Turks @ 640 would have 20% fewer shaders than Radeon 5770 so why would Turks be worth purchasing over a cheaper 5770?

The way the 6000 series has turned out Turks 6770 could be 640SP and a bit slower than the 5770. That would certainly fit the pattern of 6870<5870 and 6970<5970.
The 6850 is also clocked 50mhz slower than the 5870. Drivers will probably be more optimized when it comes out too. Though personally i think it'll still be a VLIW5 chip with a smaller die but same performance as juniper.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-17-2010, 04:42 PM
Drunkenmaster Drunkenmaster is offline
640k who needs more?
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 954
Drunkenmaster will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eRacer View Post
Radeon 6950 has 12% fewer shaders than the Radeon 5870 and are roughly equal performance.
Turks @ 640 would have 20% fewer shaders than Radeon 5770 so why would Turks be worth purchasing over a cheaper 5770?

The way the 6000 series has turned out Turks 6770 could be 640SP and a bit slower than the 5770. That would certainly fit the pattern of 6870<5870 and 6970<5970.
Why would the 5770 be cheaper, thats the flaw in your assumption.

Cypress to barts, efficiency, 30% smaller MUCH cheaper to make. Heres a hint, a 640 Shader "barts" type core would be MUCH much smaller than a 5770.

LIkewise the 1120 shader Barts is very close to the 1600 shader Cypress, which has over 40% more shaders. 640 x1.4=circa 900 shaders. It would well be faster, much faster in tesselation benchmarks and signficantly smaller meaning they can price it cheaper or similar price for more performance. Considering yields, die size and power it should be pretty easy to be smaller, faster and have higher clocks while hitting the same TDP, it could be 15-20% faster and still 30% + cheaper to make for AMD.

At this stage it looks increasingly likely Cayman took a LOT of time, effort and money to test at 40nm, the lower parts of the line will almost certain be "barts" based and focus on efficiency, increasing performance/mm2, and fitting in against Nvidia's "fixed" cores via lowered costs or improved performance, see where they all end up basically.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-17-2010, 05:33 PM
eRacer eRacer is offline
8-bit overflow
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 395
eRacer is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunkenmaster View Post
Why would the 5770 be cheaper, thats the flaw in your assumption.
Radeon 5770 is already selling for under the $139-$179 suggested price I was replying to.

Quote:
Cypress to barts, efficiency, 30% smaller MUCH cheaper to make. Heres a hint, a 640 Shader "barts" type core would be MUCH much smaller than a 5770.

LIkewise the 1120 shader Barts is very close to the 1600 shader Cypress, which has over 40% more shaders. 640 x1.4=circa 900 shaders. It would well be faster, much faster in tesselation benchmarks and signficantly smaller meaning they can price it cheaper or similar price for more performance. Considering yields, die size and power it should be pretty easy to be smaller, faster and have higher clocks while hitting the same TDP, it could be 15-20% faster and still 30% + cheaper to make for AMD.
I was replying to someone who believed Turks would be VLIW4, unlike Barts.

Also, Radeon 5770 isn't Cypress. Cypress with 1600 SPs isn't twice as fast as Radeon 5770 with 800 SPs (and only half the memory bandwidth). So you can throw out a good share of your Barts vs. Radeon 5870 efficiency advantage because Juniper is also more efficient than Cypress.
__________________

Primary System: Athlon II X4 635 - Radeon HD 5770
Secondary System: Core 2 Duo E6850 - GeForce GTX 460
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-17-2010, 06:09 PM
integrated integrated is offline
2^10
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,425
integrated will become famous soon enough
Default

If Turks goes with VLIW4, it will likely run with 768 shaders.

I was trying to puzzle out the market segmenting AMD will use and I got in over my head
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-17-2010, 10:20 PM
charlie charlie is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,326
charlie has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandrey View Post
I will bet on half Cayman.

768 sp on Turks XT and 720sp on Turks Pro.

Still, I don't want to bet on the name just yet. Who knows if turks will the 6700 or 6600 series?
No, Cayman is the only VLIW4 chip until 28nm.

-Charlie
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-17-2010, 10:31 PM
Anyone's Avatar
Anyone Anyone is offline
8-bit overflow
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Biel/Bienne, Switzerland
Posts: 315
Anyone is on a distinguished road
Default

So, if Turks is a 28-nm pipecleaner as that is the obviously hanging fruit, it will have VLIW-4 shader, right? 1/2 Cayman?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-18-2010, 12:38 AM
eRacer eRacer is offline
8-bit overflow
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 395
eRacer is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anyone View Post
So, if Turks is a 28-nm pipecleaner as that is the obviously hanging fruit, it will have VLIW-4 shader, right? 1/2 Cayman?
Turks is scheduled for Q1 2011 which seems early for 28-nm. If I had to guess it will be 640SP, VLIW5, 40-nm. According to Turks location on this roadmap it will be slower than the Radeon 5770.
__________________

Primary System: Athlon II X4 635 - Radeon HD 5770
Secondary System: Core 2 Duo E6850 - GeForce GTX 460
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-18-2010, 01:37 AM
sulphademus's Avatar
sulphademus sulphademus is offline
640k who needs more?
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 725
sulphademus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerdmaster View Post
Yeah probably 6700 series. Maybe fusion needs naming space hence amd has to name their cards in a weird manner.
May be weird but AMD's is a $#%^ton better than Intel's scheme.


Quote:
Originally Posted by integrated View Post
Don't the Cayman-family (dual-graphics architecture) need to add SIMDs in pairs?

How many parts will they be squeezing into the low-end anyway?

6700 seems obvious below Barts @ 640. Could sell at 139-179.
6600 @ 512, using weak parts from 6700

5-chip lineup? Seems like a lot...
Sounds about right to me. I would think a smaller chip than Juniper but maybe 10% quicker?

There is still a market for low end GPUs. It will be a while before Intel's actuallyfinallywortha************ graphics and AMD's Evergreen based APUs become ubiquitous. The market will start shrinking in 2011 and probably be nill by 2015. Until then you will still have some people buying for prior systems.

Which island is under Turks again? Probably VLIW5 160 SPs.

EDIT: And 2015 is when AMD aims to finally exterminate the DB15 VGA port. Hmmm...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 265586888 View Post
AMD's secrecy about Radeon HD 6000 series should be given an award, I think.
Intel i7 860@3.4GHz | Mushkin 8GB 1600DDR3 | HD6970 | 3x 22" Samsung | WD 300GB Raptor | Thermaltake 775w PSU | Antec 300 case | Logitech Z5500

"With as many margaritas as we buy I dont think we can afford children, honey" - Bill Hicks

Last edited by sulphademus; 12-18-2010 at 01:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
6770, amd, turks, vliw4, vliw5

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SemiAccurate is a division of Stone Arch Networking Services, Inc. Copyright 2009 Stone Arch Networking Services, Inc, all rights reserved.