AMD Radeon HD 6700 Series ''Barts'' Specs Sheet Surfaces

[cheezburger]

Sorry I stopped paying attention after the first line, because it would be pointless. GF104 has 384 CUDA cores, with one SM, 48 SPs being disabled.

Have you read my post at all? Why are you adding A LOT of die area based on linear SP/TMU/etc. increase?? Like I said in GF104 Nvidia added many SPs and TMUs over the hypothetical 66% of a GF100 chip and that did not add any transistor.

I did my numbers too and the resulted die area is 520mm^2. Of course it's almost as arbitrary as yours, but at least is based on the correct number os SP/TMU in GF104 and I'm not basing it on how much area each unit takes ion GF100, because it's not going to be based in GF100... :shadedshu

And just to see how stupid your numbers are, let's calculate Bart and Cayman shall we?

Barts: It's almost a Cypress, except the shaders are 4D instead of 5D. So the shader/tmu area is 80% that of Cypress, everything else being equal.

Cypress was 2xRV770

http://img.chw.net/sitio/breves/200812/23_RV770_900SP.jpg

and as you can see the SP area is like 1/3 the chip. So (336*2/3) + (0.8*336/3) = 313mm^2

Cayman is twice that (or so they say) so: 626mm^2 man that is HUGE!

sry may be a little bit incorrect. ok let's do it again. 384cuda took 70% of die on g104 and 10% on SIMD/TUMU and @)% on rops/bus. then we put these to together and speculate how big fermi 2 will be:

2(367x0.7) + (367x0.1)x1.5 + (367x0.2)x1.5 = 678.95mm^2 x 105%(hard wiring) = 713mm^2

cayman has 60% die space that fill with shader/ALU and 25% for rops/bus and 15% for TMU/SIMD

2(336x 0.6 x0.8) + 2(336 x 0.1) + 2(336x0.25) = 2x 278.88= 557.76mm^2 x 110% hard wiring(512bit bus)= 613mm^2

result...these two are ridiculously big..........

but if cayman is 1920:96:64 +512bit bus instead of double up it will be

1.5(336x0.6x0.8) +1.5(336x0.1) + 2(336x0.25)= 376.32mm^2 x 110% hard wiring for ram/bus optimization (512bit bus)= 413mm^2 for cayman

lets go back to fermi 2 if it's cuda number are 576 instead of crazy 768

1.2(367x0.7) + 1.5(367 x 0.1) + 1.5(336x0.15)= 473.43

which ALU are the reason why gpu can be oversize...

 

[cadaveca]

I would like for him to point out and quote specifically the portion of both pics that shows a bart as a 6800 series...

 

[bear jesus]

It is just really shocking to me for them to exceed Moore's Law by reducing the time to double computational power by half.

It's almost too fast...software has issues keeping up as it is...

As it is now, I hopped on the Eyefinity bandwagon on launch of the 5-series, so I really cannot make any purchases until I see how Eyefinity performs, and if some of the bugs that are left still existing now are gone...this damn corrupting cursor is a real pain in the ass.

I intended to jump on the eyefinity bandwagon with a 5xxx card but i have to admit i'm kind of glad i held off so long, i am hoping that a 6870 might be enough to do eyefinity without going crossfire and by waiting so long that a lot of bugs and compatibility issues may have been worked out.

 

[pantherx12]

I don't know who developed them but witht he 5xxx card's i thought it was said they woudl be using a new cooling tech but then only the 5970 had a vapour chamber but if i remember correctly leaked pictures of a low end 6xxx card's passie cooler had one.

I have to admit i am excited but not just for the 6xxx cards, im excited upbout my next upgrades so that includes the 6xxx and 7xxx cards from amd, the 580 and 680 (assuming) from nvidia, intel's sandy bridge and amd's bulldozer, there is so much next gen hardware coming out over the next year or 2 that will be perfect to replace my current setup and move onto something insanly powerful even if i don't need that much power and then maybe do it again in about a year or so just for fun

5770s had vapour plates too.

But a tiny crappy heatsink ontop

 

[bear jesus]

5770s had vapour plates too.

But a tiny crappy heatsink ontop

ok i admit a vapor chamber is usless unless it is connected to a good fin array, i liked the design of the 5970's vapour chamber and fins, maybe the same thing for a 6870 just with copper fins (yes i know very unlikly)

 

[MrMilli]

Barts: It's almost a Cypress, except the shaders are 4D instead of 5D. So the shader/tmu area is 80% that of Cypress, everything else being equal.

That's not really correct.
They have gone from a 4 simple + 1 complex arrangement to a 4 medium complexity arrangement. So there's no way to know atm how much die area the new 4D ALU will take compared to the old 5D ALU.

 

[jamsbong]

The ATI new processors are called northern islands, right? I mean ATI always had processors with x5 output and now, they shift their focus toward extra DP computing. Thus, the x4 output. you can read this unclear info from semi accurate.

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/09/06/what-amds-northern-islands/

What I'm impressed is that the chip is meant to be a mid-range card with the same number of processors as a 5870 and 256bit mem bandwidth. First thing come to my mind is that the chip could be at least as big as the 5870. But then if ATI wants to sell these stuff cheaply and still make good profit, they need to shrink the size while still using 40nm manufacturing.

So I reckon... Their new Northern island is even smaller than the previous generation of processors. Now thats is something mighty impressive. Semi accurate says something like 80% of the previous gen processor size. Possibly a 334*90% = 301mm^2 ??? still much bigger than the 170mm of juniper though.

AMD's general direction has been to make smaller chip that maintains same performance which result in better energy efficiency and reduced production cost. Bulldozer is a good example where they make 2 CPU into 1.15x size of 1 CPU with minimal compromise in speed.

Overall, I'm really excited about this... and I may be thinking of retiring my loyal 4890 if the 6xxx cards are worthy.

 

[Benetanegia]

That's not really correct.
They have gone from a 4 simple + 1 complex arrangement to a 4 medium complexity arrangement. So there's no way to know atm how much die area the new 4D ALU will take compared to the old 5D ALU.

You missed the part where I said I was going to make an arbitrary calculation. Everything was intended, including when I based it on the RV770, because he based his on GF100, etc.

Bottom line is that it's not as easy as saying double the SPs == double die size, or double that part of the chip, whatever. Like I said, GF104 has much more than 66% of the working units in GF100 put together in 66% of transistors, my point being that SPs themselves, don't take a lot of space and hence a comparatively small 768 SP Nvidia chip is feasible. Figure it out how many they can add through parallelism* until they are close or even mid-way to Ati's number of SPs.

*Ati has parallelism in the SPs 5D, 4D. Nvidia is adding parallelism with superscalar SIMDs, but it works the same way, it adds more throughoutput without adding a lot of transistors, at the expense of some inhefficiency. That's been Ati's architecture for 5 yeasrs already and they are continuing with it, except they are going with 4D now because it's been found over and over again that their average ALU utilization was around 3.6-4.5 all the time.

 

[wahdangun]

snip

please don't discus nv speculation in here, if you wan to make any useless speculation with no real data please create new thread

too much nv fanboy in here that want to derail the thread.


please stay on topic

back to the topic i hope bartpro wont be expensive, and i hope this will push developer to push eye candy a lot further,

 

[CDdude55]

please don't discus nv speculation in here, if you wan to make any useless speculation with no real data please create new thread

too much nv fanboy in here that want to derail the thread.


please stay on topic

back to the topic i hope bartpro wont be expensive, and i hope this will push developer to push eye candy a lot further,

Doubt it, TPU= 88% AMD/ATI ''fans''. A percentage i pulled out my ass, yet close to reality from what i have seen.(if anything it's AMD fans trolling AMD fans lol)

And i agree, i hope it's cheap.

 

[wolf]

oh Benetanegia how I love reading your posts about chip architecture and the likes, and no thats not sarcasm, i genuinely mean it

really good discussion going on here IMO.

 

[bear jesus]

if anything it's AMD fans trolling AMD fans

I think you could be right.

To be honest i'm just hoping that the 6870 does not cost too much, not enough power in those 6770's (yes i know i don't have a clue how well they perform )

 

[wahdangun]

Doubt it, TPU= 88% AMD/ATI ''fans''. A percentage i pulled out my ass, yet close to reality from what i have seen.(if anything it's AMD fans trolling AMD fans lol)

And i agree, i hope it's cheap.

yeah but i'm tiered seeing about that Ati driver was crap, or heard non related nvdia speculation thats don't have any proof in this thread. its just take away the fun

 

[bear jesus]

yeah but i', tiered seeing about that Ati driver was crap, or heard non related nvdia speculation thats don't have any proof in this thread. its just take away the fun

I have to agree as i have had a 4870 since release and not a single driver problem for myself yet i still know there are some problems with some cards and setups just liek with nvidia and this is a thread about the barts spec spec not about nvidias upcoming cards spec or either companys driver issues.

One thing that is annoying me more though is the lack of spec on cayman so far as that is the chip that interests me the most, what makes it worse is for several generations the top end chip has been basicly double the mid range chip and all these barts specs make me wonder if it will be the same this time or something thats cut down to keep power usage in check, i geuss only time will tell.

 

[wahdangun]

I have to agree as i have had a 4870 since release and not a single driver problem for myself yet i still know there are some problems with some cards and setups just liek with nvidia and this is a thread about the barts spec spec not about nvidias upcoming cards spec or either companys driver issues.

One thing that is annoying me more though is the lack of spec on cayman so far as that is the chip that interests me the most, what makes it worse is for several generations the top end chip has been basicly double the mid range chip and all these barts specs make me wonder if it will be the same this time or something thats cut down to keep power usage in check, i geuss only time will tell.

yeah, but you are partially true, HD 4770/ HD 4750 didn't have half the spec, its 80% of HD 4870/50

so maybe the cayman just have 20 % increase in SP, we can't predict it because its too many possibilities and combination, i hope after the bart we can have some info leaked after all cayman was planing to be released on november its just a month a way from bart

 

[bear jesus]

yeah, but you are partially true, HD 4770/ HD 4750 didn't have half the spec, its 80% of HD 4870/50

so maybe the cayman just have 20 % increase in SP, we can't predict it because its too many possibilities and combination, i hope after the bart we can have some info leaked after all cayman was planing to be released on november its just a month a way from bart

Very true and as well the 4670 was less than half of the 4870 so i dont think any chips were exactly half the 4870, i geuss i kind of meant around half without knowing what i was saying

But i think no matter what ati is doing for caymen it will be a nice bump in speed/power and if i'm lucky allow acceptable framerates using eyefinity on a single 6870 (i hope), now to just hope someone hurrys up and starts leaking some specs.

 

[wahdangun]

Very true and as well the 4670 was less than half of the 4870 so i dont think any chips were exactly half the 4870, i geuss i kind of meant around half without knowing what i was saying

But i think no matter what ati is doing for caymen it will be a nice bump in speed/power and if i'm lucky allow acceptable framerates using eyefinity on a single 6870 (i hope), now to just hope someone hurrys up and starts leaking some specs.

yes maybe the next advancement maybe not in eye candy but how many pixel you can get, because to be honest there are too many console port, its really waste of money.

shit why PC games can be ended like this, full of consollities with crap graphic and poorly written games and on top of that a draconian DRM

 

[arroyo]

Why nobody has released XBOX 360 Graphics card yet?
That would be cool to have PCIE-E slot filled with Japer and Xenos chips on PCB. There would be no reason to port console games. We would be playing them on PC.

 

[bear jesus]

yes maybe the next advancement maybe not in eye candy but how many pixel you can get, because to be honest there are too many console port, its really waste of money.

shit why PC games can be ended like this, full of consollities with crap graphic and poorly written games and on top of that a draconian DRM

Well i mainly play source engine games online with friends so although there is not much eye candy (enough for me) it's very easy going on gpu's so i would hope a 6870 would happly run any source engine game (current and future) maxed at 5670x1200 and also because of that i don't normally play many console ports like everyone else seams to be

Why nobody has released XBOX 360 Graphics card yet?
That would be cool to have PCIE-E slot filled with Japer and Xenos chips on PCB. There would be no reason to port console games. We would be playing them on PC.

I don't know, the idea of buying a gpu that's around the ati/amd r500/600 does not sound great to me when i'm thinking about the amd r900 (northern islands) even if it has some edram. i'm happy to just ignore most console ports and play games that are fun to me

 

[pantherx12]

Why nobody has released XBOX 360 Graphics card yet?
That would be cool to have PCIE-E slot filled with Japer and Xenos chips on PCB. There would be no reason to port console games. We would be playing them on PC.

Because no one wants to downgrade

 

[CDdude55]

yeah but i'm tiered seeing about that Ati driver was crap, or heard non related nvdia speculation thats don't have any proof in this thread. its just take away the fun

But isn't that what everyone is doing in this thread?, every other post is speculation or what they would like to see, when someone pointed out the shitty drivers ATI/AMD uses and it's a fact form what people are saying, then that's just the truth, big deal. Are you that much of ''fan'' that as soon as anyone mentions a competitors name in a an AMD thread you assume it's a fanboy trying to derail from your ''fun''?

 

[btarunr]

Why nobody has released XBOX 360 Graphics card yet?

Oh they did. It was called ATI Radeon X1800 XT, and was released in 2005.

 

[mdsx1950]

Oh they did. It was called ATI Radeon X1800 XT, and was released in 2005.

Thats classic.


But very true at the same time.

 

[bear jesus]

Oh they did. It was called ATI Radeon X1800 XT, and was released in 2005.

Exactly, i think most people wouth rather use current hardware to run even bad ports (bad as in say gtaiv that needs way more power to run) with brute force and have the power to max out true pc games.

 

[yogurt_21]

Is this true or not???????

no it is not true and is the most idiotic rumor I've seen in all releases of new products. I've never seen a manufacturer release a new series in the name scheme of the former highend that performed less than it.

that'd be like chevy announcing the new corvette ZR1 and instead it's the 425hp v8 camero. fast sure, but not faster than the 638 hp corvette the market was expecting.

barts is the 6700 series and anyone who says differently is in charlie's pocket.

I would like for him to point out and quote specifically the portion of both pics that shows a bart as a 6800 series...

exactly all that says is that there is a document entitled "HD 6800 Series Lauch Guidelines" in which more details on the nda are listed. it has no bearing on product names, specs, or anything else. It just points you to another document.