Friday, August 29th 2008

NVIDIA Could Ready HD 4670 Competitor

GPU Café published information on future competition lineups., which shows the entry of a "GeForce 9550 GT" stacked up against the Radeon HD 4670. Sources in the media have pointed to the the possibility that the the RV730 based HD 4670 from ATI outperforms NVIDIA cards in its current lineup, relative to the segments where GeForce 9500 GT sits. The HD 4650 could exchange a few blows with the GeForce 9500 GT with equal or better levels of performance while the HD 4670 surpasses it.

The entry of a GeForce 9550 GT shows the 9500 GT cannot compete with the HD 4650, a newer price demographic of ~ $129 is shown in that chart that not only indicates prices, but also shows the HD 4650's lead over 9500 GT is so significant that ATI could be comfortable with asking you $20 more than what 9500 GT asks, relative to the range. GPU Café reports that the 9550 GT would be a toned-down (and shrunk) G94, as in the 55 nm G94b, featuring 64 shader processors and a 192-bit memory bus (and presumably, memory configurations such as 384 MB or 768 MB of GDDR3 memory).


Source: GPU Café
Add your own comment

58 Comments on NVIDIA Could Ready HD 4670 Competitor

#1
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Calm down people, just make your point and leave it at that.
Posted on Reply
#2
DarkMatter
btarunr said:
Calm down people, just make your point and leave it at that.
I'm just wondering if ignorant and ignorance have a very different and despective meaning or magnitude in english. I just want to say "lack of knowledge" when I say them and didn't find other word that engloved the whole idea. If they are despective and really offensive, then sorry. Sorry MrMilli for calling you ignorant, but you have to admit you lack the basic knowledge on many things. I'll try to find a better way to express it.
Posted on Reply
#3
MrMilli
Nice stuff you write there but the fact is that 55nm is an optical shrink.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20070328080802.html

... has announced 55nm process technology, an optical shrink for its 65nm fabrication process, ... TSMC’s 55nm process technology is a 90% linear-shrink process from 65nm including I/O and analog circuits.

So you are right, G92 to G92b is an optical shrink. That's what 55nm is all about!

PS: your first link is a DDR2 9500GT!
That 9600GT will cost you $109. And if you get the rebate, it will become $79. That can take months. But rebates are temporary. They don't change retail prices on permanent basis.
Posted on Reply
#4
DarkMatter
MrMilli said:
Nice stuff you write there but the fact is that 55nm is an optical shrink.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20070328080802.html

... has announced 55nm process technology, an optical shrink for its 65nm fabrication process, ... TSMC’s 55nm process technology is a 90% linear-shrink process from 65nm including I/O and analog circuits.

So you are right, G92 to G92b is an optical shrink. That's what 55nm is all about!

PS: your first link is a DDR2 9500GT!
That 9600GT will cost you $109. And if you get the rebate, it will become $79. That can take months. But rebates are temporary. They don't change retail prices on permanent basis.
Sorry man, but again you fail to demostrate any bit of intelligence. 55nm, the process, IS an optical shrink of 65nm, meaning there's no other changes like the compounds, chemicals used, etc. BUT is it that hard to understand that when you fab on a smaller process, you can get rid of many things that you need on the bigger one just to stabilize the chip, give it the proper voltage throughthe whole chip, etc? :banghead:

No changes were made to G92b, they just took the chip and made photocopy that was 40% smaller. That's exactly why I said that G92B is just an optical shrink of G92. G92 on the other hand was much more than a shrink of the G80.

Anyway, forget about everything. It's like talking to a wall or a 3 years old kid who doesn't care about the lesson. :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#5
MrMilli
Yes Darkmatter, you know best. Actually you know even better than TSMC. How can i be that stupid. Jesus ...

Like i said in my previous post and it comes straight from TSMC's whitepaper:
TSMC’s 55nm process technology is a 90% linear-shrink process from 65nm including I/O and analog circuits.

http://www.beyond3d.com/content/news/529
I'll quote: TSMC's 55nm process is a 10% linear shrink of 65nm in each dimension, or 19% overall.
80nm was also a 19% shrink, but it did not affect analogue and I/O. This means the scaling wasn't as good as 55nm's in practice.


TSMC's white papers (or any other document for that matter) don't state anything about a reduction in repeaters, so please show me proof. And when we're talking about a reduction of only 19% then power distribution doesn't change that much, specially when both ATI and nVidia increase the frequency of their chips. In their situation power stays on the same level.

Don't mix up theory with facts. And will the admin be so kind and just close this thread. It's been enough.
Posted on Reply
#6
DarkMatter
I'm going to cumpliment your wish by sending PM. We should have done that long time ago, anyway.
Posted on Reply
#7
zithe
candle_86 said:
then explain to me one thing please, why does the R700 and RV770 preform more like a 64sp card than a 320sp card. The reason is only one of those ALU's is a complex shader, 64 of those are simple the rest arn't even related to shader work actully. And very few games use simple shaders because its harder to program for 2 types of shaders than just one.
R600/R670 you mean? Divide 320 by 5 and what do you get? 3870 has only 64 shaders. They each have 5 shader units. That explains what you're saying.

4870 has 800 'SPU' right? Divide 800 by 5. That's 160. It seems that if ATI decided to slap 300 shaders in their next card and uberclock them, it'd give a MASSIVE boost over the previous generation. Rambling..

This has all probably been said lol..
Posted on Reply
#8
DarkMatter


As you can see except the G80 vs. G92 all of them are pretty close to the theroretical relation. The reason for G80 to fail to the "rule" is that G80 had the video decoding on a sister chip, so it's difficlt to know if the arrangement of the chip is similar. For instance the video decoding "chip" could be just sitting by the side of the GPU in G92 instead of being completely integrated, occupying much more space that would create a gap that could lead to the error. Still the relation is close enough to the theory to "prove" the numbers given at Beyond3D as usual difference were wrong. IMO what they say there applies better to CPUs, because the logic is much smaller in comparison to the rest of the chip.

G94 and RV770 were added to test if number of transistor to chip size relation was consistent enough within the same fab process, so that relation can then be added to the comparison between processes. IMO it's good enough to make a fair guesstimate, and make all other comparisons legitimate.

I'm going to try to make that chart bigger, but other chips are harder to find. Feel free to link sites where transistor count and size of other chips are available.

Cheers.
Posted on Reply