• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

ATI talks R5XX

xexex

Banned
http://beyond3d.com/#news17745

ATI Talks R5xx
01-Nov-2004, 12:10.41 Reporter : DaveBaumann
Following the release of the Mercury Market share figures, ATI held an Analyst conference last week in which numerous point of ATI's business were discussed. Reports indicate that following the meeting Goldman Sachs have come back with numerous impressions of ATI's R5xx series, some of which are inline with elements that we've discussed before.

The reports state that ATI have confirmed they are due to launch their new architecture, the basis of the R5xx series, in the first half of 2005. Goldman also believes the architecture to be based on Shader 3.0 and be very focused on the memory interface and bus. The expectation is that GDDR4 memory technology will ramp in production in late 2005 and the memory interface will be compatible with it and be designed to scale to speeds of 1.2GHz (2.4GHz effective) over its lifetime.

Goldman also state that checks indicate that ATI have already taped out the products on TSMC's 90nm node. This goes against ATI's previous public statements that they were loath to transition to a new architecture at the same time as moving to a new process, especially as there appear to be no other products yet produced at 90nm from ATI - reports suggest that the high end product refreshes for R480 and R430 will utilise 130nm low-k and 110nm respectively. However, this is inline with ATI's CEO, Dave Orton's comments that they weren't sure how producible their Shader 3.0 architecture would be on 130nm and that they were looking to 90nm for it.

Interestingly Goldman also suggests that the first part may have a "relatively smaller die size" - presumably this is in comparison to R420. Moving from 130nm to 90nm can reduce die size by about 50% for a similar architecture, however ATI have previously suggested that the move from FP24 to FP32, as dictated for by Shader Model 3.0 for full precision in the Fragment Pipeline, would result in a 25% increase in transistors alone for the fragment shader ALU’s. Seeing as the fragment shaders are part of the largest element of the die, and the extra features for SM3.0, such as vertex texturing, will require many more transistors, it will be interesting to see what the performance composition will be like when it is ultimately announced. Should 90nm yields be favourable, though, a smaller die size could result in greater availability - an issue that has evidently plagued all high end parts based on 130nm in the current cycle.

I expect R5xx processors to have:

SM 3.0 of course
FP32
24-32 pipes
GDDR4
256-Bit bus
eDRAM
 

marsomega

Member
This makes sense if you consider the speculations that the R480 and R430 aren't really performance upgrades but rather a change in production process. In other words, better yields then the R420 and cheaper.

If you take those speculations as truth, then its understandable why the R5XX is being introduced Q1. We all knew the R420 was an uber refresh of the R3XX (testament to what a great design that was.) This positions the new chip against the NV4X refreshes.

The NV5X will without a doubt not be launched untill 2006. I highly doubt late 2005. This should be interesting to say the least, as the R5XX was what should of been R400 which would of competed head to head with the NV4X series. (Claimed too advanced thus held back.)

ATI could make a killing again, just like it did when it launched the R3XX against Nvidia's NV2X. (Launching the R3XX line against the NV2X refreshes.)
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
MrparisSM said:
This is the core tech that will be in Xenon and Revolution correct? Or will it be to expensive?

It has been speculated that xbox will use a r5xx derivative, or custom version of the r5xx. revolution is less clear. Certainly, it'd be cheap enough by the end of 2005 to be included in xenon - it'd probably be relatively cheaper for them to include this than it was for them to include the geforce 3 derivative in xbox.
 
Top Bottom