backtop

Hardware AMD Preps "R600" Die-shrink
Gabriel Ikram (Blog) - September 27, 2007 11:04 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 48 comment(s) - last by murphyslabrat.. on Oct 1 at 1:37 PM

The non-working MSI RV670 sample with heatsink.  (Source: Coolaler.com)

Although the GPU is a non-working shuttle, the memory layout still sheds some hints on ATI's plans for RV670.  (Source: Coolaler.com )
New ATI documents and images shed more light on AMD's newest processor core

AMD continues to develop its new RV670-based cards in the wake of the recent AMD ATI Radeon HD 2900 PRO release. The RV670 GPU is the current code name for a mid-range graphics core slated to fill the gap between the current Radeon HD 2600 and Radeon HD 2900 offerings. 

On the surface the RV670 core is very similar to the R600 core featured on Radeon HD 2900, though where the R600 was manufactured on TSMC's 80nm process, RV670 will feature a 55nm process node.

According to early board partners, including MSI, the GPU comes clocked at 600MHz and features 320 stream processors -- the same featured on the Radeon HD 2900 series. However, test boards make use of 256MB of Hynix GDDR3 900MHz memory -- R600-based boards feature 512MB and 1GB GDDR3 or GDDR4.

Photographs of the card show a single-slot cooler. Despite the single-slot cooler, the card is quite large and appears to require a 6-pin PCIe connector. 

AMD guidance claims the RV670 die includes integrated Shader Model 4.1 capability along with PCI Express 2.0 support.  Corporate guidance does not mention support for Crossfire, but newest images of the card clearly reveal interconnects across the top of the board found on other Crossfire cards.

As of right now the card is expected to make its way into AMD’s lineup in Q1 2008.  Vendors have not issued pricing for the card, partially due to the fact NVIDIA is also expected to launch new high-end adaptors before the end of the year.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
What the heck
By Polynikes on 9/27/2007 12:17:17 PM , Rating: 4
Why don't they make a high-end enthusiast card with the die-shrink? Maybe then they'd give Nvidia a run for their money.




RE: What the heck
By m3rdpwr on 9/27/2007 12:32:34 PM , Rating: 5
My guess is because mainstream parts sell much more.
High end cards are a niche market.

The die shrink on mainstream cards would be more profitable and perhaps they could lower the price as well...

Just my thoughts...

-Mario


RE: What the heck
By ira176 on 9/28/2007 2:07:08 AM , Rating: 2
Mario,
I agree that a die shrink will surely increase profitablity for AMD and they should still be able to make a profit with a fairly priced card which performs well. My other thought on this is that, I hope that they will include the Unified Video Decoder on the chip for dedicated HD video playback.


RE: What the heck
By herrdoktor330 on 9/29/2007 10:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
I second that about the HD Playback!

Just as long as they're not forgetting to work on their linux drivers while they do this. I know that the open source driver issue isn't exactly associated with this topic, but I hope they don't forget about that one. I'd be more apt to buy ATI if they had better linux drivers. I've been their customer before when I bought a 9800 pro card. I'd be more than happy to buy their product again and once this generation of the product is refined, I will consider buying again.


RE: What the heck
By JAB on 9/27/2007 12:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt they can compete on the top end yet but if they pull off that die shrink it will be serious competition for the mainstream market. Not exciting but Both Nvidia and ATI have learned the lesson of not bringing out new top end cards and a die shrink at the same time the hard way. That is rarely pretty.


RE: What the heck
By murphyslabrat on 9/27/2007 12:59:44 PM , Rating: 3
What would save AMD's graphical neck (as opposed to a text one?) is not a top-end card, that 2% of consumers will purchase (wild guess), but a better price-performance competitor. You have here a card that, while cheaper, performs relatively well, and you succeed. And, at least for mainstream games, 256MB is not that bad, especially if they're going to be selling at $200-ish. A 256-bit BUS? A rumor, but would still be ~okay~. I would expect more, but still...

I, for one, had been planning a March '08 system-rebuild, for which this aught to be perfect. Maybe I will be able to get a decent computer for $700.


RE: What the heck
By wordsworm on 9/27/2007 1:49:48 PM , Rating: 5
You're missing a big part of the equation. While your logic is sound on the basis of a smart consumer, that smart consumer is probably between 2~5% of the market (my own wild guess). They only listen for one thing: who has the best ( fill in the blank ). They then assume that that's the company to buy from, regardless of whether they're picking a high or low end product. My boss is about to open a new English academy (for about 200-300 students), and a part of that includes a small computer room containing 8 computers for the students. He thinks he ought to buy Intel machines because they're the best. On the low end, anyone who's an enthusiast (I don't necessarily mean the high end - could be the low end) knows that AMD has that market. It's possible to buy an AMD Sempron 3000+ (39 watts) machine for about $150 with 512MB of RAM, 80GB hard drive, motherboard with video built in. The alternative is a much inferior Celeron. That Celeron (89 watts) will cost, per computer (based on 12 hour per day usage), about an additional $10-15 per year because of the difference in power usage. Furthermore, that AMD chip will outperform its Celeron competitor (if someone has stats to prove me wrong, please, by all means - I haven't actually tested them. I'm just going on 'gut instinct' The Sempron was peppy on basic MS productivity software, whereas the Celeron always seems to drag its feet).

He has a friend who's big on networks and he's an IT guy. This guy can run circles around me in probably every area except hardware. (He didn't even believe me when I was mentioning a then 3 week old 8600 Nvidia series). He just tells him that Intel and Nvidia have the best platforms. While this is true on the high end, it's not so clean cut on the low end. We all know that AMD rules the bottom. I have an Intel E2160 at work and an AMD BE2350 at home, and the integer calculations are about 10% faster on the AMD, and 40% faster on floating point, all for about the same cost (about $82 Intel - 89 watts - and $85 for AMD - 45 watts) and much lower watt consumption. That $3 dollar difference will be eaten up in about 3 months. My computer will last me probably 3 years, and so that amount adds up to $36, not to mention the air conditioning months which again adds about $3 for about $9 to the life span of my machine. That $45 might not seem like much to most folks here, but it counts in my book. With that money I can buy the blue ray/HDVD combo player when it comes out for $99 at Walmart in about 6 years. :)

Being an enthusiast isn't always about what's the best at the high end, it's about getting the best for the money that you're ready to spend. People like us, the enthusiast, are keen on this, but the majority of the people, though buying on a lower end than I do, only pay attention to the few words they hear about the high end.

My point is whoever has the best stuff wins bragging rights that win customers who are ignorant. My boss will never even consider buying a mid end machine, let alone a high end machine. Regardless, he's itching for a Celeron because his friend tells him Intel or Nvidia makes the best chips. He's not a minority, he is just one of many lemmings. It might sound like I am disrespecting him, but he's a pretty smart guy. He just isn't an enthusiast like I am. I will probably be able to save him from his mistake. He's cheaper than I am.


RE: What the heck
By murphyslabrat on 9/27/2007 2:02:39 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
He's not a minority, he is just one of many lemmings.

It is true, you are right. And, I guess, it's just part of getting things done. Unfortunately for AMD, it means they're screwed either path they go.

On the flip side, the same Lemming mentality did get AMD 60% of the oem graphics market because of "Full-featured HDMI," that happens to include the exact same sound chip as is on modern mobos.

So, lemme change my previous statement: I am glad AMD went this way, so that I can get a better video card for my money. ;j


RE: What the heck
By plewis00 on 9/27/2007 4:03:22 PM , Rating: 3
Whilst this is obviously massively off-topic from the AMD die-shrink discussion - you state the Celeron has a large power dissipation of 89W, this is wrong firstly, even for the Celeron D (Cedar Mill) which was rated at 65W. Anyway, these days the current Celeron chip is the 4xx-series based on the Conroe-L core and hence the Core architecture. It's rated at 35W and will slap the Sempron into oblivion within that price bracket. It's also cheap, priced between $40 and $60 depending on the model.

I don't know where you are producing this 89W figure from but it's wrong, for both the current Celeron line-up and Pentium Dual-Core E2xxx series, it's 35W and 65W TDP. So for one of the first times in this industry, Intel should have some kind of right to the lower-end market. As for your BE chip, all it is is a binned chip, you can undervolt the Core 2 chips as well and get a similar result.


RE: What the heck
By wordsworm on 9/28/2007 6:51:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whilst this is obviously massively off-topic from the AMD die-shrink discussion
I was mostly discussing customer psychology and how having the top notch product has an effect for all sales on the broad spectrum, and not just on the top tier. This was in response to the previous post suggesting that people would see the true value in the AMD product because of its merit. I counter argued that the merit in the component never really reaches the mind of the consumer.

As far as comparing Sempron to Celeron, I'd be interested in reading comparisons between the 2. I did a fair amount of searching for good information.


RE: What the heck
By murphyslabrat on 9/29/2007 4:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you state the Celeron has a large power dissipation of 89W, this is wrong firstly, even for the Celeron D (Cedar Mill) which was rated at 65W.

I am not going to argue the merit of either method, but AMD and intel use different states of usage to find the TDP, or ?total disipated power?. AMD measures absolute stress, where Intel measures maximum normal stress. And, an AMD TDP of 89 watts is about the same as an Intel rating of 65 watts. It is not exact, but it is fairly close.

Again, I am not arguing merit, but that is where he was coming from (or at least what I assumed Wordsworm to be talking about).


RE: What the heck
By coldpower27 on 9/28/2007 9:11:16 AM , Rating: 2
I am curious where you got the information for the Celeron as it is just plain wrong in terms of power consumption. Intel doesn't have 89W TDP's for it's desktop processors that is a AMD TDP value.

It's also perfectly possible to buy a cheap system for Intel using a cheap Celeron.

Celeron 420 45USD
80GB GD 37USD
G31 Chipset 70USD
512MB DDR2 15USD.

The AMD Sempron has a TDP of 62W at least is I remember correctly. You would have to show me a direct link for proof if your talking about the SFF Sempron models. The SFF models in general are pretty rare, you can find the 45W or 62W stuff pretty easily.

The pricing of the BE-2350 and E2160 are fairly comparable I can agree in retail, as I just cross verified it on Newegg which has both processors.

The difference between the E2160 and BE-2350 is only 20W in terms of thermal design power, however real world testing shows there isn't much of a difference once you compare them on the same platform.

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/12872

As shown there the E4300, (which is the the same core as the E2160 but has the rest of the cache activated) is only 4-7W away depending which situation your looking at.

Don't try to impress your ideals on others or how you spend money as the only right way, people who buy the best want the best and are willing to pay for it. Not to mention Nvidia and ATI know having a strong high end has the effect of filtering that perception to the mainstream.


RE: What the heck
By Melted Rabbit on 9/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: What the heck
By murphyslabrat on 9/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: What the heck
By wordsworm on 9/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: What the heck
By Lord Banshee on 9/27/2007 2:41:20 PM , Rating: 5
Thats not High End that is Pro End... I hope you know that?

FireGL series are doing very well this generation but the topic is about gamer cards which FireGLs do no difference than its Radeon counter parts in games. CAD applications bottlenecks are not in shaders.

As stated above, ATI does not have any card as fast as the 8800Ultra in the gaming world.


RE: What the heck
By murphyslabrat on 9/27/2007 3:19:08 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Why do people pay $2,000+ for ATI products then?

The answer? For absolute error-absence. The purpose of the FireGL and Quadro FX is for absolute stability. Actual performance has little to do with the price. For instance, according to Hardspell.com, The Radeon HD 2900xt 1GB performs almost identically to the FireGL V8600 1GB. The FireGL card costing almost $2000.
http://www.hardspell.com/english/doc/showcont.asp?...
Now, there was very little improvement with the step from 512MB to 1GB for the Radeon HD 2900XT, so I imagine that the performance would change even less when going from 1GB to 2GB's. If you can contest this with a citation, please do.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/12956/5
quote:
Quote: Surely, even ATI wouldn’t believe that its FireGL V3600 is three times faster than Nvidia’s Quadro FX 1500 under UGS NX, for example!

I wouldn't either, as you failed to produce a citation.
quote:
Let's face it, on the ultra high end, AMD has the best in the business.

You never gave any performance figures, just price. Just because I am paying nearly $3000 for FireGL 8650, doesn't mean it will beat out the $530 Radeon HD2900XT 1GB by any appreciable amount. Post some benchmarks, and I could change my tune, but until then I maintain my stance that AMD does not have the top. This is not to say that AMD cannot compete, just Intel owns the "ultra" tier.


RE: What the heck
By Lord Banshee on 9/27/2007 5:02:24 PM , Rating: 3
Did you miss the specview benchmarks from your link?

But again... people need to stop comparing Pro cards and Gamer cards. In games they perform 95-100% identical. In CAD applications the Pro cards get 200-400% better performance due to driver features turned on via the drivers seeing the correct card installed, FireGL or Quadro.


RE: What the heck
By wordsworm on 9/27/2007 8:39:59 PM , Rating: 2