The Shocking State of 3D Affairs

zerodamage · Apr 5, 2004, 12:02 AM

This is a very long read but very interesting.

"If NVIDIA were to produce a part that was as fast as ATI’s while still providing FP32 functionality, it would have to have a processor with around 180 to 200 million transistors. Current mass fabrication techniques are not able to produce such a product with good yields and speed bins. Current 130 nm processes would have to become significantly more mature to handle such transistor counts. This is not to say that it won’t happen, as ATI has proven that older processes such as the 150 nm at TSMC can easily handle chips with transistor counts over 115 million. With the 90 nm process looking to be an even greater jump in complexity than the 130 nm process was, it will be at least a year and a quarter before we see mass market 90 nm graphics chips hit the shelves."

Full Article: Penstarsys

tazdevl · Apr 5, 2004, 12:32 AM

Tedious, long, incorrect on many accounts and with Josh's usual nVIDIA bias. Don't bother reading it.

Bicka · Apr 5, 2004, 02:54 AM

Quote:

During this absence at the meetings, the #2 graphics chip maker worked very closely with Microsoft on developing the DX9 spec, and it already had engineering work going on with the R300 series of GPU’s. Looking at S3's upcoming Deltachrome chips and XGI’s Volari series, it appears they all supported the ATI/Microsoft DX9 standard to the hilt.

Quote:

ATI doesn’t have to rely on complex compilers for its R3x0 series of chips due to two reasons. The first is that the DX9 spec is essentially built around the R3x0 processor. The second is that Microsoft has released HLSL (High Level Shading Language), and it is heavily optimized for PS/VS 2.0. Since PS/VS 2.0 functionality so closely mimics ATI’s hardware, it stands to reason that anything compiled with HLSL will automatically be set up to run optimally on ATI hardware. NVIDIA doesn’t have this luxury.

It lost me here...Is he seriously suggesting that Microsoft concentrated solely around one GPU and the rest followed suit with the design? Wouldn't it have been the other way around???

::EDIT:: Thought this seemed similar. Ive read this before...

zerodamage · Apr 5, 2004, 04:04 AM

He is pro Nvidia. There is no doubt about that.

kalx · Apr 5, 2004, 12:38 PM

another bit of hype to do with new chipsets again , After reading teh 12000 , 3dmark scores of the NV40 on the inquirer , i`m beginning to think maybe its time to just stop reading all this hype and wait for real world scores.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15169

"Numerous sources have confirmed that a Futuremark 3DMark 2003 score of12,535 has apparently been demonstrated by Nvidia on its pre-production engineering samples."

gets more crazy every day

apoch003 · Apr 7, 2004, 12:19 AM

I've been talking with Josh... (by the way, he runs a 9800xt). He's changing a lot of things about the article as he's continued talking to engineers from both sides. Here's his latest in an email to me...

Hi Craig,

After much discussion with some engineers, I have significantly revised my ideas behind each design. I agree, what ATI has done is very, very impressive. Their P.S. 2.0 performance is truly outstanding, and it is one of the finest chips ever made. NVIDIA definitely made some very large mistakes with their NV3x series of cards. While I can appreciate that their designs are more “feature” advanced, those advanced features are truly useless without any kind of software to support it. The one area where this could help NVIDIA is that they have already designed parts with PS/VS 3.0 features to it, but again, that technology is useless since it is not fully PS/VS 3.0.

I for one am very excited about what we will see in the next few weeks. I think that the two companies will be on much more level ground this time, and from what I gather the R420 will not be PS 3.0 compliant (but possibly VS 3.0). It will be interesting what happens. From one person who has seen the NV40 in action, he merely said, “NVIDIA ain’t screwing around this time.” I think there will definitely be a battle. Still, ATI has done a fantastic job with their products to date. The R3x0 series was an excellent balance of performance vs. tradeoffs, and they did each succeeding generation slightly better than before. While it is a bit of a bummer that the R420 will most likely not include PS 3.0 support, I do believe that the product after that one will, and then it will really be a fight.

Thanks for your comments! I have in fact run my R360 (9800 XT) at over 450 MHz, and it does scream. I only wish the memory speeds would go as high as NVIDIA’s! Still, there is definitely a reason why I run a 9800XT vs. a 5950 U. I have to agree with you on that.

Josh

Apr 5, 2004, 12:02 AM	#1
zerodamage HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 3,478 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	The Shocking State of 3D Affairs This is a very long read but very interesting. "If NVIDIA were to produce a part that was as fast as ATI’s while still providing FP32 functionality, it would have to have a processor with around 180 to 200 million transistors. Current mass fabrication techniques are not able to produce such a product with good yields and speed bins. Current 130 nm processes would have to become significantly more mature to handle such transistor counts. This is not to say that it won’t happen, as ATI has proven that older processes such as the 150 nm at TSMC can easily handle chips with transistor counts over 115 million. With the 90 nm process looking to be an even greater jump in complexity than the 130 nm process was, it will be at least a year and a quarter before we see mass market 90 nm graphics chips hit the shelves." Full Article: Penstarsys

Apr 5, 2004, 12:38 PM	#5
kalx DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Evil Mountain Lair Posts: 248 Rep Power: 0	another bit of hype to do with new chipsets again , After reading teh 12000 , 3dmark scores of the NV40 on the inquirer , i`m beginning to think maybe its time to just stop reading all this hype and wait for real world scores. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15169 "Numerous sources have confirmed that a Futuremark 3DMark 2003 score of12,535 has apparently been demonstrated by Nvidia on its pre-production engineering samples." gets more crazy every day __________________ ---------------------------------------------------> AMD FX51 / 2x OCZ 400 mhz 512MB DDR /ATi Radeon X800pro /19 inch DVI - - - - - - ---------------------------------------------------->

Apr 5, 2004, 12:32 AM	#2
tazdevl DriverHeaven Addict Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 310 Rep Power: 0	Tedious, long, incorrect on many accounts and with Josh's usual nVIDIA bias. Don't bother reading it. __________________ RIG: P4 2.6C, Thermalright SP94/Panaflo 92MM M1A, IC7 Max3, Swifty MCX159, 1GB Geil PC4000 Ultra Plat, Modded Radeon 8500, Audigy 2, 2X WD Raptor RAID 0, WD 250GB SE, Plex 708A, 166SDVD, LianLi PC75, WinXP Pro SP1, Z680's.

Apr 5, 2004, 04:04 AM	Thread Starter #4
zerodamage HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 3,478 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	He is pro Nvidia. There is no doubt about that.

Apr 7, 2004, 12:19 AM	#6
apoch003 DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: usa Posts: 214 Rep Power: 0	I've been talking with Josh... (by the way, he runs a 9800xt). He's changing a lot of things about the article as he's continued talking to engineers from both sides. Here's his latest in an email to me... Hi Craig, After much discussion with some engineers, I have significantly revised my ideas behind each design. I agree, what ATI has done is very, very impressive. Their P.S. 2.0 performance is truly outstanding, and it is one of the finest chips ever made. NVIDIA definitely made some very large mistakes with their NV3x series of cards. While I can appreciate that their designs are more “feature” advanced, those advanced features are truly useless without any kind of software to support it. The one area where this could help NVIDIA is that they have already designed parts with PS/VS 3.0 features to it, but again, that technology is useless since it is not fully PS/VS 3.0. I for one am very excited about what we will see in the next few weeks. I think that the two companies will be on much more level ground this time, and from what I gather the R420 will not be PS 3.0 compliant (but possibly VS 3.0). It will be interesting what happens. From one person who has seen the NV40 in action, he merely said, “NVIDIA ain’t screwing around this time.” I think there will definitely be a battle. Still, ATI has done a fantastic job with their products to date. The R3x0 series was an excellent balance of performance vs. tradeoffs, and they did each succeeding generation slightly better than before. While it is a bit of a bummer that the R420 will most likely not include PS 3.0 support, I do believe that the product after that one will, and then it will really be a fight. Thanks for your comments! I have in fact run my R360 (9800 XT) at over 450 MHz, and it does scream. I only wish the memory speeds would go as high as NVIDIA’s! Still, there is definitely a reason why I run a 9800XT vs. a 5950 U. I have to agree with you on that. Josh