Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RV770 has 800 SPs, breaks 1.2TFLOPS, final clocks

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a c 84 U Graphics card
a b À AMD
June 7, 2008 9:40:56 AM

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7841.html
Quote:
Remember how we told you that Eastern sources claimed that RV770 has 800 shader processors, not just 480 shader processors? When we look at the slide presented to us by a reliable source, we can only conclude that they were right. AMD evidently planted the stories of 480 shader processors (it's not uncommon for AMD/ATI to plant stuff). The slide tells us three things about both Radeon HD 4850 and 4870. First of all that they both sport a whopping 800 shader processors, but also the clock frequencies and they're individual calculation capacity measured in FLOPS. We've already told you that Radeon HD 4850 will launch at 625MHz and that AMD will clock the 4870 at at least 100MHz more, the slide says 750MHz.

Each shader shader unit is capable of 2 FLOPS, and since we now have 800 units, this means that Radeon HD 4850 with its 625MHz will hit exactly 1TFLOPS. That should explain why AMD/ATI chose that specific frequency. Radeon HD 4870 with its 750MHz core will have 20% more processing power available and hits 1.2TFLOPS. A decent quad-core processor can do up to 100GFLOPS. This is certainly a slap in NVIDIA's face. AMD's mainstream chip can do more FLOPS than NVIDIA enthusiast chips, and AMD's coming high-end chips will pack twice the FLOPS...



WOW the eastern rumours were true then. NICE! :bounce: 
a b U Graphics card
June 7, 2008 10:47:31 AM

Hmm, interesting. Looks neat, but i'm remaining neutral till the benchies are out.

Anyone know of any GPU Floating Point Benchies?
June 7, 2008 12:24:56 PM

Wow, just wow...... That is insane... OMG :ouch: 

I WANT ONE!!!!!!!
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
June 7, 2008 12:50:01 PM

Should i take a Container ship of salt with this one folks?
June 7, 2008 1:02:14 PM

lucuis said:
Hmm, interesting. Looks neat, but i'm remaining neutral till the benchies are out.



+1

Best,

3Ball
a b U Graphics card
June 7, 2008 1:30:14 PM

Okay, for the 1081rst time, someone thinks they look good on paper and has the inside story on the new GPU's that you cannot buy yet. Ho-hum.
Now, how about making them available so we can see how they really perform?
a b U Graphics card
June 7, 2008 1:34:20 PM

Quote:
Nah lol, ATIS 800 shaders are equivalent to nvidia 160.. so :( 

Thats not quite true. 1 to 1 , ATI's shaders are superior. Saying 160 nV shaders = 800 ATI shaders just int true.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
June 7, 2008 1:53:39 PM

Thats not true, Ati shaders are not superior 1/1. Actually are worse. Comparing 8800GT with HD3870.

8800GT 112 SP / 1500Mhz == HD3870 320 SP / 775Mhz(1/2)

"224" SP (2x112; equivalent to ati clockspeed) Escalar arquitecture VS 320 SP Superescalar.

336 Gflops vs 496Gflops are near the same, because all "in teory 496Gflops" are never used.
June 7, 2008 1:58:50 PM

Quote:
Thats not true, Ati shaders are not superior 1/1. Actually are worse. Comparing 8800GT with HD3870.

8800GT 112 SP / 1500Mhz == HD3870 320 SP / 775Mhz(1/2)

"224" SP (2x112; equivalent to ati clockspeed) Escalar arquitecture VS 320 SP Superescalar.

336 Gflops vs 496Gflops are near the same, because all "in teory 496Gflops" are never used.


Don't try to compare theese, there have diferent architectures!

Ati 3870 should do much more but it has a serious bottleneck in ROP units, which it has benn eleminating in 4870 (32 ROPs).
June 7, 2008 2:00:05 PM

Actually, the reason that ATi's shaders were not "superior" in the HD 38x0 series was that they clocked the shaders the same speed as the GPU core, while the 8800 series had separate clocked shaders. This is supposedly solved with the new HD 4000 series, where the shaders are supposed to be clocked higher than the core for better performance.
a b U Graphics card
June 7, 2008 2:02:54 PM

The way its broken down, 160x4 vs the 160x5 is what Im talking about. Read what I was responding to. This was divided by 5, or 800=160 . Those 160 arent the same as 160 nVidia shaders.
June 7, 2008 2:10:01 PM

Quote:
Thats not true, Ati shaders are not superior 1/1. Actually are worse. Comparing 8800GT with HD3870.

8800GT 112 SP / 1500Mhz == HD3870 320 SP / 775Mhz(1/2)

"224" SP (2x112; equivalent to ati clockspeed) Escalar arquitecture VS 320 SP Superescalar.

336 Gflops vs 496Gflops are near the same, because all "in teory 496Gflops" are never used.



well in the HD4800 generation they have much more shaders and they are clocked higher! not to mention the facet these cards should be killer OCers.
while nvidia's new gen cards have more shaders but are clocked lower than older nvidia cards.
and if u mentioned FLOPS count... well this gen will have more gap than the old gen. you mentioned 336 GIGAFLOPS vs. 496 GIGAFLOPS and now were talking about 1.2 teraflops in HD4870 933 gigaflops in GTX280 and probebly about 2.4 teraflops on HD4870X2. so theres quite a difference now lol
a b U Graphics card
June 7, 2008 2:17:32 PM

What Im saying is, if you go with 800 (as in this case) we all know thats not comparable to 800 nVidia shaders, no way. But my response was that at 160, theyre still not = to 160 nVidia shaders, simply because of the 5th. Not talking shader speeds or anything else. In essense, if this is true (not so sure) ATI has gone from 64 full time useable superior shaders to 160 full time superior shaders, or a 2 1/2 x's increase
June 7, 2008 2:25:02 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
What Im saying is, if you go with 800 (as in this case) we all know thats not comparable to 800 nVidia shaders, no way. But my response was that at 160, theyre still not = to 160 nVidia shaders, simply because of the 5th. Not talking shader speeds or anything else. In essense, if this is true (not so sure) ATI has gone from 64 full time useable superior shaders to 160 full time superior shaders, or a 2 1/2 x's increase


hmmm let me get this... ati's 160 full time superior shaders are better than 160 nvidia shaders? [if they are on identical clocks]
a b U Graphics card
June 7, 2008 2:32:09 PM

Yes, the 5th operation done by ATIs shaders dont exist on nVidias shader model, so when its used (not always) itll outperform the 4 op model
June 7, 2008 2:52:36 PM

i think we are seeing awesome stats before its released and in real life it will suck hard. 800 processors! lets buy one! no, don't be fooled. We are all aware that nvidias chips have been fairly more effecient in the past, so i will wait for real life benchmarks.
a b U Graphics card
June 7, 2008 3:04:35 PM

Waiting for benchmarks is a must. Let me just say this. When the 2900 came out, it was squashed by the G80's. Then the 3xxx series came out, and we saw a cheaper better performing model, while the G80 still ruled, and does still to this day. Now, with momentum off of a better performing card, the 4xxx series sees further growth in ability, plus corrections that made the 2900 underperform to begin with. To say that performance will suck doesnt fit history to today. But, getting ones hopes up and be disappointed goes both ways. This 800 shader thing has been rumored for awhile, and until its released, Im from Missouri, show me
June 7, 2008 3:40:58 PM

800!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just don't hope they bottleneck them in any ways!
June 7, 2008 5:38:57 PM

You guys are getting too excited. Dont forget that those extra 320SPs on top of the 480SPs are only there to do Physics work, not extra Graphic calculations. That is why most of the time we believed it to be only 480SPs, the extra 320SPs only do Physx.
June 7, 2008 6:39:54 PM

DarthPiggie said:
You guys are getting too excited. Dont forget that those extra 320SPs on top of the 480SPs are only there to do Physics work, not extra Graphic calculations. That is why most of the time we believed it to be only 480SPs, the extra 320SPs only do Physx.


and where do you know that from? :bounce: 
June 7, 2008 6:41:35 PM

DarthPiggie said:
You guys are getting too excited. Dont forget that those extra 320SPs on top of the 480SPs are only there to do Physics work, not extra Graphic calculations. That is why most of the time we believed it to be only 480SPs, the extra 320SPs only do Physx.


I thought stream processors can do a lot of jobs, like maybe in this case, physics and graphics together maybe?
June 7, 2008 7:31:47 PM

No way to know until the card is actually on a bench without NDA.
June 7, 2008 8:23:29 PM

Quote:
Nah lol, ATIS 800 shaders are equivalent to nvidia 160.. so :( 


More like equivalent to Nvidia 256-320SP.
June 7, 2008 8:28:22 PM

customisbetter said:
i think we are seeing awesome stats before its released and in real life it will suck hard. 800 processors! lets buy one! no, don't be fooled. We are all aware that nvidias chips have been fairly more effecient in the past, so i will wait for real life benchmarks.


Efficient? How? Paying off game developers with a Nvidia logo? :lol: 
June 7, 2008 8:54:22 PM

I want to see some DX10.1 titles roll out independent of TWIMTBP. :ange: 
June 7, 2008 9:00:07 PM

Photoshopped or not, by AMDs OWN admission, their cards have a certain performance level and it'd be pretty cracked out if all of sudden AMD was like "oh hey when we said the 4850 is 10% better than a 8800 GT, we meant it was 10% better than 2 9800 gx2s!!!!"

Hey, maybe my thinking is wrong and if it is thats great cause who doesn't want an insane GPU for 200$, but I don't think it is wrong.
a b U Graphics card
June 7, 2008 9:07:12 PM

And this is just more speculation, these charts. The only thing that has meant anything, at this point is nothing more than a hint. Thats the Vantage numbers. If theyre true, its still hard to compare what that means in real world. So Im waiting, but 1 thing I do know, itll be better than the 2 to 3xxx series by far, and at the prices weve seen, thats extremely encouraging
June 7, 2008 9:18:23 PM

800SP is just not possible with current die process. I really hate fud after fud like this just to get more clicks on their site.
a b U Graphics card
June 7, 2008 9:26:26 PM

Me too, if they had any stones, they just break NDA's and get on with it heheh
June 7, 2008 9:56:49 PM

ovaltineplease said:
Photoshopped or not, by AMDs OWN admission, their cards have a certain performance level and it'd be pretty cracked out if all of sudden AMD was like "oh hey when we said the 4850 is 10% better than a 8800 GT, we meant it was 10% better than 2 9800 gx2s!!!!"

Hey, maybe my thinking is wrong and if it is thats great cause who doesn't want an insane GPU for 200$, but I don't think it is wrong.



that would make me happy.
a b U Graphics card
June 8, 2008 9:47:03 AM

Quote:
Nah lol, ATIS 800 shaders are equivalent to nvidia 160.. so :( 


Which nVidia solution has 160 shaders? Just invent a card did you? :heink: 
a b U Graphics card
June 8, 2008 9:56:31 AM

marvelous211 said:
Yes please. These speculations upon speculation is getting out of control.

You guys might want to read this.... Looks like a photochopped picture.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3043...



I don't agree with the photochopped anal-y-sis;

First the colour change is actually easily explained, the first one is different speeds/classes of cards, the second one is 2 of the same product number just with an X2.

Second the font is the same, there's no change in font, one is just a compressed picture versus the other.

I'm not saying it's real, I just don't agree with that view of the image.
a b U Graphics card
June 8, 2008 10:25:32 AM

marvelous211 said:
800SP is just not possible with current die process.


While it is possible, I agree it's highly unlikely that it's that number AND the same composition as before.
IMO if the numbers are accurate, then they've changed the composition of the shaders with more doing more than just MADD, perhaps more transcendental, or another app. From the HD2K to 3K the only major change was the addition of double precision, perhaps another small but impactful change this time around.

But I guess we won't know until they can test it thorgoughly.
!