RV870 rumor thread !

Burn

Burn

New member
Sources at TSMC told Hardspell that the next graphics processor (GPU) by ATI/AMD, the RV870 in the works have specifications such as:

  • 40nm or 45nm fab process
  • 140 sq. mm die size
  • 192 ALUs, 960 stream processors
  • 256-bit GDDR5 memory controller
It is believed that this GPU could perform 1.2 times better than RV770, purely based on the paper-specs.

Another interesting news is that R800, unlike its predecessors the R700 and R680, might not be a dual-GPU card but the world's first dual-core GPU.
Click to expand...


dual cores .. it mean that a '' X2 '' version could have 4 cores ...
 
Oooo that does mean we are discussing about both RV780 aka refresh of RV770 and next-gen RV870?
Click to expand...

yes , each have it's own thread.



this is about next gen ... RV800 / RV870 .. the launch is supposed to be 2009 Q1
 
Last edited:
AMD/ATI has had this fabulous speedy cycle going for ATI cards. Outpacing nVidia releases and if ATI keeps it up Nvidia will be the one in trouble!
 
Treeckcold57 said:
Yeah probably dual-core...hopefully it's native one.

Oh hey, this should merge into this one thread.

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33926241
Click to expand...
Hoping for single die multicore was AMD's big hope for the Phenom....and we all know where that landed them in comparison to a better architecture, proven multidie chip that Intel produced in the Core 2 series.
Sure it would be better if it works as good as it looks on paper....but that's no easy thing to pull off.
 
Well, it looks like RV770 is already bandwith starved, so RV870 is gonna need some serious bump in memory clock. (Faster GDDR5?)
 
Last edited:
Only 960 SP's?

Isn't that a bit low?
Click to expand...
like i said earlier RV800/RV870 is supposed to be the world first dual core GPU. If each core has 960 .. it mean 1920 for the total GPU package. Pretty near of the rumored 2000 stream processors announced on the internet.

think at the possibility of two RV870/800 on one board ... 3 Cores for the 3D and the last core for the Physic ( havoc ;) )... or simply all the 4 cores doing all the work and balance the load between them... 3840 SP ....it's simply amazing.
 
Last edited:
Burn said:
like i said earlier RV800/RV870 is supposed to be the world first dual core GPU. If each core has 960 .. it mean 1920 for the total GPU package. Pretty near of the rumored 2000 stream processors announced on the internet.

think at the possibility of two RV870/800 on one board ... 3 Cores for the 3D and the last core for the Physic ( havoc ;) )... or simply all the 4 cores doing all the work and balance the load between them... 3840 SP ....it's simply amazing.
Click to expand...

X2 version would be sweet spot...I mean it should have a quad-cores in reality. :D
 
How is RV770 bandwidth starved? The 4870 has near 100% the bandwidth of the 4850, yet, is only 20% faster. Most of that gain may be attributed to core speed differences.
 
Sys:
Xeon E3110 @ 3.6GHz
4GB DDR2-800
Vista x64
Catalyst 8.7 Beta

Test: 3DMark06 - 1680x1050 AA8x AF16x
HD4870 512MB @ 650/2000 -> 6516 (SM2:2475 | SM3:2556)
HD4870 512MB @ 700/2000 -> 6643 (SM2:2524 | SM3:2613)
HD4870 512MB @ 750/2000 -> 6781 (SM2:2591 | SM3:2675)
HD4870 512MB @ 800/2000 -> 6882 (SM2:2635 | SM3:2727)

HD4870 512MB @ 650/3200 -> 8091 (SM2:3122 | SM3:3339)
HD4870 512MB @ 700/3200 -> 8481 (SM2:3320 | SM3:3494)
HD4870 512MB @ 750/3200 -> 8772 (SM2:3470 | SM3:3635)
HD4870 512MB @ 800/3200 -> 9006 (SM2:3599 | SM3:3748)

HD4870 512MB @ 650/3600 -> 8245 (SM2:3203 | SM3:3403)
HD4870 512MB @ 700/3600 -> 8714 (SM2:3412 | SM3:3629)
HD4870 512MB @ 750/3600 -> 9114 (SM2:3616 | SM3:3813)
HD4870 512MB @ 800/3600 -> 9399 (SM2:3767 | SM3:3959)

HD4870 512MB @ 650/4000 -> 8394 (SM2:3279 | SM3:3453)
HD4870 512MB @ 700/4000 -> 8819 (SM2:3459 | SM3:3684)
HD4870 512MB @ 750/4000 -> 9265 (SM2:3681 | SM3:3894)
HD4870 512MB @ 800/4000 -> 9591 (SM2:3838 | SM3:4088)

Test: Company of Heroes - 1680x1050 All Max
HD4870 512MB @ 650/2000 -> (MIN:41.1 | AVG: 95.2)
HD4870 512MB @ 700/2000 -> (MIN:46.2 | AVG: 98.6)
HD4870 512MB @ 750/2000 -> (MIN:52.7 | AVG:102.4)
HD4870 512MB @ 800/2000 -> (MIN:51.2 | AVG:108.1)

HD4870 512MB @ 650/3200 -> (MIN:52.5 | AVG:107.0)
HD4870 512MB @ 700/3200 -> (MIN:53.4 | AVG:121.5)
HD4870 512MB @ 750/3200 -> (MIN:57.3 | AVG:125.8)
HD4870 512MB @ 800/3200 -> (MIN:61.6 | AVG:133.7)

HD4870 512MB @ 650/3600 -> (MIN:49.4 | AVG:112.7)
HD4870 512MB @ 700/3600 -> (MIN:51.4 | AVG:124.7)
HD4870 512MB @ 750/3600 -> (MIN:57.8 | AVG:130.9)
HD4870 512MB @ 800/3600 -> (MIN:64.1 | AVG:135.5)

HD4870 512MB @ 650/4000 -> (MIN:50.4 | AVG:110.1)
HD4870 512MB @ 700/4000 -> (MIN:54.2 | AVG:121.8)
HD4870 512MB @ 750/4000 -> (MIN:57.0 | AVG:129.7)
HD4870 512MB @ 800/4000 -> (MIN:64.7 | AVG:137.7)

Test: Devil May Cry 4 - 1680x1050 DX9 8xMSAA All Max
HD4870 512MB @ 650/2000 -> (S1: 85.16 | S2:60.51 | S3: 99.88 | S4:65.80)
HD4870 512MB @ 700/2000 -> (S1: 87.83 | S2:62.09 | S3:102.01 | S4:65.45)
HD4870 512MB @ 750/2000 -> (S1: 88.60 | S2:63.90 | S3:109.54 | S4:65.74)
HD4870 512MB @ 800/2000 -> (S1: 90.90 | S2:65.78 | S3:103.72 | S4:70.23)

HD4870 512MB @ 650/3200 -> (S1:111.26 | S2:74.34 | S3:135.19 | S4:81.75)
HD4870 512MB @ 700/3200 -> (S1:115.02 | S2:80.58 | S3:139.91 | S4:87.92)
HD4870 512MB @ 750/3200 -> (S1:120.32 | S2:86.20 | S3:148.64 | S4:92.82)
HD4870 512MB @ 800/3200 -> (S1:125.32 | S2:84.95 | S3:153.36 | S4:94.65)

HD4870 512MB @ 650/3600 -> (S1:111.53 | S2:77.69 | S3:153.11 | S4:84.38)
HD4870 512MB @ 700/3600 -> (S1:118.76 | S2:81.71 | S3:153.79 | S4:89.16)
HD4870 512MB @ 750/3600 -> (S1:124.72 | S2:85.44 | S3:151.95 | S4:96.30)
HD4870 512MB @ 800/3600 -> (S1:131.54 | S2:89.67 | S3:151.20 | S4:98.52)

HD4870 512MB @ 650/4000 -> (S1:112.22 | S2:74.80 | S3:141.23 | S4:84.16)
HD4870 512MB @ 700/4000 -> (S1:119.23 | S2:85.65 | S3:145.48 | S4:93.41)
HD4870 512MB @ 750/4000 -> (S1:127.39 | S2:89.39 | S3:161.53 | S4:95.74)
HD4870 512MB @ 800/4000 -> (S1:134.50 | S2:91.18 | S3:174.85 | S4:98.65)

Test: Call of Juarez - 1680x1050 DX10 4xMSAA All Max
HD4870 512MB @ 650/2000 -> (MIN:12.6 | AVG:28.9)
HD4870 512MB @ 700/2000 -> (MIN:12.9 | AVG:29.8)
HD4870 512MB @ 750/2000 -> (MIN:12.5 | AVG:30.9)
HD4870 512MB @ 800/2000 -> (MIN:13.2 | AVG:31.8)

HD4870 512MB @ 650/3200 -> (MIN:15.6 | AVG:34.0)
HD4870 512MB @ 700/3200 -> (MIN:15.4 | AVG:36.1)
HD4870 512MB @ 750/3200 -> (MIN:17.2 | AVG:37.9)
HD4870 512MB @ 800/3200 -> (MIN:16.9 | AVG:39.6)

HD4870 512MB @ 650/3600 -> (MIN:15.7 | AVG:34.3)
HD4870 512MB @ 700/3600 -> (MIN:15.5 | AVG:36.0)
HD4870 512MB @ 750/3600 -> (MIN:16.5 | AVG:37.9)
HD4870 512MB @ 800/3600 -> (MIN:17.9 | AVG:41.0)

HD4870 512MB @ 650/4000 -> (MIN:15.0 | AVG:34.5)
HD4870 512MB @ 700/4000 -> (MIN:17.2 | AVG:36.9)
HD4870 512MB @ 750/4000 -> (MIN:18.1 | AVG:39.3)
HD4870 512MB @ 800/4000 -> (MIN:18.7 | AVG:41.6)
Click to expand...


Link
 
What are you trying to show me Jam? The stock memory speed of the HD 4870 is 3600mhz. Those test show that moving from 3600mhz to 4ghz results in a 0%-2% net gain. Comfirms that the HD 4870 is not bandwidth bound by any means. Even lowering the memory to 3.2ghz came with a minimal loss. And well of course lowering the memory speed to 2ghz is going to hurt it pretty bad. That is a 1.6ghz difference, roughly the same bandwidth as RV670 but with twice the capability.
 
You're right, 2000 baseline confused me, I thought these were stock clocks.

Going from 3600 to 4000 show 10% gains at best (Devil May Cry), but less than 5% in average.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top