Any news on NV36 tapeout?

[DSC]

Why is it taking so long for NV36(FX5700?) to tapeout? Anyone know if it has taped out or not? Thanks.

[sbp]

*sends up the batsignal for Uttar*

[Uttar]

Well, I don't know.
nVidia's target was to tape-out in May. No idea if they managed it. I'd guess so, considering the few supposed changes compared to the NV35 ( at most, you might get a few useless features, who knows, maybe better power saving since it'll also compete in the mobile segment against the M10 )

So, theorically, it should have taped-out, but I don't know if it did...


Uttar

[SurfMonkey]

It has. So I've been told.

[StealthHawk]

IF NV36 taped out recently why would nvidia bother releasing the new higher clocked NV31's?

[Ninja Prime]

IF NV36 taped out recently why would nvidia bother releasing the new higher clocked NV31's?

Probably because they are extremely slow at getting from tape-out to market. i.e. Jan/Feb (can't remember excatly) tape-out for NV35, yet it's still not out on the market. So if it taped-out today, it'll probably be Nov/Dec before NV36 comes out... unless they get their act together better.

[pgn.inertia]

Originally posted by Ninja Prime
IF NV36 taped out recently why would nvidia bother releasing the new higher clocked NV31's?

Indeed this is (as Ninja Prime stated) to fill the gap for now...

Also the gap between the high-end (NV30/NV35) and the lower end (NV31 1.0) was much too large...

See what ATI did with R300 and their Radeon9700 and Radeon9500, that gap was never that large so such a construction caters the whole market...

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by pgn.inertia
See what ATI did with R300 and their Radeon9700 and Radeon9500, that gap was never that large so such a construction caters the whole market...

I always thought that was a bad choice. Isn't the r9500 being phased out in favor of the slower r9600 for exactly that reason?

[pgn.inertia]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
I always thought that was a bad choice. Isn't the r9500 being phased out in favor of the slower r9600 for exactly that reason?

Hehe, no, that's not the reason.

The reason for the Radeon9500 to Radeon9600 situation is that Radeon9500 was very expensive to make as it uses the same R300 core that Radeon9700 uses (which ATI sold/sells for a much higher price). Now, with Radeon9600 using the RV350 core (0.13um) it's not only smaller, but also they don't need R300/R350 cores to fill the demand of the lower end cards...

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by pgn.inertia
Hehe, no, that's not the reason.

The reason for the Radeon9500 to Radeon9600 situation is that Radeon9500 was very expensive to make as it uses the same R300 core that Radeon9700 uses (which ATI sold/sells for a much higher price). Now, with Radeon9600 using the RV350 core (0.13um) it's not only smaller, but also they don't need R300/R350 cores to fill the demand of the lower end cards...

Well, IMO it is both because of both reasons.

Look at how much the r9600s OC, there is absolutely no reason to clock them that low. I don't believe for a second it is a binning choice. Of course I could be wrong. But when I hear about all these cards getting 100+MHz OCs on stock cooling, something tells me binning concerns are not the reason for the low clock ;)

[Star_Hunter]

Or maybe RV360 is the RV350 but they clocked it to 500MHz it would make sence since their is no real other reason why they would only have it at 400MHz

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by ricercar
Because the flip-chip NV31 is cheaper to manufacture than the wirebond version?

Like I said, if NV36 is going to replace NV31, that means NV31 shouldn't go into mass production/production for very long anyway. Unless the savings are something siginificant I just don't see the point. AFAIK only the gfFX5600Ultra is using the flipchip package, and those are in even more limited production than the non-Ultras. Unless all NV31s are being produced with flipchip, are they?

[SurfMonkey]

I think we will see the total end of the GF4 line, the FX5200 will move further down the price scale and the 5600 will occupy the mid to low range. The 5700(?) will occupy the mid range a bit like the 9500 did, but it will be a damn sight cheaper to produce (and nvidia won't be selling them all at a loss like ATI did). It may even slightly overlap with the vanilla 5900 but probably won't offer as many features.

I can't see them phasing the 5600 out just yet, the new flipchip design means that it highly overclockable and is a pretty strong performer. I guess they, nvidia, may even wait to see how the RV360 performs before they even release it.

[Uttar]

Originally posted by SurfMonkey
I guess they, nvidia, may even wait to see how the RV360 performs before they even release it.

That doesn't matter much, because they will anyway.
The RV360 is to be launched in July. And it shouldn't have any change compared to the RV350, beside clock speeds.

So, you could just overclock a publicly available RV350 and get the results :) Unless ATI would release a driver at the same time they hit the scores, but it couldn't deliver any huge performance boost anymore, I guess :)

I currently believe the NV36 is to be launched at SIGGRAPH - could be wrong, of course, it's just speculation there. But if it is, then nVidia should have no problem making the NV36 competitive by changing the clock speeds based on the RV360's power :)


Uttar

[Geforce4ti4200]

maybe reason why it was clocked at 400MHz is the radeon9600 pro gets toooooooo hot also overclocking the core probably does not result in performance increases because of the 128 bit ram

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
maybe reason why it was clocked at 400MHz is the radeon9600 pro gets toooooooo hot also overclocking the core probably does not result in performance increases because of the 128 bit ram

There have been results of r9600Pro overclocking, and the tangible increase in performance. Trying to say that there is no performance increase is just asinine.

Discussion (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12263)

Both B3D and [H] reported on their incredible, easy, and stable overclocks as well some time back.

[gordon151]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
There have been results of r9600Pro overclocking, and the tangible increase in performance. Trying to say that there is no performance increase is just asinine.

Discussion (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12263)

Both B3D and [H] reported on their incredible, easy, and stable overclocks as well some time back.

Hehe, you said ASININE!! HEHE

Anyhow 9600 Pro overclock good, yes. Very true!

[Ghola]

Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
maybe reason why :alc: it was clocked at 400MHz is the radeon9600 pro gets toooooooo :rolleyes2 hot also overclocking the core probably does not :drooling:result in performance increases :retard:because of the 128 bit ram :wtf:
:lol2:

[Dazz]

Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
maybe reason why it was clocked at 400MHz is the radeon9600 pro gets toooooooo hot also overclocking the core probably does not result in performance increases because of the 128 bit ram Not likly if you can get an extra 100MHz out of the core with stock cooling :D

[Geforce4ti4200]

maybe ati didnt feel it was justified to clock the cores higher than 400MHz since the performance increase is too small to matter

[Dazz]

Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
maybe ati didnt feel it was justified to clock the cores higher than 400MHz since the performance increase is too small to matter I wouldn't say that either as the Radeon 9600 & Geforce FX 5200~5600 range are all fillrate limited due to only 4 textures perclock.

[Dazz]

Originally posted by ricercar
My 8-ball says yes. Nope only the FX5600Ultra is, mostly due to it being more expensive.

[Uttar]

Originally posted by Dazz
Nope only the FX5600Ultra is, mostly due to it being more expensive.

Actually, I just heard otherwise ( read: I think ricercar might be right here, because, well, you know, what he said makes sense )


Uttar

[Dazz]

Well as of yet the flipchip is only used with the FX5600+ Ultra.

[ricercar]

That may be true. I've learned more about the differences between wirebond and flipchip, and it makes sense to use a flipchip as high-performance Ultra part while continuing wirebond for the economy part.