whats next, 128bit?

[Rob_0126]

Could you imagine the power of a true 128 bit chip?

Can you say.... VR :D

Robert

[nForceMan]

128 bit per color (4xFP32 ARGB)? Yes, I could. This is a feature of NV3x. :p

128 bit per color channel? Yes, I could. This is a feature of NV***censored*** :naughty:

[ragejg]

:-l

[nobie]

Originally posted by Rob_0126
Could you imagine the power of a true 128 bit chip?


I imagine, it would be much slower than what we have today without much visual benefit, atleast for years to come.

[StealthHawk]

128 bit what?

[Ninja Prime]

FP64 will probably never even get used in the gaming arena, FP32 will likely be the highest standard gaming applications ever use in the color area.

There would be no reason whatsoever for FP128, unless we all get some kind of super digitial camera that doesnt exsit yet implanted in our heads.

[Rob_0126]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
128 bit what?

A true 128 bit processor.

Robert

[MUYA]

Originally posted by Rob_0126
A true 128 bit processor.

Robert
As in G"Processing"U?

they are 256 bit now! have been since wait geforcesdr

[Rob_0126]

Originally posted by MUYA
As in G"Processing"U?

they are 256 bit now! have been since wait geforcesdr

A true 128 bit C.P.U. ;)

Robert

[Nv40]

Originally posted by Rob_0126
C.P.U. ;)

Robert


hehe...

all this discussion and the guy was asking about CPU's.. :)
we have been with 32bits processors in -personal computers- since the days of the Intel 486 and maybe the 386 too.. more than 15years .. now we are beguining to explore 64bits thanks to AMD.. but still we need first to see an OPerating system and aplications that can take advantage of that.. the only advantage i see between 32bits and 64bits is that now it will be possible bigger amounts of Memory in your mainboard. i dont know what are the limits of 64bits , but in theory something like 2^64 which is a ridiculous ammount of memory.. in the realm of many TERAbytes which is hundreds of thousands -times- the capacity of memory that can handle today processors which are from 4~5 GB. so processors in PC's with 128 bits..? never have heard of something like that. probably that will not happen for least 20,30 or more years/// :)

[Rob_0126]

Originally posted by Nv40
hehe...

all this discussion and the guy was asking about CPU's.. :)
we have been with 32bits processors in -personal computers- since the days of the Intel 486 and maybe the 386 too.. more than 15years .. now we are beguining to explore 64bits thanks to AMD.. but still we need first to see an OPerating system and aplications that can take advantage of that.. the only advantage i see between 32bits and 64bits is that now it will be possible bigger amounts of Memory in your mainboard. i dont know what are the limits of 64bits , but in theory something like 2^64 which is a ridiculous ammount of memory.. in the realm of many TERAbytes which is hundreds of thousands -times- the capacity of memory that can handle today processors which are from 4~5 GB. so processors in PC's with 128 bits..? never have heard of something like that. probably that will not happen for least 20,30 or more years/// :)

2^64......Thats a lot of memory. :cool:

I was just thinking what the possibilities would be, with 128bit cpu. Just imagine, no bottlenecks on the cpu's side :eek:

(imagines games running at 500 fps)

Robert

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Rob_0126
A true 128 bit C.P.U. ;)

Robert

I think games are much more limited by programming and content creation. IMO we're limited by the humans making the games, not by the available technology.

[Voudoun]

Originally posted by Rob_0126
2^64......Thats a lot of memory. :cool:

I was just thinking what the possibilities would be, with 128bit cpu. Just imagine, no bottlenecks on the cpu's side :eek:

(imagines games running at 500 fps)

Robert

By the time we have 128 bit processors, we'll be asking where the hell are 256 bit processors, and looking forward to 512 bit'ers. :) It's the way it's always been. I remember looking forward to a 700mhz Athlon. I remember looking forward to an Atari 520 STFM. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

Voudoun

[Rob_0126]

Originally posted by Voudoun
By the time we have 128 bit processors, we'll be asking where the hell are 256 bit processors, and looking forward to 512 bit'ers. :) It's the way it's always been. I remember looking forward to a 700mhz Athlon. I remember looking forward to an Atari 520 STFM. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

Voudoun

hehe, so true. :D

Well, the 32 bit processor has had quite a long stretch. Maybe it's time for the 64 bit boys to step up. Then 20 years later, 128 bit'ers :p

By the time we have 128 bit'ers, I think we will have a few T-700's walking around. :scarey:

Robert

[Nv40]

Originally posted by Rob_0126
2^64......Thats a lot of memory. :cool:

I was just thinking what the possibilities would be, with 128bit cpu. Just imagine, no bottlenecks on the cpu's side :eek:

(imagines games running at 500 fps)

Robert


32bits processors still are more than enough for any game in the next 5 years..
games today only requires 128megs as minimun... in 5 years with luck the minimun will be 1-2GB wich any pentium4 or atlonXP can handle today.. so still there is a lot to do with today 32bits.. what we need is much much faster FASTER PRocessors.
the personal CPU industry is too slow for the needs of gaming industry.. at least that what SOny playstation president told in a conference.. :)

there are those who believe CPUS will replace Video cards in the future ,but i dont see it happening for a long time!!! it have been said that the Nv30 can match the speed of a intel processors running at 10Ghz!!! in graphics intensive tasks and processors are more expensive generally except for AMD. Video cards are more complex and have far more transistors than CPus , i think there is a big chance that if ATI and Nvdia and others remain in the industry as competitive or even more as they are today ,in a not so distance future ,"video cards" will be able to replace general processors and will be able to do -ALL-,to run operate your WIndows and motherboard hardware including sound/and chipset. and who knows if your main memory too since video cards now ship with 256megs!! that are doing nothing when you are not playing a game,in technology everything is possible ,and i see more oportunities to grow for the video market...since gaming is the main reason for PC sales today.. :) WHo buys a 3ghz processor to work in Wordperfect and Office? any 10 years old computer with windows 95 will run pretty fine a similar program for your needs in your Office. ;)

[Rob_0126]

Originally posted by Nv40
32bits processors still are more than enough for any game in the next 5 years..
games today only requires 128megs as minimun... in 5 years with luck the minimun will be 1-2GB wich any pentium4 or atlonXP can handle today.. so still there is a lot to do with today 32bits.. what we need is much much faster FASTER PRocessors.
the personal CPU industry is too slow for the needs of gaming industry.. at least that what SOny playstation president told in a conference.. :)

there are those who believe CPUS will replace Video cards in the future ,but i dont see it happening for a long time!!! it have been said that the Nv30 can match the speed of a intel processors running at 10Ghz!!! in graphics intensive tasks and processors are more expensive generally except for AMD. Video cards are more complex and have far more transistors than CPus , i think there is a big chance that if ATI and Nvdia and others remain in the industry as competitive or even more as they are today ,in a not so distance future ,"video cards" will be able to replace general processors and will be able to do -ALL-,to run operate your WIndows and motherboard hardware including sound/and chipset. and who knows if your main memory too since video cards now ship with 256megs!! that are doing nothing when you are not playing a game,in technology everything is possible ,and i see more oportunities to grow for the video market...since gaming is the main reason for PC sales today.. :) WHo buys a 3ghz processor to work in Wordperfect and Office? any 10 years old computer with windows 95 will run pretty fine a similar program for your needs in your Office. ;)

Isn't the ATI 9800 pro a 512bit processor like the Matroxx Para?

I thought I read it somewheres. But yeh, your right. Video card cpu's are incredibly powerful. Doesn't make much since why intel and amd don't take pointers from these designs.

Robert

[nobie]

Originally posted by Rob_0126
Isn't the ATI 9800 pro a 512bit processor like the Matroxx Para?

I thought I read it somewheres. But yeh, your right. Video card cpu's are incredibly powerful. Doesn't make much since why intel and amd don't take pointers from these designs.


It's a different standard....when you say a CPU is "32 bit" you're talking about memory pointers and the size of registers (and typically, 32 bit is faster than 64 bit, considering the added bandwidth and computational requirements of 64 bit). When you say your GPU is 256 bit you're talking about the width of the memory bus. Considering a 512 bit memory interface would require so many pins and be so expensive, it probably won't happen for a long time....

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by nobie
It's a different standard....when you say a CPU is "32 bit" you're talking about memory pointers and the size of registers (and typically, 32 bit is faster than 64 bit, considering the added bandwidth and computational requirements of 64 bit). When you say your GPU is 256 bit you're talking about the width of the memory bus. Considering a 512 bit memory interface would require so many pins and be so expensive, it probably won't happen for a long time....

As MUYA said, the original GeForce was called 256bit, but it certainly didn't have a 256bit bus. Not until the GeForceFX5900 did NVIDIA use a 256bit memory bus.

Originally posted by Rob_0126
Video card cpu's are incredibly powerful. Doesn't make much since why intel and amd don't take pointers from these designs.

Robert

They are not the same at all. CPUs are general purpose and have to be able to handle many different things. They have been using the x86 architecture for many, many years to retain legacy support. For example, Intel's Itanium broke free of x86 and when running 32bit(x86) software I'm sure you have heard that their performance is dreadful.

GPUs on the other hand handle only graphics. GPUs can be very efficient because they only need to perform certain specialized tasks. So you can optimize the hardware design and allocate transisters towards accelerating certain functions.

The bottom line is that specialized hardware is always going to be faster than general purpose hardware because you can focus more with specialized hardware.

[nobie]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
As MUYA said, the original GeForce was called 256bit, but it certainly didn't have a 256bit bus. Not until the GeForceFX5900 did NVIDIA use a 256bit memory bus.


I didn't consider this, why was it then that they claimed Geforce1 to be "256 bit"

[Viral]

Because the GPU was 256-bit. memory is another story.. people seem to be very confudes about bit's as it has been an advertising thing for gaming devices for a long time.. all most people know is more=better. Sometimes they think that means faster, better image detail, more spectacular scenes and whatever they want it to mean:rolleyes:

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by nobie
I didn't consider this, why was it then that they claimed Geforce1 to be "256 bit"

Actually, upon further reflection I was mistaken. The "256" in GeForce256 was just some weird marketing nonsense. Or maybe it is considered "256bit" somehow.

Cards like the GeForce4 and Radeon8500 have been billed as 256bit. The Parhelia was billed as 512bit. I'm not sure where these numbers are coming from though. I'm sure this discussion has come up before, but I don't remember if anything conclusive ever came out of it, or whether it was just some clever marketing.

I think it might have something to do with memory bus width using DDR memory, but that's just a guess.

[Viral]

I think it might have something to do with memory bus width using DDR memory, but that's just a guess.

The 256 diddn't use DDR memory, the geforce DDR did.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Viral
The 256 diddn't use DDR memory, the geforce DDR did.

Hence why I said this: "The "256" in GeForce256 was just some weird marketing nonsense."

My musing about memory was with respect to Parhelia, GeForce4, Radeon8500, etc.

[SnakeEyes]

The 512 referenced for the Parhelia definitely concerned the memory / memory controller bus width for access. But it isn't as straightforward as meaning a true 512 bit chip. The same thing was true for the GeForce cards. I'd have to look up each card's previews on a couple websites to give better information on what I mean, but each has been explained at some point or other. Much has to do with the memory controller and how many bits total could be handled in one processor cycle. In the case of the GeForce3 / 4, I'm pretty sure the number was based on the crossbar memory controller's total access capability, but each was technically only accessing a smaller number of bits independently (more efficient in cases where less than, say, 512 bits of data, are needed for something:

128bits = 2x64 transfers with multiple 64bit controllers in a crossbar setup, vs.
128bits = 512 [ 128 data + 384 junk bits] for a 512bit single controller setup)

This was touted as one of the strengths of the GF3 at the time of its launch, and as far as I remember, seemed to actually work well. Since then both ATI and nVidia use something similar, and Matrox might also. Matrox fell down when it came to other bandwidth saving optimizations though, and so the Parhelia isn't really competitive as a gaming card, despite the extra bit capability.

[SnakeEyes]

I have to correct myself. The 512 references the true memory transfer capability. Parhelia is a 512 bit chip, using 256bit DDR (2x256bit transfers per clock). The GeForce cards from the GeForce2 on, as well as the ATI cards starting with the original Radeon, all have 256bit memory buses, using 128bit DDR memory. Some cards released by these companies since then have been "value" oriented, and so have skimped on lesser memory (128bit SDR, effectively 128bit memory buses, even a couple 64bit SDR / DDR based cards).

I stand by the crossbar-type memory controllers of later GPUs though- these actually subdivide the GPUs memory controller to allow access to smaller chunks of data as needed, while still using the larger overall bus size.

All other things being equal, the larger bus size (128, 256, 512), the higher the theoretical memory bandwidth available. Faster memory clocks combined with higher bus widths equals greater data transfer capability. The only problem with this is that it also equals much greater costs, to the point of diminishing returns. That's also why both nvidia and ATI have gone to such lengths to implement the bandwidth saving tech into their GPUs- making more effective use of available bandwidth can provide much of the same benefit as providing the next level of bandwidth. Despite theoretically having 2x the bandwidth available, Parhelia is very inefficient about using it. So everything from GF4 on from nvidia and ATI pretty much trounces the Parhelia in overall performance.