View Single Post
Old 04-05-10, 12:16 AM   #140
shadow001
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,526
Default Re: A little disappointed in Nvidia

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muppet View Post
I do agree. There really isn't any other choice for either Nvidia or ATI. Mostly because of all the issues with the 32nm process if it is true. If they are then I don't think we will see any 28nm chips until well into next year. It looks like Intel is the only one to really get the 32nm process up and running.

Actually,there's a difference between the processes used for CPU's and the ones used for GPU's,in that the version for CPU production is a high performance variation that is partially responsable for allowing CPU's to hit the clocks they do while keeping the power and thermal issues under control,but it's also one of the reasons why CPU's cost more in retail...Anywhere from 100$ per chip to over a 1000$ for the very highest end versions.


The fabrication processes used in GPU's are called "Bulk" variants,so they're not quite as good as the high performance variants for CPU's,but much cheaper and GPU's don't depend too much on the actual clock speeds to hit a certain performance,but mostly on the architecture itself and how it's set up in terms of parallism(more ROP's,more texture units,more shaders,wider busses,etc..),and as we've seen for a while now,clock speeds for GPU cores haven't gone up that much in the past 4~5 years,staying in that 600 to 800 Mhz range for quite a while now.


Generally speaking,it's been ATI using higher clocks,but smaller transistor budgets,and Nvidia doing the reverse,with GPU's using a higher transistor budget,but lower clocks in general.


The 32nm high performance fabrication processes are very much a go for CPU production even at Global foundries,just that it's not suited for GPU use,which is what both global foundries and TSMC cancelled....The "bulk" variation at those same 32nm sizes,supposedly from lack of interest from customers,so they're shifting to the half node,28nm "Bulk" variation instead.
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote