ATI and Nvidia graphics chips pushing at megahertz limits

Advertisement (Why?)

WE SPOKE with some folk that that really really know how graphic semiconductor works and how far 0.13µ chips can go. Apparently you can get to 600 MHz maximum if you are skilled and lucky enough. We reported earlier that 0.13 microns R420 will work around 500MHz and I guess that NV40 might even go more then that but it seems no one can exceed 600MHz.

The next marchitecture that ATI (RV370) and Nvidia are playing with might just be 0.11µ based. It's hard to confirm whether the RV370, DX 9 PCI Express card will come at 0.11 µ but it would make sense, since this is exactly how ATI went from 0.15 µ to 0.13 µ in the mainstream market, less dangerous and less noisy, it seems

View: The full story

News source: The Inq

SharpKeys 1.1 offers:

Map up to 104 different keys to other key or disable them altogether
Use your keyboard to select keys to map or select from an exhaustive list of supported keys
No drivers are ever loaded as it's a part of Windows
Includes options for extended keys including Windows, Application, Internet keys and more

SharpKeys is Donation-ware and requires the 1.1 version of the .NET Framework to run on a Windows-based PC.

(5 replies) #1 dreamthief on 09 Mar 2004 - 12:22

Interesting... wonder when we shall see an over 1Ghz graphic card..

#1.1 phantom on 09 Mar 2004 - 12:30

soon graphics chips will match or out clock a cpu

#1.2 redFX on 09 Mar 2004 - 14:28

Not for awhile. Intel is at the 3.4ghz area. Graphics are at 500mhz tops right now so it'll take awhile

#1.3 HyperSpace on 09 Mar 2004 - 14:33

the GeForce FX5950 ultra can be clocked to 1.3ghz with serious cooling....my mate done it

#1.4 LordHatrus on 09 Mar 2004 - 20:33

I second, but I've done it with an ATI

#1.5 BearOso on 10 Mar 2004 - 06:51

PCs and even Apple now are counting both the rise and fall as one clock each, so they're a bit slower than they're broadcast.

(2 replies) #2 kioria on 09 Mar 2004 - 12:40

So just a question of curiousity: What is the difference in architecture of CPUs and GPUs? Why can one go over 1GHz with 14micron and the other cannot? Thanks

#2.1 SirEvan on 09 Mar 2004 - 14:14

My guess would be that GPU's have less area available for raw computing power, since more areas of the die are dedicated to specific graphics tasks, whereas a CPU's entire area is dedicated specifically to overall computing, minus the L1 and L2 caches of course. If you had a slightly larger die, then you could probably raise the speed of GPUs, by giving it more space to cram stuff in.

#2.2 frankchn on 11 Mar 2004 - 11:46

GPU's are designed with something called HDL (hardware description language) while CPUs are designed by hand, thus CPU's are better optimized

#3 antally on 09 Mar 2004 - 15:04

CPU's are largely programmed and designed by hand, while GPU's are so large that they must have an algorithm design most of the GPU. The CPU designers are also given much more time to work on their product, and it can cost a lot more. (~400 for a topend CPU (ignoring FX/EE)(~400 for an entire graphics card, with memory and PCB)

(7 replies) #4 beardenps on 09 Mar 2004 - 15:38

Just wait until the 'CELL' processor arrives late 2004/2005 .... ( The CPU for the Playstation 3 ) It will have the ability to do more than 1 trillion mathematical calculations per second, roughly 100 times more than a single Pentium 4 chip running at 2.5GHz.

#4.1 Xeonzinc on 09 Mar 2004 - 17:31

QUOTE

roughly 100 times more than a single Pentium 4 chip running at 2.5GHz

thats what their saying is it? Well we'll see how good it really is when its released. Don't belive all the hype you hear.

#4.2 ANova on 09 Mar 2004 - 19:03

The tone of your responce implies you already know it will fail. Are you by chance an XBOX fanboy?

#4.3 lexor on 09 Mar 2004 - 19:32

no the tone of his voice implies he learned something from NVidia hype with FX, you should as well

#4.4 ANova on 10 Mar 2004 - 02:20

Just because one product made by a completely different company failed doesn't mean all products with any hype behind them will fail. I'm not saying it will be the best thing since sliced bread nor was I implying it wouldn't. Truth is we have to wait and see how it will do; his original comment was very nagative as if he had peered into the future and already seen the outcome which we no is impossible, at least at this time. Hasty generalizations like that are usually made by fanboys who in fact have no idea what they are talking about the majority of the time.

#4.5 GiB WaKeR on 10 Mar 2004 - 12:13

ANova, don't you think 100x faster than a 2.5gig seems like its a a tad on the large size? I mean, come now...

Stop trying to play devils advocate like hes trashing the chip, it just does seem a little high.
Damn... fanboys.

#4.6 kioria on 10 Mar 2004 - 13:37

is this the day, when Gaming Box > Business Servers becomes true? I don't think so. Logically, economically and strictly speaking, this wouldn't happen.

#4.7 frankchn on 11 Mar 2004 - 11:49

100x more than a 2.5 GHz seem quite a lot... If it were true then why don't the supercomputing centres around the world buy playstations instead of crays?

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Neowin.net