Rumor has it that 3dfx has a new trick up their sleeve, and it has something to do with this:

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bluemax

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2000
7,182
0
0
Naw.... I have lots of German friends- they act NOTHING like this. They can get opinionated and bull-headed, but not childish and irrational.

If you make one small error, they won't chew you to pieces and say, "You don't know ANYTHING!"
Like someone does...

Take in all the facts and slowly form an opinion... an opinion without facts and practice is usually very, very wrong.
 

Marty

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
1,534
0
0
Hey man, I'm German. I don't think I'm in the same category as Hardware. I don't appreciate your remark. :|

Marty
 

Hardware

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,580
0
0
nde:


<< 0.25 vs 0.18. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the die size, and I guess a Chip with 0.18 produces less heat than a 0.25 Chip. Well, it's not the only thing, but one of the advantages. But what's the problem when there's no big heat problem???? And this I know for sure, it doesn't make the chip faster! You can _make_ faster chips with 0.18, but a Chip with 0.18 is not automatically faster. >>



you dont know that much about what 0.25 vs 0.18 means!
ask some technican I am not your teacher!


 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Wow, you're a fool Hardware.

You know it is possible to design a .25 chip that outperforms a .18 chip?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Jesus H Christ you fscking moron! That has nothing to do with the die size! It has everything to do with the chip design, dipsh!t!
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
What have we here?

It looks like that .18 Intel Coppermine chip is getting it's ass handed to it by one of those inferior .25 Athlons. Crazy how that works.

Edit: Excuse me, .18 is the manufacturing process, which I believe is the width in microns of the traces within the CPU.
 

DaveB3D

Senior member
Sep 21, 2000
927
0
0
Hardware.. he was right in the post you said is wrong. You are making yourself look like a fool.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Come on dipsh!t, waiting for an answer on my last post with the link. Shouldn't that .18 P3 be kicking the crap out of that horribly inferior .25 Athlon?

Huh smart guy?
 

Sohcan

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,127
0
0
Okay, since no one here has yet made any technical remarks on die size, I think I'll butt in...I'm not an engineer (yet ), but I have taken multiple computer engineering and digital logic circuit design classes, so I think it makes me at least somewhat qualified to give an explanation.

As you may well know, integrated circuits are composed of logic gates (AND, OR, NOT, NOR, NAND, XOR, etc...). They perform boolean algebra operations on a digital signal; hence, you have a digital computer.

All logic gates have a certain amount of gate delay, or the time it takes for the gate to perform it's operation. For example, if you send a logic 0 through a NOT gate, it might take 1ns for the logic 1 to output.

There are two types of logic circuits: combination and sequential. Combinational circuits can be explicitly defined by its inputs, while a sequential circuit is defined by both its inputs and outputs. Thus, sequential circuits usually contain some sort of loop...sequential circuits (usually in the form of registers, which store 1 bit) are often used in combination with combinational circuits. Finally, sequential circuits (unlike combinational circuits) are tied to a clock signal; depending on the type of sequential circuit, it can only change at most once per clock cycle (most change on the positive transition of the clock signal).

Let's say that you have some circuit (part of the entire integrated circuit) that has some number of gates, such that the total gate delay is 5ns...that is, when an input is driven, it takes 5ns for the output to appear. Since you shouldn't change the input more than once per clock cycle (otherwise input might be lost), you shouldn't run the circuit faster than 1/5ns = 200 MHz. This fact is the main thing that holds back clock speeds in processors.

Now, lets say you originally designed this circuit using a .25u process. When you make the transition to .18u, the individual transistors composing the logic gates can run faster; heat is also reduced, but the increase in transistor speed is the most important factor. Thus, the total gate delay in a circuit will be lower. Now, after making the transition to .18u, let's say the total gate delay of the circuit is now 4ns. This means the circuit can reliably be run at a max speed of 250 MHz.

If you compare the same processor, one built using a .25u process, and the other at .18u, you can say that the .18u processor has the capacity to run cooler and at a higher clock rate. You cannot compare two different processors built on different processes and say that one is automatically faster than the other based on die size alone. Circuit design is by far the most important factor.
 

DaveB3D

Senior member
Sep 21, 2000
927
0
0
Well good post, but you spoiled what I was going after. I was trying to see if Hardware actually knew anything that he was trying to say, or if he was just totally BSing (like I think he is).

 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,354
8,444
126
thanks for the technical lesson, at least some people still have their wits about them here.

3dfx chose to keep with the proven .25u (i believe that refers to the size of the actual transistors) but used an &quot;enhanced&quot; process that has shorter gate widths (the traces between transistors are shorter?) to get a bit more speed out of the .25u. nvidia chose a more risky strategy with the original geforce, using a a slightly less proven .22u process. since they were early adopters of TSMC's ability to make the things, they were gambling on TSMC's ability to execute the process. TSMC did come through. also, the geforce has a whole lot of gates, and is a really large chip because of it, so nvidia had to use the smaller process to get more chips from the wafer. the larger the chip, the higher the likelihood of a flaw in the silicon ruining the chip. so in order to improve yields, nvidia choose the .22u, but weighed that against the low yields that being an early adopter entails. since the vsa-100 has a lot fewer gates, it could be manufactured at the larger process, and 3dfx probably gets more chips from a wafer than nvidia did. interestingly, if nvidia hadn't gone to .22u, the geforce probably would have required a power solution such as the v5 has. as it stands the geforce sucks up enough power that some motherboards had trouble. canopus, probably the only video card maker with balls enough to stray from reference design, did include a molex plug on the board to provide power.

the same things can be said about being an early adopter of .18u. intel had only gone to it the previous quarter, and they had fall back products. nvidia bet the farm on TSMC's ability to make .18 geforces, and TSMC came through for them again. from these actions i can say that 3dfx does act more risk-averse than does nvidia. or maybe nvidia has better info on TSMC's abilities.
 

Hardware

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,580
0
0
advantage 0.18 BS 0.25:
cooler
less power
more mhz
more functions possible (max die size)
cheaper (more dies from waver)
smaller

advantage: 0.25 vs 0.18 ???
dave jump in
fill it out
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Those are all true. But it does not mean that a .18 chip is better than a .25 chip. Yes the GeForce may be a better chip, but not because of it's process. Have a seat, son.
 

Hardware

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,580
0
0
3dfx based on &quot;old&quot; 0,25
on a short term it was safe
on a long term it blowed
as kisty (3dfx) points out basically 3dfx relied on old secure techs nvidia on new (slight unsecure) techs
As we know now nvidia was right
it was a management decision like stb and both turned out to be wrong
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,354
8,444
126
hardware: 3dfx could be getting more dies per wafer from .25 than nvidia is getting from .18, since the vsa-100 is slightly less than half the transistor count of the geforce 2. i don't know how that translates into real world size exactly, since cache is more compact than logic as far as i've seen, and a whole lot of the those transistor counts have to be cache. the t-bird has the highest transistor count, the radeon second, then either cumine or gts, i don't remember which. but the t-bird has 384k of cache, the p3 288k, i'm going to assume the geforce and radeon have similar levels. of course, i could be completely wrong, it could be all logic, but that would be, frankly, insane.
 

DaveB3D

Senior member
Sep 21, 2000
927
0
0
Hardware... what you said can be true, and yet at on the same note most everything you said can be completely wrong. The only difference is that it is pysically smaller. MUCH of what you say comes down to the design itself. You can do a really good job in designing a chip and it can run at very high clocks, etc and you can use a low micron. On that same note, you can use .18 and have a bad design and it will be sucky.

The issue with the road NVIDIA is taking is more long term. They are continually pushing the edge of things. I mean if we didn't have .15u fabrication right now, NV20 would be screwed badly. We just got it though, and so they are using it. However, at the rate NVIDIA is going they are going to be leaving themselves in the hands of the fabs. If the fabs can't support the die size NVIDIA needs, they are going to be screwed. I mean they are totally pushing the limits of things with NV20/25. I mean 50-70 transistors is HUGE. The other problem with pushing the limit of technology like that is that you have to be the guini(spelling?) pig. In other words, you get to be the one to suffer from yield issues until the method is perfected. By relaying one die size back, that isn't an issue. What you use is perfected and it is proven.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,354
8,444
126
how did it turn out to be wrong? the v5 performs pretty damned well. from a performance standpoint, pure and simple, the v5 is a very competent product. from a compatibility standpoint, the v5 is a very excellent product. as far as gamer/tweaker sites go, they reveiwed the v5 with early drivers, which have since been improved tremendously, compared to the geforce's 7 month old drivers. i'm sure that if they were to review it today it would get much better marks. but notice, not a one site is reveiwing the v5 with new drivers. firingsquad usually reviews the latest nvidia overnight builds, why don't they tell everyone about how the v5's driver's kick @ss? think about it.
 

Blackhawk2

Senior member
May 1, 2000
455
0
0
It also has to do with how far an engineering team is along with their design. If they already have it mapped out in a 0.25 process it has to be completely redone if the process is switched to 0.18 micron.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,354
8,444
126
and MHz isn't everything. certainly you've been on the forums enough to find that the general consesus is that the pentium 4 is a dog compared to p3s/athlons at the same MHz, and will probably be about the same speed as a 1GHz athlon/p3 when clocked 50% faster. it doesn't quite work that way with 3d chips currently, but simply saying that &quot;.18 is better than .25&quot; or &quot;250 is better than 166&quot; shows absolutely no knowledge about the actualities of the equipment.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |