-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
WiiU technical discussion (serious discussions welcome)
- Thread starter blu
- Start date
Always-honest
Banned
yeah, i'd like to know too. Serious answers please.
phosphor112
Banned
Surprised that wasn't mentioned in here yet.
Here is the link if people are wondering.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=501905
DragonSworne
Banned
If the CPU is truly based on the 750 family, then we have no clue what evolutions the chip has gone through since the last known chip to be using that core, the Wii's CPU broadway (correct me if I'm wrong). IBM has stopped publishing specs to the public on 750 family years ago.
What we do know is that those chips were previously manufactured on 90nm fabrications. Do you think IBM and Nintendo were able to shrink it to 40nm for the WiiU?
Also, at 90nm, these CPUs took less than 3 watts to power. Could the WiiU CPU be closer to 1-2 watts now on a smaller fab? Insanity.
What we do know is that those chips were previously manufactured on 90nm fabrications. Do you think IBM and Nintendo were able to shrink it to 40nm for the WiiU?
Also, at 90nm, these CPUs took less than 3 watts to power. Could the WiiU CPU be closer to 1-2 watts now on a smaller fab? Insanity.
McHuj
Member
IBM already stated that its on 45nm SOI. Given that it's a 3 core chip with a lot more cache and what the WiiU's power consumption is, I think ~5-10 Watts for the CPU is good guess.
Smurfman256
Member
Okay, (semi)good news: We now know the Wii U's CPU and GPU clock speeds.
bad news: we still don't know anything ELSE about the components(other than the fact that the CPU is based off of Broadway).
bad news: we still don't know anything ELSE about the components(other than the fact that the CPU is based off of Broadway).
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
If we assumed that U-CPU is clock-for-clock compatible with the Broadway, using the Broadway/Ontario comparison from a couple of pages ago, we can conclude that for tight scalar FPU code (read: matrix multiplications sans SIMD) a U-CPU core is damn close to an AMD C-60 core:
$ echo "scale=4; 16.3517 / (1250 / 729) / 8.89305" | bc
1.0723
$ echo "scale=4; 16.3517 / (1250 / 729) / 8.89305" | bc
1.0723
Might as well repost what I posted in the clock speed thread:
Plus, as an added bonus, some numbers on the eDRAM bandwidth. It's down to one of these three possibilities:
1024bit interface -- 68.75GB/s
4096bit interface -- 275GB/s
8192bit interface -- 550GB/s
Barring anything crazy (like a 28nm GPU or Renesas having developed some super-secret eDRAM just for Nintendo), it has to be one of those three numbers.
Plus, as an added bonus, some numbers on the eDRAM bandwidth. It's down to one of these three possibilities:
1024bit interface -- 68.75GB/s
4096bit interface -- 275GB/s
8192bit interface -- 550GB/s
Barring anything crazy (like a 28nm GPU or Renesas having developed some super-secret eDRAM just for Nintendo), it has to be one of those three numbers.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Well, if you copy-pasted the $-headed line in a unix terminal (sans the $) you'd get the result given below the line. Re the numbers:
16.3517 (count of seconds a certain sw test takes to execute on Broadway)
8.89305 (count of seconds the same test takes on C-60)
I think you can figure out the rest of the numbers ('scale=4' being of no interest ; )
/Layton hat off
Oh, and Thraktor - that was definitely a post worth bringing over - you should've posted it here first! ;p
phosphor112
Banned
Good, more information.
Well nobody asked me for input over here
Also, a bonus bonus: given what we now know, the worst case scenario for total bandwidth from both Wii U's pools of RAM is 81.55GB/s. If MS or Sony were to design a console with DDR3/4 but without an eDRAM equivalent (and that's a big if), then the best case scenario for total bandwidth would be 81.25GB/s.
(The DDR3/4 is assuming a 256 bit data bus at 1.3GHz (2.6GT/s))
Edit: Actually, Blu, do you have any idea as to the feasibility of what I was posting above (regarding access to DDR3 and eDRAM from the various internal components of the GPU)? Or is it hard to put into words just how wrong I am?
So GPU Gflops either 352 or 528 or something in between?
I guess we can rule out 704 Gflops... right?
I'm guessing 528. Though I'll take 704 in a heartbeat.
So GPU Gflops either 352 or 528 or something in between?
I guess we can rule out 704 Gflops... right?
There's not really much we can say about Gflops from this. The R700 line normally divides the SIMD units (SPUs) into arrays of 80, but that's not a hard restriction of the architecture. The Wii U's could be divided into arrays of 60 or 100 or any number, really.
Edit: Well, I suppose we can probably assume a multiple of 40 overall, which limits us to this list of possibilities:
320 SPUs - 352 Gflops
360 SPUs - 396 Gflops
400 SPUs - 440 Gflops
440 SPUs - 484 Gflops
480 SPUs - 528 Gflops
520 SPUs - 572 Gflops
560 SPUs - 616 Gflops
Apophis2036
Banned
What speed is the 360 eDRAM ?.
Apophis2036
Banned
I would be more than happy with 528 GFLOPs, more than double Xenos with 2011 architecture and effects, then the extra eDRAM, Audio chip and extra main memory, defo more than 'on par' with PS360
.Fourth Storm
Member
Wouldn't that just make it unnecessarily exotic and difficult to program for? I would think they would keep the SIMD units at 40 or 80 unless there was some real benefit. More than, "Hmm. I want more than 320 shaders but 360 would be too much...how about 345!?"
The on-die bandwidth between the ROPs and the eDRAM is 256GB/s. An important difference, though, is that the ROPs and eDRAM are on a different die to the rest of the GPU, and the interface from the GPU to that daughter die is around ~30GB/s, so that's a bottleneck that wouldn't exist on Wii U (where it's all on the same die).
Not really. Keep in mind that the R700 layout isn't designed so that developers can create code which is specifically optimised to it, it's designed to run general DirectX/OpenGL code that's written in a hardware-agnostic manner. So, if you were deriving a console chip from it (ie a chip where coders would be performing low-level optimisation specifically for the hardware), then the optimal configuration may be different.
Fourth Storm
Member
I see. Thanks for the reply. And also, thanks for the reply concerning cache last night. I didn't realize there was so much logic in them besides the memory pools.
So GPU Gflops either 352 or 528 or something in between?
I guess we can rule out 704 Gflops... right?
I definitely would rule this out, likely impossible judging by the die size.
I hope for at least 440 GFLOPS (400 shader units).
So again they made a machine not friendly to ports. Both this gen (gpu centric) and next (super slow). I guess we need to know ROPs etc now.
I really didn't expect down near 1GHz. Nintendo just seem so paranoid about size/heat.
Regarding EDRAM bandwidth. Pick the smallest as that seems like Nintendos MO.
Fourth Storm
Member
Yup, the pieces of the puzzle are finally coming together, and with that, my year and a half quest nears completion.
There is some hope for the ~250 GB/s eDRAM, though. I believe the smaller macros would improve latency, something we know Nintendo has focused on with this system. And since they haven't synced the clocks this go round, their claims of low latency must stem from somewhere. Dangit, this system needs one saving grace!
Apophis2036
Banned
If the CPU is really only using 1-5 Watts, that's a lot of Wattage left for the GPU, i think it's going to surprise people with how powerful it is.
Maybe BG's estimate of 600 GFLOPs wasn't far off afterall.
Maybe BG's estimate of 600 GFLOPs wasn't far off afterall
.Horse Armour
Member
Erm, after today's revelations, I think we can safely cast off anything BG said as made up.If the CPU is really only using 1-5 Watts, that's a lot of Wattage left for the GPU, i think it's going to surprise people with how powerful it is.
Maybe BG's estimate of 600 GFLOPs wasn't far off afterall
Regarding latency increase from 1T-SRAM cache to eDRAM memory pool, yes if you measure in clocks*, no if you measure in ns (as Wii U's GPU is ~2x higher clock). Even if we were assuming identical clocks, I'd be willing to bet that the negative effects of the slightly higher latency of that 1MB would be more than cancelled out by the positive effects of the much lower latency for the rest of the 23MB.
*I'm not sure if this is even actually the case, but let's assume it is.
Actually, 640 SPUs would be just about feasible given the die size, I posted some calculations on it a few pages back (which failed to account for the eDRAM overhead, I will admit). If you are optimistic with the overhead, though, and strip off the GDDR5 controller and perhaps a few of the ROPs, then 640 SPUs could just about fit in the die. (I'm assuming 40nm here)
Wattage, though, is another matter. A 640 SPU part running at 550MHz wouldn't be able to fit in the GPU's ~30W energy limit (again, assuming 40nm). For this reason it's got to be lower.
Just for contrariness, I'm going to go with a configuration of 440:20:12.
Not necessarily. This isn't the same as off-chip (or even off-die) memory, where extra traces can be very expensive. It's entirely possible that a particular number of chips or a particular interface width is necessary to get connections to all the GPU parts that require them.
Eh, no. BGassassin was quite clear about what he had info about and what was just his own speculation, and he never claimed to have info about CPU clocks. Furthermore, he did get specific info (eg 2GB total RAM) that was later proved to be spot on.
Fourth Storm
Member
If the CPU is really only using 1-5 Watts, that's a lot of Wattage left for the GPU, i think it's going to surprise people with how powerful it is.
Maybe BG's estimate of 600 GFLOPs wasn't far off afterall
My advice? Abandon ye all hope who enter here.
We've heard from at least a couple sources that the GPU is ~1.5x Xenos. Looking at die sizes and TDP (of non-binned parts), it's safe to say we're looking at 320-360 SPUs (352-396 Gflops). Maybe they upped it to 12 ROPs to take the second screen into account, or maybe they figured it wasn't necessary if those ROPs were a big enough improvement in efficiency over Xenos' and they are targeting 720p.
Apophis2036
Banned
You obviously never read much of what he had to say...
2GB's of Ram, a slower than PS360 CPU and a GPU around the 600 GFLOP mark was what he predicted months ago.
Some people here seem to have this weird perception of BG as someone who went around spouting off about how beastly the Wii U would be and all the insider info he had. Not the case.
Utilising limited eDRAM in nothing new, every dev should have some exeprience with it from PS2, 360 and Wii.
Fourth Storm
Member
Hahaha, join the party!
Only thing listed on the wiki is that the Wii CPU is 2.9 GFLOPs.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Some of you guys really need to get the stick out of your asses when it comes to BG.
I've already said if you guys want to bitch at someone for not lowering the bar it should be me.
I had access to the same info as BG, and had a slightly more pessimistic outlook, but didn't post with the same degree of certainty.
Fourth Storm
Member
Thank you. BG was making educated guesses based on his own technical knowledge and limited information that was passed on to him. He has expressed that Wii U is somewhat of a letdown to him as well, as it doesn't meet what he feels to be minimum next gen specs. But people should not blame the guy because they threw their better judgment aside and blindly followed his more optimistic assessments instead of analyzing all the available information for themselves and drawing their own conclusions.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
This thread has been civil so far. I'd appreciate if it remained so in the near future. Thanks.
You mean the GPU block diagrams? Well, I'm not a GPU designer, so I'm hardly qualified to tell you how wrong you are, particularly given that my personal expectations of that GPU and its access to its eDRAM are not far from yours ; )Edit: Actually, Blu, do you have any idea as to the feasibility of what I was posting above (regarding access to DDR3 and eDRAM from the various internal components of the GPU)? Or is it hard to put into words just how wrong I am?
Directly scaling Wii's CPU to 1.24GHz multiplying that by 3, you'd get 14.8GFLOPs. I wouldn't put stock in those numbers though since 1. I'm probably wrong. 2. Wii U's CPUs shouldn't actually be exactly Wii CPUs duct taped together.
Wondering, is this test still fairly valid? http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=41793263&postcount=1
Code:
Wwise 2012.2 CPU Load (lower is better)
| Wii U | A6-3500 | i7-920
------------------------------------------------
Peak Limiter | 0.20% | 0.08% | 0.05%
Delay | 0.07% | 0.04% | 0.01%If so, given the clock speed of Wii U, doesn't that make it more efficient per clock than A6-3500, a triple core AMD CPU. (not to say anything about wattage)
Fair enough. Given that you're at least several orders of magnitude more knowledgable on GPU-related matters than I am, I'll take it as a positive that you don't think it's stupid, at least
Sounds about right. Seems about the same clock-for-clock as the A6 (which runs at about 2x the clock), which is actually better than expected, especially as audio is SIMDy code (although I may be wrong on that).
MadOdorMachine
No additional functions
I'm not as technically inclined as a lot of folks around here but from the sound of it, this is an expansion of the CPU architecture that originated with the GameCube.
That Power PC architecture was never able to attain the higher clock rates of X86 based architecture. It's one of the reasons that Apple ditched Power PC in favor of Intel and that Xbox 360 has had such issues with heat.
From a performance perspective even at much lower clock speeds (sometimes less than half IIRC) the Power PC benchmarked better than it's X86 counterpart. In other words a Power PC CPU clocked at 1.25GHz performed the same as an X86 CPU clocked at 3GHz.
Mind you this was several years ago when I remember seeing these benchmarks, but going strictly off the clock speeds of the CPU isn't a way to give a clear indication of what we can expect going forward out of the Wii U. It's already able to handle modern day ports and despite what anyone says about performance, you have to take dev time and the fact that it's a new architecture into the equation when looking at Wii U's launch line up.
So I'm not trying to defend Nintendo's lackluster stance on the graphics race - quite the contrary. What I am saying is that it's a bit premature to judge the graphical capabilities of the system based on specs alone. I honestly think the Wii U will remain a generation behind, but just like the Wii compared to Xbox and PS2, I think the Wii U will be able to deliver some really great feats graphically. In other words, don't worry so much about specs. Instead, try and speculate what can be done with them.
That Power PC architecture was never able to attain the higher clock rates of X86 based architecture. It's one of the reasons that Apple ditched Power PC in favor of Intel and that Xbox 360 has had such issues with heat.
From a performance perspective even at much lower clock speeds (sometimes less than half IIRC) the Power PC benchmarked better than it's X86 counterpart. In other words a Power PC CPU clocked at 1.25GHz performed the same as an X86 CPU clocked at 3GHz.
Mind you this was several years ago when I remember seeing these benchmarks, but going strictly off the clock speeds of the CPU isn't a way to give a clear indication of what we can expect going forward out of the Wii U. It's already able to handle modern day ports and despite what anyone says about performance, you have to take dev time and the fact that it's a new architecture into the equation when looking at Wii U's launch line up.
So I'm not trying to defend Nintendo's lackluster stance on the graphics race - quite the contrary. What I am saying is that it's a bit premature to judge the graphical capabilities of the system based on specs alone. I honestly think the Wii U will remain a generation behind, but just like the Wii compared to Xbox and PS2, I think the Wii U will be able to deliver some really great feats graphically. In other words, don't worry so much about specs. Instead, try and speculate what can be done with them.
Smurfman256
Member
I'm not as technically inclined as a lot of folks around here but from the sound of it, this is an expansion of the CPU architecture that originated with the GameCube.
That Power PC architecture was never able to attain the higher clock rates of X86 based architecture. It's one of the reasons that Apple ditched Power PC in favor of Intel and that Xbox 360 has had such issues with heat.
From a performance perspective even at much lower clock speeds (sometimes less than half IIRC) the Power PC benchmarked better than it's X86 counterpart. In other words a Power PC CPU clocked at 1.25GHz performed the same as an X86 CPU clocked at 3GHz.
Mind you this was several years ago when I remember seeing these benchmarks, but going strictly off the clock speeds of the CPU isn't a way to give a clear indication of what we can expect going forward out of the Wii U. It's already able to handle modern day ports and despite what anyone says about performance, you have to take dev time and the fact that it's a new architecture into the equation when looking at Wii U's launch line up.
So I'm not trying to defend Nintendo's lackluster stance on the graphics race - quite the contrary. What I am saying is that it's a bit premature to judge the graphical capabilities of the system based on specs alone. I honestly think the Wii U will remain a generation behind, but just like the Wii compared to Xbox and PS2, I think the Wii U will be able to deliver some really great feats graphically. In other words, don't worry so much about specs. Instead, try and speculate what can be done with them.
As a reminder
Anything made by Nintendo developers on Nintendo hardware will look LIGHTYEARS better than what 3rd-party devs can make. It's been proven generation after generation. Those .gif's are a moot-point.
Rogue leader 2 and RE4 looked arguably better than anything else on Gamecube. If you need a step up in graphics from the best of last gen, don't look towards Wii U for it. either way, there are other threads for this sort of discussion.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Gentlemen, may I ask you to refrain from posting animated gifs and/or quoting them, unless you have a particular technical point in mind? I think we are all adults here, who can understand and respect thread topics. Thanks.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll