Considering Marcan calls that pool "MEM0", that might actually be what it is in native mode. That would suggest that the pool is freely accessible.
Yep. They may have needed it for Wii BC and decided to just give devs access to it anyway, giving them a neat place to store their gamepad FB.
For what it's worth:
from what i've heard from a few developers, and the shin'en interview could hint at that also, it doesn't seems that the GPU is like 50 or 60% programmable shaders for a "meh raw power results" + 40 to 50% fixed functions that could add some magic into that. The hypothetic fixed functions should be in clear minority compare to the programmable part, maybe those are just for Wii BC.
Not completely, no. But I do think if his theory were true there would be a bit of a lack of space for "other stuff" that seems to be necessary for a GPU, as the RV770 relative size of components shows.
Ok, re GPU blocks/processors, the following can all be assumed to be in there:
- Command Processor and Thread Scheduler (not necessarily the same block)
- Trisetup and rasterizer (R800 dropped that and delegated the workload to SPs)
- Global Data Share (traditionally not very large, and likely encased nicely by some of the numerous embedded pools, in a much larger size)
- A bunch of caches (vertex, texture) which could be really tiny or not so much (again, memory pools ahoy)
- DMA engines
- Ring buses
- Tessellator (likely still sitting in fixed-function silicon)
BTW, a quick google for ARM9 die area got me to this article discussing a Qualcomm broadband/app processor (yes, ARM9 stand-alone dies are a bit hard to track these days), which appears to be ~0.8mm2 @40nm (the original part is 90nm, so I've applied a squares rule).
Yeah, but comparing to the size of the whole chip (including IO) doesn't make as much sense for our purposes as comparing to just the SIMD+TU block, which I did.
Thanks for this. Maybe Nintendo aren't as crazy as we all imagine. Seems alot of this chip does make sense taking into account the needs for Wii BC and streaming a separate image to the Gamepad.
I wonder what some of the other doubles in the diagram might be. Is a dual geometry engine too much wishful thinking? Dual tessellators?
Thanks for this. Maybe Nintendo aren't as crazy as we all imagine. Seems alot of this chip does make sense taking into account the needs for Wii BC and streaming a separate image to the Gamepad.
I wonder what some of the other doubles in the diagram might be. Is a dual geometry engine too much wishful thinking? Dual tessellators?
Sorry, hadn't refreshed my browser when i responded so i didn't see the last page and your images.
If like Ideaman & FourthStorm are saying, the "only/main" fixed function parts are mainly for WiiBC... how much can we realistically expect those to help out in Wii U games? I mean, Wii's GPU was +/- 1/20th as performant as the 360 GPU of which we know the Wii U is already 50% more potent. That would put the entire Wii GPU at 1/30th of WiiU's GPU... that doesn't really look like it will make much of a dent or a difference for new Wii U games? Simplistic logic, but you get the gist of what i'm saying.
Shiota said:Yes. The designers were already incredibly familiar with the Wii, so without getting hung up on the two machines' completely different structures, they came up with ideas we would never have thought of. There were times when you would usually just incorporate both the Wii U and Wii circuits, like 1+1. But instead of just adding like that, they adjusted the new parts added to Wii U so they could be used for Wii as well.
Definitely. Though it would likely have its requirements how far it sits from the shader cores.Is a global data share really necessary when you're got 2 pools of eDRAM and a pool of SRAM on there? I assumed that it was there on GPUs to avoid a (long) round-trip through DDR, so I figured they might simply do away with it when there's suitable other pools on there. (Unless one of them, such as the SRAM, is the global data share).
Absolutely.Could V be vertex/texture caches? Lots of SRAM, and it's located by the DDR3 interfaces.
Definitely. Though it would likely have its requirements how far it sits from the shader cores.
Yeah, that's what puzzles me about the SRAM pool. It's in a very awkward place for components to take advantage of the low latency. It's also on the opposite end of the die from the DDR3 interface, which indicates it's not being used as a cache.
So any idea when we're going to get CPU shots? Though I suppose those wont be as exciting
Jim Morrison said:Been reading some of the comments on your thread and have a few of my own to use as you wish.
1. This GPU is custom.
2. If it was based on ATI/AMD or a Radeon-like design, the chip would carry die marks to reflect that. Everybody has to recognize the licensing. It has none. Only Renesas name which is a former unit of NEC.
3. This chip is fabricated in a 40 nm advanced CMOS process at TSMC and is not low tech
4. For reference sake, the Apple A6 is fabricated in a 32 nm CMOS process and is also designed from scratch. Its manufacturing costs, in volumes of 100k or more, about $26 - $30 a pop. Over 16 months degrade to about $15 each
a. Wii U only represents like 30M units per annum vs iPhone which is more like 100M units per annum. Put things in perspective.
5. This Wii U GPU costs more than that by about $20-$40 bucks each making it a very expensive piece of kit. Combine that with the IBM CPU and the Flash chip all on the same package and this whole thing is closer to $100 a piece when you add it all up
6. The Wii U main processor package is a very impressive piece of hardware when its said and done.
Trust me on this. It may not have water cooling and heat sinks the size of a brownie, but its one slick piece of silicon. eDRAM is not cheap to make. That is why not everybody does it. Cause its so dam expensive
A fairly notable update to the OP:
Major update: Some comments from Chipwork's Jim Morrison (ie a professional who analyses photos like this for a living):
But, it is based on the R7XXX series...
But, it is based on the R7XXX series...
A fairly notable update to the OP:
Major update: Some comments from Chipwork's Jim Morrison (ie a professional who analyses photos like this for a living):
Just a question: Is that fixed function thing true or just speculations ?
I think the Chipworks guy makes a mess of good points there. Whether you agree or not with Nintendo's direction in terms of performance, there is nothing about the Wii U that screams design incompetence whatsoever, despite the GAF meme.
R7XX, surely? But what if it's Renesas (or even Nintendo themselves) who have made the bulk of the customisations, rather than AMD?
But GAF told me its 2005 tech!
Kidding aside, people who are that desperate to claim ols old tech are either stoll angry that Nintendo won last gen or that they got.
Even though its not a flops monster, it will still produce very neat graphics, Period.
That's a silly thing to say. We didn't know it was there to ask anyone. And he's obviously not forthcoming with info on his own accord.
But, it is based on the R7XXX series...
Why do we still think this?
A fairly notable update to the OP:
Major update: Some comments from Chipwork's Jim Morrison (ie a professional who analyses photos like this for a living):
Yes, it is. But apparently the IP is not AMD's.But, it is based on the R7XX series...
Why do we still think this?
If that was the aim I would think they would have gone for an ARM solution. But people far more versed in hardware engineering can answer you better.So basically, to simplify this down, Nintendo paid for a design that would be able to produce modern graphics a bit better than this generation, and instead of putting money into the pure overall power of the console like Sony/MS, they put money into making something that would be super efficient and low latency at the cost of pure oomph? Basically instead of going a full on V12 Viper that has that max speed of almost 200mph they went with a Super efficient Tesla with a top speed of 120 mph? if we're using car analogies?
Is that the gist of it? Would that signal they are looking more towards the future, cramming such parts into a hand held eventually?
So basically, to simplify this down, Nintendo paid for a design that would be able to produce modern graphics a bit better than this generation, and instead of putting money into the pure overall power of the console like Sony/MS, they put money into making something that would be super efficient and low latency at the cost of pure oomph? Basically instead of going a full on V12 Viper that has that max speed of almost 200mph they went with a Super efficient Tesla with a top speed of 120 mph? if we're using car analogies?
Is that the gist of it? Would that signal they are looking more towards the future, cramming such parts into a hand held eventually?
Because it is the case.
Matt is an insider/developer... he'll have his reasons i suppose.
At 352 gflops you probably won't notice much difference. Though it'll still be nice to see Nintendo IPs in HD.So in other words when devs figure out the GPU, it will produce graphically pleasing games that's better than 7th gen consoles?
But GAF told me its 2005 tech!
Kidding aside, people who are that desperate to claim ols old tech are either stoll angry that Nintendo won last gen or that they got Bayo2.
Even though its not a flops monster, it will still produce very neat graphics, Period.
Yes, it is. But apparently the IP is not AMD's.
At 352 gflops you probably won't notice much difference. Though it'll still be nice to see Nintendo IPs in HD.
I have been very frustrated that the meme has taken place that Nintendo is using old tech. It has been clear since launch that they were actually using very impressive, new tech - both for their GPU and for their tablet streaming technology.
That being said - the design decisions Nintendo made resulted in less graphical punch in the Wii U than other potential avenues. Way too much time has put into the calling Nintendo cheap, when the real line of inquiry is why Nintendo made the choices it did.