GPU Cheatsheet - A History of Modern Consumer Graphics Processors
by Jarred Walton on September 6, 2004 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Wrapping it All Up
So, that's an overview of the recent history of graphics processors. For those that are impressed by the rate of progress in the CPU world, it pales in comparison to recent trends in 3D graphics. Just looking at raw theoretical performance, since the introduction of the "World's First Graphics Processing Unit GPU", the GeForce 256, 3D chips have become about 20 times as fast. That doesn't even take into account architectural optimizations that actually allow chips to come closer to their theoretical performance, or the addition of programmability in DX8 and later chips. Taken together with the raw performance increases, it is probably safe to say that GPUs have become roughly 30 times faster since their introduction. We often hear of "Moore's Law" in regards to CPUs, which is usually paraphrased as being a doubling of performance every 18 to 24 months. (The actual paper from Moore has more to do with optimal transistor counts for maximizing profits than performance.) In comparison, "Moore's Law" for 3D graphics has been double the performance every 12 months.
The amazing thing is that we are still pushing the limits of the current technology. Sure, the 6800 Ultra and X800 XT are fast enough to run all current games with 4xAA and 8xAF turned on, but some programmer out there is just waiting for more power. The Unreal Engine 3 images that have been shown are truly impressive, and even the best cards of today struggle to meet the demands. The goal of real-time Hollywood quality rendering is still a ways off, but only a few years ago Pixar scoffed when NVIDIA claimed they were approaching the ability to do Toy Story 2 visuals in real time. Part of their rebuttal was that Toy Story 2 was using something like 96 GB/s of bandwidth for their textures. We're one third of the way there now!
What does the future hold? With the large sizes of the top GPUs, it is probably safe to bet that newer features (i.e. DirectX 10) are going to be at least a year or more in the future. This is probably a good thing, as it will give ATI and NVIDIA (and their fabrication partners) time to shrink the die process and hopefully start making more cards available. We may not even see DirectX 10 hardware for 18 months, as it is planned as part of the next version of Windows, codenamed Longhorn. Longhorn is currently slated for a 2006 release, so there isn't much point in selling hardware that is completely lacking in software support at the OS and library level.
Those looking for lower prices may be in for something of a disappointment. Lower prices would always be nice, but the trend with the bleeding edge hardware is that it is only getting more expensive with each successive generation. Look at the NVIDIA top-end cards: GeForce 256 DDR launched at about $300, GeForce 2 Ultra and GeForce 3 launched at around $350, GeForce 4 Ti4600 was close to $400, GeForce FX 5800 Ultra and 5950 Ultra were close to $500 at launch, and recently the 6800 Ultra has launched at over $500. More power is good, but not everyone has the funds to buy FX-53 or P4EE processors and matching system components. However, today's bleeding edge hardware is tomorrow's mainstream hardware, so while not everyone can afford a 6800 or X800 card right now, the last generation of high-end hardware is now selling for under $200, and even the $100 parts are better than the GeForce 3 era.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
43 Comments
View All Comments
suryad - Monday, September 6, 2004 - link
What about the mobility x800 graphics card? I didnt see that thrown into the mix?coldpower27 - Monday, September 6, 2004 - link
Thank you Bloodshredder, yeh after reading a little about the Radeon LE, it's almost as good as a Radeon DDR, except with lower working frequencies.so if it's DDR then the correct no. are 148/296 and 32MB VRAM only.
Bloodshedder - Monday, September 6, 2004 - link
For the Radeon LE, I noticed a question mark next to the amount of RAM. I own one of these cards, and can confirm that 32MB DDR is the only configuration it comes in.Draven31 - Monday, September 6, 2004 - link
You skipped which OpenGL version and features the various cards support... maybe add that when you add the various workstation cards to the listings...coldpower27 - Monday, September 6, 2004 - link
Yeh, Nvidia learned it's lesson, last gen, with the 0.13 micron new at the time process delaying the introduction of the NV30, thy learned to play it safe using a tried and tested process is a good idea for such high complexity chips initially, though they of course plan to shift these chips to the 110nm process when the process matures enough, possibly on the NV48 and R480 hopefully allowing higher clocks in the process:D, maybe not for R480 unless low-k is ready for 110nm by that time.
It does make more sense to use the newer manufacturing process to help save costs on the volume shipping GPU, as the cost savings will beaccumulated much better in the mainstream and value arena's thanks to sheer volume.
We also see this with Intel, when Intel yields on the 90nm were only so so, they introduced Prescott up to 3.2GHZ in quanitity, but introduced their Pentium 4 3.4GHZ on the northwood core on 0.13 micron. Though over time Intel is making all efforts to transfer everything to 90nm, with Prescott and Prescott 2M w/1066FSB for EE Edition.
JarredWalton - Monday, September 6, 2004 - link
8 - Intel does this as well, testing a new process on their non-flagship parts. For example, after the launch of the P4, Intel piloted their 130 nm copper technology with the Tualatin CPU before releasing the Northwood. It probably has something to do with the amount of extra time a more complex design takes to test and verify.stephenbrooks - Monday, September 6, 2004 - link
Interesting how on the die sizes chart, I notice they're phasing in the 110nm process only for their mid-range-ish cards and sticking to the tried and tested 130nm for the high-end one. I suppose you can't blame them for that really, given it's their flagship product and all, but it could contribute to the huge die sizes.JarredWalton - Monday, September 6, 2004 - link
Thank, AtaStrumf - any errors in the numbers are ColdPower's fault. Heheheh. Really, he already caught a bunch of small mistakes, so hopefully the number of remaining errors is very small.For what it's worth, there are various versions of some of the chips that have different clock speeds and RAM speeds from what is listed. The models in the chart should reflect the most common configurations, though.
BTW, the article text is now tweaked somewhat on the ATI and NVIDIA overview pages. Derek Wilson provided some additional insight on the subject of AA and AF that clarified things a little.
JarredWalton - Monday, September 6, 2004 - link
Argon was the name for the .25 micron K7, while Pluto and Orion were .18 micron.#2 and #4: I realize you're kidding, but in all seriousness we did think about including other architectures. With the broken features on some of the more recent cards and the lack of T&L on 3dfx and older cards, we just decided to stick with the two major players. And hey - it's all fair, as we didn't include Cyrix/Via or Transmeta processors in the CPU cheatsheet! ;)
AtaStrumf - Monday, September 6, 2004 - link
OMFG, this is awsome!!!! You really outdid youself this time! I have been collecting data on GPUs for quite a while and have been planing on making a spreadsheet just like the first two for my, so called, web site, but WAU, this rocks. Thanks for saving me a lot of work :)When I get the time, I'll check your munbers a bit, just to make sure there aren't any typos in there.