GPU Cheatsheet - A History of Modern Consumer Graphics Processors

Graphics Chip Die Sizes

Finally, below you can see our rough estimations and calculations for some die sizes. Lines in bold indicate chips for which we have a relatively accurate die size, so they are not pure estimates.

Nvidia Die Sizes
DirectX 9.0C with PS3.0 and VS3.0 Support
GF 6600	NV43	146	110	9.50	8	159
GF 6600GT	NV43	146	110	9.50	8	159
GF 6800LE	NV40	222	130	8.75	8	287
GF 6800	NV40	222	130	8.75	8	287
GF 6800GT	NV40	222	130	8.75	8	287
GF 6800U	NV40	222	130	8.75	8	287
GF 6800UE	NV40	222	130	8.75	8	287
DirectX 9 with PS2.0+ and VS2.0+ Support
GFFX 5200LE	NV34	45	150	9.50	8	91
GFFX 5200	NV34	45	150	9.50	8	91
GFFX 5200U	NV34	45	150	9.50	8	91
GFFX 5500	NV34	45	150	9.50	8	91
GFFX 5600XT	NV31	80	130	10.00	8	135
GFFX 5600	NV31	80	130	10.00	8	135
GFFX 5600U	NV31	80	130	10.00	8	135
GFFX 5700LE	NV36	82	130	9.50	8	125
GFFX 5700	NV36	82	130	9.50	8	125
GFFX 5700U	NV36	82	130	9.50	8	125
GFFX 5700UDDR3	NV36	82	130	9.50	8	125
GFFX 5800	NV30	125	130	10.00	8	211
GFFX 5800U	NV30	125	130	10.00	8	211
GFFX 5900XT/SE	NV35	135	130	9.50	8	206
GFFX 5900	NV35	135	130	9.50	8	206
GFFX 5900U	NV35	135	130	9.50	8	206
GFFX 5950U	NV38	135	130	9.50	8	206
DirectX 8 with PS1.3 and VS1.1 Support
GF3 Ti200	NV20	57	150	10.00	8	128
GeForce 3	NV20	57	150	10.00	8	128
GF3 Ti500	NV20	57	150	10.00	8	128
GF4 Ti4200 128	NV25	63	150	10.00	8	142
GF4 Ti4200 64	NV25	63	150	10.00	8	142
GF4 Ti4200 8X	NV25	63	150	10.00	8	142
GF4 Ti4400	NV25	63	150	10.00	8	142
GF4 Ti4600	NV25	63	150	10.00	8	142
GF4 Ti4800	NV25	63	150	10.00	8	142
GF4 Ti4800 SE	NV25	63	150	10.00	8	142
DirectX 7
GeForce 256 SDR	NV10	23	220	10.00	8	111
GeForce 256 DDR	NV10	23	220	10.00	8	111
GF2 MX200	NV11	20	180	10.00	8	65
GF2 MX	NV11	20	180	10.00	8	65
GF2 MX400	NV11	20	180	10.00	8	65
GF2 GTS	NV15	25	180	10.00	8	81
GF2 Pro	NV15	25	180	10.00	8	81
GF2 Ti	NV15	25	150	10.00	8	56
GF2 Ultra	NV15	25	180	10.00	8	81
GF4 MX420	NV17	29	150	10.00	8	65
GF4 MX440 SE	NV17	29	150	10.00	8	65
GF4 MX440	NV17	29	150	10.00	8	65
GF4 MX440 8X	NV18	29	150	10.00	8	65
GF4 MX460	NV17	29	150	10.00	8	65
ATI Die Sizes
DirectX 9 with PS2.0b and VS2.0 Support
X800 SE?	R420	160	130	9.75	8	257
X800 Pro	R420	160	130	9.75	8	257
X800 GT?	R420	160	130	9.75	8	257
X800 XT	R420	160	130	9.75	8	257
X800 XT PE	R420	160	130	9.75	8	257
DirectX 9 with PS2.0 and VS2.0 Support
9500	R300	107	150	9.00	8	195
9500 Pro	R300	107	150	9.00	8	195
9550 SE	RV350	75	130	8.50	8	92
9550	RV350	75	130	8.50	8	92
9600 SE	RV350	75	130	8.50	8	92
9600	RV350	75	130	8.50	8	92
9600 Pro	RV350	75	130	8.50	8	92
9600 XT	RV360	75	130	8.50	8	92
9700	R300	107	150	9.00	8	195
9700 Pro	R300	107	150	9.00	8	195
9800 SE	R350	115	150	9.00	8	210
9800	R350	115	150	9.00	8	210
9800 Pro	R350	115	150	9.00	8	210
9800 XT	R360	115	150	9.00	8	210
X300 SE	RV370	75	110	9.00	8	74
X300	RV370	75	110	9.00	8	74
X600 Pro	RV380	75	130	8.50	8	92
X600 XT	RV380	75	130	8.50	8	92
DirectX 8.1 with PS1.4 and VS1.1 Support
8500 LE	R200	60	150	10.00	8	135
8500	R200	60	150	10.00	8	135
9000	RV250	36	150	10.00	8	81
9000 Pro	RV250	36	150	10.00	8	81
9100	R200	60	150	10.00	8	135
9100 Pro	R200	60	150	10.00	8	135
9200 SE	RV280	36	150	10.00	8	81
9200	RV280	36	150	10.00	8	81
9200 Pro	RV280	36	150	10.00	8	81
DirectX 7
Radeon VE	RV100	30?	180	10.00	8	97
7000 PCI	RV100	30?	180	10.00	8	97
7000 AGP	RV100	30?	180	10.00	8	97
Radeon LE	R100	30	180	10.00	8	97
Radeon SDR	R100	30	180	10.00	8	97
Radeon DDR	R100	30	180	10.00	8	97
7200	R100	30	180	10.00	8	97
7500 LE	RV200	30	150	10.00	8	68
7500 AIW	RV200	30	150	10.00	8	68
7500	RV200	30	150	10.00	8	68

After all that, we finally get to the chart of die sizes. That was a lot of work for what might be considered a small reward, but there is a reason for all this talk of die sizes. If you look at the charts, you should notice one thing looking at the history of modern GPUs: die sizes are increasing exponentially on the high end parts. This is not a good thing at all.

AMD and Intel processors vary in size over time, depending on transistor counts, process technology, etc. However, they both try to target a "sweet spot" in terms of size that maximizes yields and profits. Smaller is almost always better, all other things being equal, with ideal sizes generally being somewhere in between 80 mm² and 120 mm². Larger die sizes mean that there are fewer chips per wafer, and there are more likely to be errors in an individual chip, decreasing yields. There is also a set cost per wafer, so whether you can get 50 or 500 chips out of the wafer, the cost remains the same. ATI and NVIDIA do not necessarily incur these costs, but their fabrication partners do, and it still affects chip output and availability. Let's look at this a little closer, though.

On 300 mm wafers, you have a total surface area of 70,686 mm² (pi * r²; r = 150 mm). If you have a 130 mm² chip, you could get approximately 500 chips out of a wafer, of which a certain percentage will have flaws. If you have a 200 mm² chip, you could get about 320 chips, again with a certain percentage having flaws. With a 280 mm² like the NV40 and R420, we're down to about 230 chips per wafer. So just in terms of the total number of dies to test, we see how larger die sizes are undesirable. Let's talk about the flaws, though.

The percentage of chips on a wafer that are good is called the yield. Basically, there are an average number of flaws in any wafer, more or less distributed evenly. With that being the case, each flaw will normally affect one chip, although if there are large numbers of flaws you could get several defects per chip. As an example, let's say there are on average 50 flaws per wafer. That means there will typically be 50 failed chips on each wafer. Going back to the chip sizes and maximum dies listed above, we can now get an estimated yield. With 130 mm² dies, we lose about 50 out of 500, so the yield would be 90%, which is very good. With 200 mm² dies, we lose about 50 out of 320, so now the yield drops to 84%. On the large 280 mm² dies, we now lose 50 out of 230, and yield drops to 78%. Those are just examples, as we don't know the exact details of the TSMC and IBM fabrication plants, but it should suffice to illustrate how large die sizes are not at all desirable.

Now, look at the die size estimates, and you'll see that from the NV10 and R100 we have gone from a typical die size of +/- 100 mm² in late 1999 to around 200 mm² in mid 2002 on the R300, and we're now at around 280 mm² in mid 2004. Shrinking to 90 nm process technology would reduce die sizes by about half compared to 130 nm, but AMD is just now getting their 90 nm parts out, and it may be over a year before 90 nm becomes available for fabless companies like ATI and NVIDIA. It's going to be interesting seeing how the R5xx and NV5x parts shape up, as simply increasing the number of vertex and pixel pipelines beyond current levels is going to be difficult without shifting to a 90 nm process.

All is not lost, however. Looking at the mid-range market, you can see how these parts manage to be priced lower, allowing them to sell in larger volumes. Most of these parts remain under 150 mm² in size, and quite a few of the parts remain under 100 mm². It's no surprise that ATI and NVIDIA sell many more of their mid-range and low-end parts than high-end parts, since few non-gamers have a desire to spend $500 on a graphics card when they could build an entire computer for that price. Really, though, these parts are mid-range because they can be, while the high-end parts really have to be in that segment. Smaller sizes bring higher yields and higher supply, resulting in lower prices. Conversely, larger sizes bring lower yields and a lower supply, so prices go up. We especially see this early on: if demand is great enough for the new cards, we get instances like the recent 6800 and X800 cards where parts are selling for well over MSRP.