The RV870 Story: AMD Showing up to the Fight
by Anand Lal Shimpi on February 14, 2010 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Adjusting Trajectory & Slipping Schedule
Carrell didn’t believe in building big chips anymore. It wasn’t that it was too difficult, it’s that it took too long for a $600 GPU to turn into a $200 GPU. AMD believed that the most important market was the larger (both in quantity and revenue) performance mainstream segment.
Rather than making the $200 - $300 market wait for new technology, Carrell wanted to deliver it there first and then scale up/down to later address more expensive/cheaper markets.
The risk in RV770 was architecture and memory technology. The risk in RV870 was architecture and manufacturing process, the latter which was completely out of AMD’s control.
Early on Carrell believed that TSMC’s 40nm wasn’t mature enough and that when it was ready, its cost was going to be much higher than expected. While he didn’t elaborate on this at the time, Carrell told me that there was a lot of information tuning that made TSMC’s 40nm look cheaper than it ended up being. I'll touch on this more later on in the article.
Carrell reluctantly went along with the desire to build a 400+ mm2 RV870 because he believed that when engineering wakes up and realizes that this isn’t going to be cheap, they’d be having another discussion.
In early 2008, going into Februrary, TSMC started dropping hints that ATI might not want to be so aggressive on what they think 40nm is going to cost. ATI’s costs might have been, at the time, a little optimistic.
Engineering came back and said that RV870 was going to be pretty expensive and suggested looking at the configuration a second time.
Which is exactly what they did.
The team met and stuck with Rick Bergman’s compromise: the GPU had to be at least 2x RV770, but the die size had to come down. ATI changed the configuration for Cypress (high end, single GPU RV870) in March of 2008.
And here’s where the new ATI really showed itself. We had a company that had decided to both 1) not let schedule slip, and 2) stop designing the biggest GPU possible. Yet in order to preserve the second belief, it had to sacrifice the first.
You have to understand, changing a chip configuration that late in the game, 1.5 years before launch, screws everything up. By the time RV770 came out, 870 was set in stone. Any changes even a year prior to that resets a lot of clocks. You have to go back and redo floorplan and configuration, there’s a lot of adjusting that happens. It takes at least a couple of weeks, sometimes a couple of months. It impacted schedule. And ATI had to work extremely hard to minimize that where possible. The Radeon HD 5870 was around 30 - 45 days late because of this change.
Remember ATI’s nothing-messes-with-schedule policy? It took a lot of guts on the part of the engineering team and Rick Bergman to accept a month+ hit on redesigning RV870. If you don’t show up to the fight, you lose by default, and that’s exactly what ATI was risking by agreeing to a redesign of Cypress.
This is also super important to understand, because it implies that at some point, NVIDIA made a conscious decision to be late with Fermi. ATI wasn’t the only one to know when DX11/Windows 7 were coming. NVIDIA was well aware and prioritized features that delayed Fermi rather than align with this market bulge. GPUs don’t get delayed without forewarning. AMD risked being late in order to make a smaller chip, NVIDIA risked being late to make a bigger one. These two companies are diverging.
The actual RV870
Engineering was scrambling. RV870 had to be a lot smaller yet still deliver 2x the computational power of RV770. Features had to go.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
132 Comments
View All Comments
Spoelie - Thursday, February 18, 2010 - link
phoronix.comfor all things ATi + Linux
SeanHollister - Monday, February 15, 2010 - link
Fantastic work, Anand. It's so difficult to make pieces like this work without coming across as puffery, but everything here feels genuine and evenhanded. Here's hoping for similar articles featuring individuals at NVIDIA, Intel and beyond in the not-too-distant future.boslink - Monday, February 15, 2010 - link
Just like many others i'm also reading/visiting anandtech for years but this article made me register just to say damn good job.Also for the long time i didn't read article from cover to cover. Usually i read first page and maybe second (enough to guess what's in other pages) and than skip to conclusions.
But this article remind us that Graphic card/chip is not only silicon. Real people story is what makes this article great.
Thanks Anand
AmdInside - Monday, February 15, 2010 - link
Great article as usual. Sunspot seems like the biggest non-factor in the 5x00 series. Except for hardware reviews sites which have lots of monitors lying around, I just don't see a need for it. It is like NVIDIA's 3D Vision. Concept sounds good but in general practice, it is not very realistic that a user will use it. Just another check box that a company can point to to an OEM and say we have it and they don't. NVIDIA has had Eyefinity for a while (SLI Mosaic). It just is very expensive since it is targeted towards businesses and not consumers and offers some features Eyefinity doesn't offer.I think NVIDIA just didn't believe consumers really wanted it but added it afterwards just so that ATI doesn't have a checkbox they can brag about. But NVIDIA probably still believes this is mainly a business feature.It is always interesting to learn how businesses make product decisions internally. I always hate reading interviews of PR people. I learn zero. Talk to engineers if you really want to learn something.
BelardA - Tuesday, February 16, 2010 - link
I think the point of Eyefinity is that its more hardware based and natural... not requiring so much work from the game publisher. A way of having higher screen details over a span of monitors.A few games will actually span 2 or 3 monitors. Or some will use the 2nd display as a control panel. With Eyefinity, it tells the game "I have #### x #### pixels" and auto divides the signal onto 3 or 6 screens and be playable. That is quite cool.
But as you say, its a bit of a non-factor. Most users will still only have one display to work with. Hmmm. there was a monitor that was almost seamless 3-monitors built together, where is that?
Also, I think the TOP-SECRET aspect of Sun-Spots was a way of testing security. Eyefinity isn't a major thing... but the hiding of it was.
While employees do move about in the business, the sharing of trade-secrets could still get them in trouble - if caught. It does happen, but how much?
gomakeit - Monday, February 15, 2010 - link
I love these insightful articles! This is why Anandtech is one of my favorite tech sites ever!Smell This - Monday, February 15, 2010 - link
Probably could have done without the snide reference to the CPU division at the end of the article - it added nothing and was a detraction from the overall piece.It also implies a symbiotic relationship between AMDs 40+ year battle with Chipzilla and the GPU Wars with nV. Not really an accurate correlation. The CPU division has their own headaches.
It is appropriate to note, however, that both divisions must bring their 'A' Game to the table with the upcoming convergence on-die of the CPU-GPU.
mrwilton - Monday, February 15, 2010 - link
Thank you, Anand, for this great and fun-to-read article. It really has been some time where I have read an article cover to cover.Keep up the excellent work.
Best wishes, wt
Ananke - Monday, February 15, 2010 - link
I have 5850, it is a great card. However, what people saying about PC gaming is true - gaming on PC slowly fades towards consoles. You cannot justify several thousand-dollar PC versus a 2-300 multimedia console.So powerful GPU is a supercomputer by itself. Please ATI, make better Avivo transcoder, push open software development using Steam further. We need many applications, not just Photoshop and Cyberlink. We need hundreds, and many free, to utilize this calculation power. Then, it will make sense to use this cards.
erple2 - Tuesday, February 16, 2010 - link
Perhaps. However, this "PC Gaming is being killed off by the 2-300 multimedia console" war has been going on since the Playstation 1 came out. PC gaming is still doing very well.I think that there will always be some sort of market (even if only 10% - that's significant enough to make companies take notice) for PC Gaming. While I still have to use the PC for something, I'll continue to use it for gaming, as well.
Reading the article, I find it poignant that the focus is on //execution// rather than //ideas//. It reminds me of a blog written by Jeff Atwood (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2010/01/cultivate...">http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2010/01/cultivate... if you're interested) about the exact same thing. Focus on what you //do//. Execution (ie "what do we have an 80%+ chance of getting done on time) is more important than the idea (ie features you can claim on a spec sheet).
As a hardware developer (goes the same for any software developer), your job is to release the product. That means following a schedule. That means focusing on what you can do, not on what you want to do. It sounds to me like ATI has been following that paradigm, which is why they seem to be doing so well these days.
What's particularly encouraging about the story written was that Management had the foresight to actually listen to the technical side when coming up with the schedules and requirements. That, in and of itself, is something that a significant number of companies just don't do well.
It's nice to hear from the internal wing of the company from time to time, and not just the glossy presentation of hardware releases.
I for one thoroughly enjoyed the read. I liked the perspective that the RV5-- err Evergreen gave on the process of developing hardware. What works, and what doesn't.
Great article. Goes down in my book with the SSD and RV770 articles as some of the best IT reads I've done.