• What
    is this?
    You've landed on the AMD Portal on AnandTech. This section is sponsored by AMD. It features a collection of all of our independent AMD content, as well as Tweets & News from AMD directly. AMD will also be running a couple of huge giveaways here so check back for those.
    PRESENTED BY

Cayman: The Last 32nm Castaway

With the launch of the Barts GPU and the 6800 series, we touched on the fact that AMD was counting on the 32nm process to give them a half-node shrink to take them in to 2011. When TSMC fell behind schedule on the 40nm process, and then the 32nm process before canceling it outright, AMD had to start moving on plans for a new generation of 40nm products instead.

The 32nm predecessor of Barts was among the earlier projects to be sent to 40nm. This was due to the fact that before 32nm was even canceled, TSMC’s pricing was going to make 32nm more expensive per transistor than 40nm, a problem for a mid-range part where AMD has specific margins they’d like to hit. Had Barts been made on the 32nm process as projected, it would have been more expensive to make than on the 40nm process, even though the 32nm version would be smaller. Thus 32nm was uneconomical for gaming GPUs, and Barts was moved to the 40nm process.

Cayman on the other hand was going to be a high-end part. Certainly being uneconomical is undesirable, but high-end parts carry high margins, especially if they can be sold in the professional market as compute products (just ask NVIDIA). As such, while Barts went to 40nm, Cayman’s predecessor stayed on the 32nm process until the very end. The Cayman team did begin planning to move back to 40nm before TSMC officially canceled the 32nm process, but if AMD had a choice at the time they would have rather had Cayman on the 32nm process.

As a result the Cayman we’re seeing today is not what AMD originally envisioned as a 32nm part. AMD won’t tell us everything that they had to give up to create the 40nm Cayman (there has to be a few surprises for 28nm) but we do know a few things. First and foremost was size; AMD’s small die strategy is not dead, but getting the boot from the 32nm process does take the wind out of it. At 389mm2 Cayman is the largest AMD GPU since the disastrous R600, and well off the sub-300mm2 size that the small die strategy dictates. In terms of efficient usage of space though AMD is doing quite well; Cayman has 2.64 billion transistors, 500mil more than Cypress. AMD was able to pack 29% more transistors in only 16% more space.

Even then, just reaching that die size is a compromise between features and production costs. AMD didn’t simply settle for a larger GPU, but they had to give up some things to keep it from being even larger. SIMDs were on the chopping block; 32nm Cayman would have had more SIMDs for more performance. Features were also lost, and this is where AMD is keeping mum. We know PCI Express 3.0 functionality was scheduled for the 32nm part, where AMD had to give up their PCIe 3.0 controller for a smaller 2.1 controller to make up for their die size difference. This in all honesty may have worked out better for them: PCIe 3.0 ended up being delayed until November, so suitable motherboards are still at least months away.

The end result is that Cayman as we know it is a compromise to make it happen on 40nm. AMD got their new VLIW4 architecture, but they had to give up performance and an unknown number of features to get there. On the flip side this will make 28nm all the more interesting, as we’ll get to see many of the features that were supposed to make it for 2010 but never arrived.

Refresher: The 6800 Series’ New Features VLIW4: Finding the Balance Between TLP, ILP, and Everything Else
POST A COMMENT

167 Comments

View All Comments

  • DoktorSleepless - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link

    Is it just me or are all the graphs missing? Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link

    They're not missing. They're fashionably late.

    In all seriousness though, they're going up now. We had less than a week to cover all of this, so it's very much down to the wire here.
    Reply
  • DoktorSleepless - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link

    They're still missing in some of the non-benchmark pages including the "Enhanced Quality AA". Reply
  • AnnihilatorX - Thursday, December 16, 2010 - link

    They are all here.
    You should clean your browser cache.
    Reply
  • AstroGuardian - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link

    It's you. The graphs are drawn in infrared. Your fault you can't see them :) Reply
  • mmatis - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link

    They all look fine to me. Surely you aren't trying to use an NVidia card to read a favorable article about AMD? Reply
  • Stuka87 - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link

    Err, did you even read the article?! Reply
  • opticalmace - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link

    also missing the conclusion right now. :) Reply
  • tipoo - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link

    In their defense, you can't have read the whole article that fast :-P Reply
  • HOOfan 1 - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link

    Doesn't look to me like the HD6970 is worth $70 more than the HD6950 at this time.

    Hopefully for AMD/ATI's sake, drivers updates will catapult it ahead.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now