ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT: Calling a Spade a Spade
by Derek Wilson on May 14, 2007 12:04 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Finally: A Design House Talks Cache Size
We're quite used to talking about cache sizes on Intel and AMD CPUs, but graphics hardware has been another story. We've been asking for quite some time, while other sites have taken to writing shader code to come up with educated guesses about how much data fits on die. Today we are very happy to bring you everything you could ever want to know about R600 caches.
The four texture units are connected to memory through two levels of cache. Unfiltered texture requests go through the Vertex Cache (which is unfiltered) and filtered requests make use of the L1 Texture Cache. Each of these caches is 32kB read only. All texture units share these caches.
Both the L1 Texture Cache and the Vertex Cache are connected to an L2 cache that is 256kB. This is the largest cache on the chip, and will certainly handle quite a bit of data movement with the possibility of 8k x 8k texture sizes moving forward.
As for the shader hardware, the cache connected to the SIMD units is an 8 kB read / write cache. This cache is used to virtualize register space if necessary, export data to the stream out buffer (which can be done from any type of thread and can bypass the need to send data to the render back ends). This cache is also used to accelerate things like render to vertex buffer.
Most of R600's write caches are write-back caches, although we weren't given any specifics on which write caches are not write-back. The impression is that any unit that needs to write out over the memory bus is connected through a write cache that enables write combining to maximize bus utilization, write latency hiding, and short term reuse. We assume that the shader cache (what AMD calls the Memory Read/Write Cache) is also write-back.
The only thing we are really missing regarding caches is the information for Z/stencil cache and color cache connected off of the render back ends.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
86 Comments
View All Comments
yyrkoon - Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - link
See, the problem here is: guys like you are so bent on saving that little bit of money, by buying a lesser brand name, that you do not even take the time to research your hardware. USe newegg , and read the user reviews, and if that is not enough for you, go to the countless other resources all over the internet.yyrkoon - Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - link
Blame the crappy OEM you bought the card from, not nVIdia. Get an EVGA card, and embrace a completely different aspect on video card life.MSI may make some decent motherboards, but their other components have serious issues.
LoneWolf15 - Thursday, May 17, 2007 - link
Um, since 95% of nvidia-GPU cards on the market are the reference design, I'd say your argument here is shaky at best. EVGA and MSI both use the reference design, and it's even possible that cards with the same GPU came off the same production line at the same plant.DerekWilson - Thursday, May 17, 2007 - link
it is true that the majority of parts are based on reference designs, but that doesn't mean they all come from the same place. I'm sure some of them do, but to say that all of these guys just buy completed boards and put their name on them all the time is selling them a little short.at the same time, the whole argument of which manufacturer builds the better board on a board component level isn't something we can really answer.
what we would suggest is that its better to buy from OEMs who have good customer service and long extensive warranties. this way, even if things do go wrong, there is some recourse for customers who get bad boards or have bad experiences with drivers and software.
cmdrdredd - Monday, May 14, 2007 - link
you're wrong. 99% of people buying these high end cards are gaming. Those gamers demand and deserve the best possible performance. If a card that uses MORE power and costs MORE (x2900xt vs 8800gts) and performs generally the same or slower what is the point? Fact is...ATI's high end is in fact slower than mid range offerings from Nvidia and consumes alot more power. Regardless of what you think, people are buying these based on performance benchmarks in 99% of all cases.AnnonymousCoward - Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - link
No, you're wrong. Did you overlook the emphasis he put on "NOT ALWAYS"?You said 99% use for gaming--so there's 1%. Out of the gamers, many really want LCD scaling to work, so that games aren't stretched horribly on widescreen monitors. Some gamers would also like TVout to work.
So he was right: faster is NOT ALWAYS better.
erwos - Monday, May 14, 2007 - link
It'd be nice to get the scoop on the video decode acceleration present on these boards, and how it stocks up to the (excellent) PureVideo HD found in the 8600 series.imaheadcase - Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - link
I agree! They need to do a whole article on video acceleration on a range of cards and show the pluses and cons of each card in respective areas. A lot of people like myself like to watch videos and game on cards, but like the option open to use the advanced video features.Turnip - Monday, May 14, 2007 - link
"We certainly hope we won't see a repeat of the R600 launch when Barcelona and Agena take on Core 2 Duo/Quad in a few months...."Why, that's exactly what I had been thinking :)
Phew! I made it through the whole thing though, I even read all of those awfully big words and everything! :)
Thanks guys, another top review :)
Kougar - Monday, May 14, 2007 - link
First, great article! I will be going back to reread the very indepth analysis of the hardware and features, something that keeps me a avid Anandtech reader. :)Since it was mentioned that overclocking will be included in a future article, I would like to suggest that if possible watercooling be factored into it. So far one review site has already done a watercooled test with a low-end watercooling setup, and without mods acheived 930MHz on the Core, which indirectly means 930MHz shaders if I understand the hardware.
I'm sure I am not the only reader extremely interested to see if all R600 needs is a ~900-950MHz overclock to offer some solid GTX level performance... or if it would even help at all. Again thanks for the consideration, and the great article! Now off to find some Folding@Home numbers...