| ethomaz said: The email was confirmed fake... the E6760 runs at 600Mhz... the Wii U GPU at 550Mhz... so even it was a E6760 there is no way it have 576GFLOPS like the E6760. The size of the GPU says everything... in 40nm there is no way you can put a GPU over 500 GFLOPS in this space... so the Wii U have a raw power ~400GFLOPS. That's the common sense in Beyond3D thread: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=60501 |
"in 40nm there is no way you can put a GPU over 500 GFLOPS in this space"
This confuses me, as the E6760 itself was produced on a 40nm process. So clearly this claim is false, unless you're talking about the size of the chip itself (in which case, why say 40nm?). And the GPU die size is 156.21 mm^2 (source), compared with the E6760's die size, which is just 118 mm^2 (source). Indeed, at the 40nm process, and a die size not much higher than that of the Wii U's GPU, with a clock speed that isn't multiples larger (675 MHz rather than 550 MHz), the Radeon HD 6850M manages to push 1080 GFLOPS. Factoring in the clock speed difference, this would be equivalent to 880 GFLOPS at the Wii U's clock speed... so what was that again of not being able to get a GPU over 500 GFLOPS in this space?
Some have been suggesting that it might be based on the ATI Radeon HD 4770, which is a 40 nm process, with a slightly smaller die size, clocked at 750 MHz. It pushes 960 GFLOPS. Underclocked to 550 MHz, this would lower the speed to 704 GFLOPS, and due to the non-linear nature of power requirements for processors, this would also significantly reduce the power draw. Also note that the 4770 is a 2009 chip, so it's not like it needs to be new tech for this to happen, either.
Meanwhile, the thread you linked to starts in July 2011, and lasts for 175 pages. I'm not going to read through 175 pages to try to find the "common sense" you claim is somewhere hidden within it. You're going to have to do better than to make a vague argument with at least one verifiable inconsistency, and then point to a 175 page thread's first page, which contains posts from a year and a half ago.
Now, unless you have a source backing up your claim that it's a 400 GFLOPS GPU, or can provide a more solid argument the one I just tore apart, don't bother responding again.
