AMD's Radeon HD 5870: Bringing About the Next Generation Of GPUs
by Ryan Smith on September 23, 2009 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
DirectX11 Redux
With the launch of the 5800 series, AMD is quite proud of the position they’re in. They have a DX11 card launching a month before DX11 is dropped on to consumers in the form of Win7, and the slower timing of NVIDIA means that AMD has had silicon ready far sooner. This puts AMD in the position of Cypress being the de facto hardware implementation of DX11, a situation that is helpful for the company in the long term as game development will need to begin on solely their hardware (and programmed against AMD’s advantages and quirks) until such a time that NVIDIA’s hardware is ready. This is not a position that AMD has enjoyed since 2002 with the Radeon 9700 and DirectX 9.0, as DirectX 10 was anchored by NVIDIA due in large part to AMD’s late hardware.
As we have already covered DirectX 11 in-depth with our first look at the standard nearly a year ago, this is going to be a recap of what DX11 is bringing to the table. If you’d like to get the entire inside story, please see our in-depth DirectX 11 article.
DirectX 11, as we have previously mentioned, is a pure superset of DirectX 10. Rather than being the massive overhaul of DirectX that DX10 was compared to DX9, DX11 builds off of DX10 without throwing away the old ways. The result of this is easy to see in the hardware of the 5870, where as features were added to the Direct3D pipeline, they were added to the RV770 pipeline in its transformation into Cypress.
New to the Direct3D pipeline for DirectX 11 is the tessellation system, which is divided up into 3 parts, and the Computer Shader. Starting at the very top of the tessellation stack, we have the Hull Shader. The Hull Shader is responsible for taking in patches and control points (tessellation directions), to prepare a piece of geometry to be tessellated.
Next up is the tesselator proper, which is a rather significant piece of fixed function hardware. The tesselator’s sole job is to take geometry and to break it up into more complex portions, in effect creating additional geometric detail from where there was none. As setting up geometry at the start of the graphics pipeline is comparatively expensive, this is a very cool hack to get more geometric detail out of an object without the need to fully deal with what amounts to “eye candy” polygons.
As the tesselator is not programmable, it simply tessellates whatever it is fed. This is what makes the Hull Shader so important, as it’s serves as the programmable input side of the tesselator.
Once the tesselator is done, it hands its work off to the Domain Shader, along with the Hull Shader handing off its original inputs to the Domain Shader too. The Domain Shader is responsible for any further manipulations of the tessellated data that need to be made such as applying displacement maps, before passing it along to other parts of the GPU.
The tesselator is very much AMD’s baby in DX11. They’ve been playing with tesselators as early as 2001, only for them to never gain traction on the PC. The tesselator has seen use in the Xbox 360 where the AMD-designed Xenos GPU has one (albeit much simpler than DX11’s), but when that same tesselator was brought over and put in the R600 and successive hardware, it was never used since it was not a part of the DirectX standard. Now that tessellation is finally part of that standard, we should expect to see it picked up and used by a large number of developers. For AMD, it’s vindication for all the work they’ve put into tessellation over the years.
The other big addition to the Direct3D pipeline is the Compute Shader, which allows for programs to access the hardware of a GPU and treat it like a regular data processor rather than a graphical rendering processor. The Compute Shader is open for use by games and non-games alike, although when it’s used outside of the Direct3D pipeline it’s usually referred to as DirectCompute rather than the Compute Shader.
For its use in games, the big thing AMD is pushing right now is Order Independent Transparency, which uses the Compute Shader to sort transparent textures in a single pass so that they are rendered in the correct order. This isn’t something that was previously impossible using other methods (e.g. pixel shaders), but using the Compute Shader is much faster.
Other features finding their way into Direct3D include some significant changes for textures, in the name of improving image quality. Texture sizes are being bumped up to 16K x 16K (that’s a 256MP texture) which for all practical purposes means that textures can be of an unlimited size given that you’ll run out of video memory before being able to utilize such a large texture.
The other change to textures is the addition of two new texture compression schemes, BC6H and BC7. These new texture compression schemes are another one of AMD’s pet projects, as they are the ones to develop them and push for their inclusion in DX11. BC6H is the first texture compression method dedicated for use in compressing HDR textures, which previously compressed very poorly using even less-lossy schemes like BC3/DXT5. It can compress textures at a lossy 6:1 ratio. Meanwhile BC7 is for use with regular textures, and is billed as a replacement for BC3/DXT5. It has the same 3:1 compression ratio for RGB textures.
We’re actually rather excited about these new texture compression schemes, as better ways to compress textures directly leads to better texture quality. Compressing HDR textures allows for larger/better textures due to the space saved, and using BC7 in place of BC3 is an outright quality improvement in the same amount of space, given an appropriate texture. Better compression and tessellation stand to be the biggest benefactors towards improving the base image quality of games by leading to better textures and better geometry.
We had been hoping to supply some examples of these new texture compression methods in action with real textures, but we have not been able to secure the necessary samples in time. In the meantime we have Microsoft’s examples from GameFest 2008, which drive the point home well enough in spite of being synthetic.
Moving beyond the Direct3D pipeline, the next big feature coming in DirectX 11 is better support for multithreading. By allowing multiple threads to simultaneously create resources, manage states, and issue draw commands, it will no longer be necessary to have a single thread do all of this heavy lifting. As this is an optimization focused on better utilizing the CPU, it stands that graphics performance in GPU-limited situations stands to gain little. Rather this is going to help the CPU in CPU-limited situations better utilize the graphics hardware. Technically this feature does not require DX11 hardware support (it’s a high-level construct available for use with DX10/10.1 cards too) but it’s still a significant technology being introduced with DX11.
Last but not least, DX11 is bringing with it High Level Shader Language 5.0, which in turn is bringing several new instructions that are primarily focused on speeding up common tasks, and some new features that make it more C-like. Classes and interfaces will make an appearance here, which will make shader code development easier by allowing for easier segmentation of code. This will go hand-in-hand with dynamic shader linkage, which helps to clean up code by only linking in shader code suitable for the target device, taking the management of that task out of the hands of the coder.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
327 Comments
View All Comments
silverblue - Saturday, September 26, 2009 - link
I think you may have been much happier with a 512-bit interface which would result in nearly 2.5x the bandwidth of the 4890, however it remains to be seen whether it'd be a waste or not. Having said that, it could mean for slower GDDR5 thus reducing costs, but wouldn't it be far more problematic to incorporate the wider bus anyway?If ATI throw out such a card with a single GPU on it, a direct comparison with the 5870 (and nVidia's top cards at the time) will be inevitable. The extra bandwidth may be rather under-utilised for anything less than Eyefinity gaming or Crysis at max details ;)
Now all we need is AMD to come back at Intel with a domestic release of its Thuban die (or hurry up with Bulldozer, sheesh) and it'll be a very, very exciting time for people to upgrade.
SiliconDoc - Sunday, September 27, 2009 - link
I want to know how the pinout compares on the 5870 gpu to the 4870/90.Have they doubled the data pins, or is the data jamming in and jamming out, even at 4800mhz ?
Maybe that's why 512bit would help.
Perhaps faster data rate ram, needs also a wider data path, more pins, more paths in and out of the gpu.
I will check the overclock sites that have already posted on this matter.
JarredWalton - Sunday, September 27, 2009 - link
I would assume that the pin count on 5870 isn't radically different from 4870. Granted, we know what assuming can get you, but with the same interface width there's not much reason for it to get substantially more pins. A few changes for power leads to deal with having more transistors, and other minor tweaks are likely, but my bet would be it's within 10% of the pin count of 4870.PorscheRacer - Monday, September 28, 2009 - link
For all those people clamoring on about why ATI didn't go with a 512-bit memory controller I'm going to chime in here with some ATI 512-bit experience. If you're a sharp one reading this, you have already guessed that means I'm going to talk about the R600. Now you can hate the card all you want, but I quite enjoyed this card. First of all, in the R600 it was the last ring-bus. It was a true 512-bit, and large memory controller. I'm not certain on the amount, but I believe it owned about a quarter of the realstate on the die. That's a lot. It also was some of the cause for the chip running hot and why UVD was scrapped from that chip to save room.Now, to keep that 512-bit ring-bus fed, you needed to push large amounts of data to it. The more you increased system bandwidth, the faster the card would be in any task. I've run hundreds of benchmarks over the years and I'm pretty sure Jared and Anand can attest to this. Same goes for overclocking the card. Raising the core didn't do much, but cranking up the VRAM to feed that hungry ring-bus sure did. Prices anyone? I believe $450 and up depending on where you were located. It was on heck of a pricey chip for ATI to make. Enter the die shrunk 3000 series with the 256-bit memory controller and voila. A cheaper chip to make. It never came close to the theoretical performance of the 2900XT, but the 3870 was about 90% of the performance for a lot cheaper. Yeas I know the cores were tweaked and so on in the 3000 series, but they are very similar.
If ATI ever went to a 512-bit bus, which means more PCB layers, higher cost in manufacturing and a larger die, I'd think they'd do it on something like Juniper or wait till 32nm. It's not feasible right now. They technically could go the MCM route with Juniper and get a mashed up version of a 512-bit bus, but I don't think the chips have been designed with that in mind.
Anyways, most computers out there are starved to feed something like the 5870 and higher cards with a 512-bit bus. I just replaced my R600 with an RV740 (hah, went from 80nm to 40nm) and now I don't need to OC the heck out of my bus to keep the card fed. I'm running an old FX-60 setup due to a glowing review on here back in early 2006. Am I the norm? NO, I'm waiting to upgrade. Is the Core i7 9xx the norm? No. You have to build a card to a certain set of people. I'm building my pal a new computer and he's happy with the 5850. The 5870 is overkill for him. It's 80% of the 5870 but a hundred bucks cheaper. Now, I'm sure ATI looked at the 512-bit bus in much the same way. "Wow, that 512-bit bus sure flies, look at those numbers! Oh, it's going to cost us this much die space and more manufacturing costs.... Well, those 256-bit bus numbers are still pretty imperssive and within 80% of the gaming benchmark scores, so we'll go that way"
Or something along those lines....I'm sure that's why nVIDIA's GTX300 is delayed. It's a massive chip, 512-bit bus and so on. Great, they'll take the performance crown again. Will they take my money? If they have something in the $200-$300 range, they have a fighting chance, just like ATI does, or soon to be Intel. Best price for performance will win me over there. I don't care what the bus size is, or how the card could have been better, just as long as I'm happy with the performance for my money. In which case, I'll be here looking forward to a GPU roundoup in the best bang for buck in that price range. Of course it will have DX11, or else there's no point in me upgrading again.
SiliconDoc - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
The GT200 is a 512 bit bus.All the whining and complaining about difficulty means NOTHING.
ati goes the cheapskate sloppy lame route, cooks their cores, has 90C heat, few extra features, and a red raging fanbase filled with repeated tantric lies.
I even posted their own forum here with their 4850 90C+ whines, after some rooster told me his worst fan in the world on his 4850 kept it in the cool 60's like the several Nvidia cards, of course.
The 512bit HD2900 XTX was and is a great card, and even the 256 version still holds it's own. It was well over 500 bucks, was limited production, sold out quickly, and there was HD2900 512bit lesser version that could be flashed to full XTX with a bios upgrade, and it disappeared after it went well over $500.
That HD2900XTX has 115GB bandwidth.
It was REAL competition for the 8800GTX.
--
Of course ati cheaped out on producing any decent quantity, has been losing money, overcharged for it (and got it - but apparently like RUIZ, the "leadership" qualifies for "MORONS!"
---
Now, we'll hear endless crying about expense, about 512bit, and endless crying about core size (nvidia's giant monster), then we'll hear how ati just kicks butt because more dies to a wafer, and they can make a profit, and they can then wipe out nvidia and make them lose money....
BUT JUST THE OPPOSITE HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR SOME NUMBER OF YEARS IN A ROW.
If ati is so pathetic it can't handle making 512bit and selling 512bit, well then , they're PATHETIC.
And, yes, it seems they are PATHETIC.
Someone ought to let ati know there's "competition" and the "competition" pumps out 512bit buses all the time.
I guess when ati "finally catches up to the modern world" they can put out a 512bit again.
In the mean time, they can stick with their cheap pcb with less layers, their cooking hot crammed full electromigration core, and have a bunch of looners that for the very first time in their lives, actually believe that the ghetto is better than Beverly Hills, because they goin fps shootin', man.
Oh, it's so very nice so many gamers have as advice and worry ati's imbalanced sheet and how they can maintain it at a higher level. Such a concern on their minds, a great excuse for why ati cheaps out. I've never seen so many gaming enthusiasts with so much whoring for a company's bottom line. At the same time, nvidia is seen as an evil profit center that throws money around influencing the game production industry. LOL
Yes, it's evil for big green to make money, employ reps, toss millions into game channels, be extremely flexible and pump out 20 differing flavors of cards, so it's not so boring, work so games run well on their product - yes what evil , evil ****rds.
...
Perhaps the little red brokers could cheer some more when they feel ati "has improved it bottom line" by producing a cheap, knocked down, thinner, smaller, hotter, less featured, more negative driver issues, red card, because gamers are so concerned with economics, that they love the billions dollar losers plotted and carried out plans, and hate the company rolling in dollars and helping pump out games and a huge variety of gaming cards...
LOL
Yeah, the last red card that really was worth something, the HD2900512XTX.
That's the other thing that is so funny from these little broker economy whizzes. After they start yakkin about ati's dirt cheap product scheme, it really burns em up that the real cadillac of videocards commands a higher price.
Well, there's a reason a better made, more expensive process, more featured, wider supported in games videocard, is higher priced.
"the great economists" then suddenly turn into raging little angry reds, screeching scalping and unfair and greedy... LOL
Oh it's a hoot.
Zak - Monday, October 5, 2009 - link
I like Nvidia cards too, but if I was a moderator here you'd be banned by now. Relax. Take a pill. No one takes you seriously any more.Z.
SiliconDoc - Saturday, September 26, 2009 - link
The core clock is not doubled, still 850.The memory data rate is not doubled 3600 to 4800.
The bus width is not doubled still 256.
The frame buffer is not doubled, still 1GB
--- From Article Page 1 below ---
" So what’s Cypress in a nutshell? It’s a RV790 (Radeon HD 4890) with virtually everything doubled,.."
---
Ok, so pay attention to the word "virtually".
JarredWalton - Saturday, September 26, 2009 - link
There's no need to double the bus... either double the RAM data rate or double the bus width and you accomplish the same thing. But in a nutshell, everything is doubled relative to HD 4890 except for bandwidth, which only improves by 23%. Similarly, everything is more than double the 4870X2, you don't even need to deal with CrossFire stuff, but the 4870X2 has 50% more total bandwidth.ATI almost certainly isn't completely bandwidth limited with 4890/4870X2, but I think 5870 might just be fast enough that it's running into bandwidth limitations. On the other hand, bandwidth limitations are largely dependent on the game and algorithm. For instance, the Quake/Quake World/Doom games have been extremely bandwidth intensive in the past, and some of the titles Anand tested fall into that category. However, I know of other games that appear to be far less dependent on bandwidth, and the more programmable stuff going on, the more important shader performance becomes.
In the past, Oblivion was a great example of this. NVIDIA's 7800/7900 cards had a lot of bandwidth relative to shader performance, while ATI went the other route. Oblivion was really a strong ATI title (X1800/X1900 series) up until NVIDIA released 8800, which greatly improved NVIDIA's shader performance. Most modern titles tend to be a combination of things.
SiliconDoc - Sunday, September 27, 2009 - link
Note: Edited for ease of response.Well noone makes double the ram data rate, there is NO SUCH DDR5. (No one ever said there was.)
None of it runs at 7200 for videocards.
NVIDIA is using the 512bit bus and 448bit+ on it's top cards, so what is ATI's problem, when that's the only thing available ? (They don't need it enough to increase the cost of the cards to get it.)
Furthermore, the core is still 850, so have the data pins in and out of the core doubled ? I RATHER DOUBT IT. (Obviously it didn't - the specs say it's 256-bit. Did you not read the post?)
So, concievably, we have twice the data to move, on the same core speed, with less than double the DATA PINS in and out. (No, we don't have twice the data to move, unless the 4890 totally maxed out what the RAM could provide. ATI doesn't think this happened, so they only marginally increased bandwidth.)
If the bandwidth is NOT the problem, as you so claim, why then since everything ELSE you say has doubled, the conclusion we have is the ATI core is not up to the task. (If it truly had doubled in every area, and performance didn't double, we'd have a problem. The conclusion sane people will draw is that ATI looked at cost and benefit and decided a 256-bit bus was sufficient for the present. Otherwise they'd need a more complex circuit board, which would increase complexity and cost.)
That's it, it's core tech is so much the same....
LOL
Just love those ATI arguments. (There was no argument, but I'm a troll so I created one!)
When the CORE is overclocked, we will see a framerate increase.
SOOOOO.....
Tell me how the core handles TWICE THE DATA in and out - unless it's pinout count has doubled ? Is ther that much wasted time on the 4890 pins - on the current 5870 pins ? (No one said the core handles twice as much data; theoretically it can, but then deeper buffers would help.)
It may handle double data or nearly internally, but that has to communicate with the ram- etc onboard.
SORRY, once again, not agreeing. (Agreeing with what, that the bandwidth only increased by 23%? Wow, that's amazing. You'd disagree if someone said the sun rises in the east, wouldn't you? Try reading next time before responding instead of arguing for the sake of argument.)
Zool - Sunday, September 27, 2009 - link
The meaning of cache on the gpu is so it doesnt need to read and write to dram memmory too often. The speed of texture cache on 5870 is 1 TB/sec and its sram. And thats just the texture chache. It just shows how much speed is needed to utilize that raw comuting power on the chip. They surely tested the chip with higher speed memory and ended with this bandwith compromis.Also u cant compare the bare peak bandwith. The type of memmory controler and the speed of the GPU(and also cache) should change the real world bandwith like we see with wideferent CPU models and speeds.
When u read xxx GB/s bandwith it doesnt mean it always this fast (they name it peak bandwith always).