Anyone good at maths? I need you

rare

rare

rare

Soldato
Joined
1 Nov 2002
Posts
10,476
Location
Sussex
I’m trying to figure out what would the physical size of an RTX 4090 die if it were manufactured using 130nm, the same process used on the FX 5900 Ultra.

I imagine it will be staggeringly huge, but I’m not sure where to start with the maths.

5900 ultra was built on the 130 nm process with a die area of 207 mm² and 135 million transistors at a density of 652.2K / mm².

4090 has a die area of 609 mm² and 76,300 million transistors, 125.3M / mm² built on a 5 nm process.
 
does it have to work? If so, you have to factor heat generation and dissipation.

But I like the way you said…
rare said:
I’m trying to figure out what would the physical size of an RTX 4090 die if it were manufactured using 130nm, the same process used on the FX 5900 Ultra.
Click to expand...

Then you go and ask everyone else… lol

I think you might need to find an expert in the field of gpu architecture, rather than just someone who’s good at maths, if you want the processor to work..

gpu architecture is different from cpu architecture, system on a chip.. each different type of processor will need their own style of architecture depending on compute units, built in instructions, memory (l1, l2) and pipelines.
 
rare said:
I’m trying to figure out what would the physical size of an RTX 4090 die if it were manufactured using 130nm, the same process used on the FX 5900 Ultra.

I imagine it will be staggeringly huge, but I’m not sure where to start with the maths.

5900 ultra was built on the 130 nm process with a die area of 207 mm² and 135 million transistors at a density of 652.2K / mm².

4090 has a die area of 609 mm² and 76,300 million transistors, 125.3M / mm² built on a 5 nm process.
Click to expand...

If you're just trying to reverse the simple 135m transistors in 207mm² = 652k/mm² density and asking how big would 76,300m transistors be at 652k/mm² density, then it'd be around 117,000 mm² but that obviously ignores all the sense behind how these things actually work
 
theone8181 said:
Interesting that there's less transistors on the newer card
Click to expand...
A) fewer :P

And B) No there are many many more. 135 million Vs 76,300 million. 136 Vs 76,300.

The architecture needn't change it's just a question of scaling up the physical layout (in this theoretical scenario anyway). The density would change though, by definition having bigger transistors means lower density.
 
You'd end up with a chip with the area size of an average laptop for width/depth footprint.
 
Last edited:
LuckyBenski said:
A) fewer :p

And B) No there are many many more. 135 million Vs 76,300 million. 136 Vs 76,300.

The architecture needn't change it's just a question of scaling up the physical layout (in this theoretical scenario anyway). The density would change though, by definition having bigger transistors means lower density.
Click to expand...
Sorry my brain was not working lol. Should wait till I've had my first cup of tea before posting:o:p.

Edit to add, above poster that would be one big GPU, bet the heatsink would look hilarious.
 
Last edited:
theone8181 said:
Edit to add, above poster that would be one big GPU, bet the heatsink would look hilarious.
Click to expand...

image.png


:cry: :cry:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom