This is not a real site, they have a review from 4 months ago benchmarking a 990 Ti 24GB card with 'minesweeper' and 'solitaire'.
Was that review written on April 1st?
Nvidia Pascal GPU to Feature 17B Transistors and 32GB HBM2 VRAM
71–80 of 97 posts
Re: Nvidia Pascal GPU to Feature 17B Transistors and 32GB HBM2 VRAM
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
So has Intel. Skylake (2016) and Sandy Bridge (2010) have roughly comparable single core desktop benchmarks. Power/performance ratios have increased drastically, but that's mostly because of process improvements. AMD has been stuck on 28nm for a long time, but that's not AMD's fault.
> Skylake (2016) and Sandy Bridge (2010) have roughly comparable single core desktop benchmarks. That's not quite true -- Intel aims for a big IPC (instructions/clock) improvement for each "tock" generation (Nehalem -> Sandy Bridge -> Haswell -> Skylake), and IIRC has pretty much delivered. Some benchmarks are really hard to push because they're memory/cache-miss bound (so it's really just about throwing in more memo…
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/intel-confirms-tick-t...
While the headline is hyperbole, the fact is that Intel has passively admitted that newer process sizes are taking more time to achieve.
Re: Nvidia Pascal GPU to Feature 17B Transistors and 32GB HBM2 VRAM
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because GPUs were frozen at the 28nm node since like 2011. It'll be ~4 years of no die shrinks at the top end of GPUs when they finally transition to 16nm. If anything, Moore's law is behind schedule in the GPU space. Note, that both NVidia and AMD rely on TSMC to manufacture their chips, so they're completely constrained by TSMC's ability to implement new process nodes.
2011: GTX 580, 1.5 TFLOPS 2012: GTX 680, 3.0 TFLOPS (~2.0 attainable) 2013: GTX Titan, 4.4 TFLOPS (~3.2 attainable) 2014: GTX 980, 4.6 TFLOPS 2015: GTX Titan X, 6.7 TFLOPS Looks to me like they're doubling perf roughly every 2 years. Meanwhle, my Core i7-5930k's SOL is <1/2 of 2011's GTX 580 at 672 GFLOPS and it still doesn't have fast approximate transcendentals. Skylake begins to fix this, but c'mon, GPUs have had…
> Meanwhle, my Core i7-5930k's SOL is Give that GPU a highly serialized workload and watch the actual performance take a nosedive. There's not much of a reason to compare a sniper rifle to a carpet bomb.
Re: Nvidia Pascal GPU to Feature 17B Transistors and 32GB HBM2 VRAM
#74Looks like the next few generations of GPUs are gonna be fast!
I think this may be specs for their Tesla cards. I doubt they would throw 32 HBM2 even on a Titan unless they can keep the price point the same (even for folks who can spend 1k USD have limits on their budget or at least their perception of a budget). But I wouldn't doubt by Q2/2016 Nvidia will be bringing more competition to the market with chips based on HBM usage. IMO, AMD pulled the trigger a tad too soon on thei…
As GPU history has shown, having an extra generation of experience with new things matters a lot (doesn't matter if it's GDDR3/4/5, fabrication nodes, specialized hardware).
Re: Nvidia Pascal GPU to Feature 17B Transistors and 32GB HBM2 VRAM
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it could do 3D graphics. Sort of. 3D Monster Maze: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKvd0zPfBE4
Nice - who needs 8K. 8. K. I haven't even updated to 4K. I don't think I have anything that runs 1080p.
Virtual reality would benefit a lot from from 16000x16000 PER EYE. Rendered at 120+ frames per second with 10,000Hz eye tracking for foveated rendering (120fps may be too low for that though).
For the goal of full VR, computing tech has a long way to go
Re: Nvidia Pascal GPU to Feature 17B Transistors and 32GB HBM2 VRAM
#76AMD get it together, pretty please. Nobody wants to live in a world where only NVidia produces discrete GPUs! That 32GB seems too high for cost constrained consumer market though - may be they will have a leaner variant for desktops/gaming.
> 32GB seems too high for cost constrained consumer market
This thing is definitely not for the consumer market, much less the cost constrained one. This is a small dedicated number crunching machine that, for reasons unfathomable to me, can spit out rendered 3d environments with admirable speed.
I liked to joke that no serious computer has keyboard/mouse/video ports because no serious computer would be used like that. That assumption held well until the late 80's. ;-)
But no. For gaming, this is the superlative of overkill.
Re: Nvidia Pascal GPU to Feature 17B Transistors and 32GB HBM2 VRAM
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
IT departments are not buying Titans and they are not going to be buying Pascals. IT departments aren't even buying Nvidia at all, they are buying Intel integrated.
That was my point. If all you do is read what passes for news on gamer sites, you might think that the discrete GPU overclocking market was important.
The notion that only the biggest of something is "important" is offensive and wrong.
Re: Nvidia Pascal GPU to Feature 17B Transistors and 32GB HBM2 VRAM
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure about their graphics division, but AMD has stopped innovating in the CPU department...
Is this a joke? AMD are currently pioneering the biggest shake up in CPU architectures in decades through the Heterogenous System Architecture.
Interesting. Is it different from integrated GPU solutions from Intel?
Re: Nvidia Pascal GPU to Feature 17B Transistors and 32GB HBM2 VRAM
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moore's law isn't about performance, it's the number of transistors on a single IC. Perf is related but irrelevant to the discussion.
GTX 580: 585M transistors GTX 680: 3.5B transistors GTX Titan: 7.1B transistors GTX 980: 5.2B transistors GTX Titan X: 8B transistors Core i7-5930k: 2.6B transistors What the data above suggests to me is that relying solely on Moore's Law to predict performance is a fool's errand. Going forward, process transitions are obviously slowing down and IMO victory will go to those who make the best use of the available tran…
Just to nitpick, backwards compatibility isn't really a huge issue for Intel. Most of the really old stuff that's a pain to maintain can be shoved in microcode; compilers won't emit those instructions.
There are obvious downsides to the architecture, but the need to be backwards compatibility shouldn't hurt it too much.
GPU workloads are very different in that generally you don't have to look particularly hard to find a bunch of parallelism that you can exploit (if you did, your code would run terribly); so you can generally gain a load of performance by just scaling up your design.
CPUs are super restricted by the single threaded, branching nature of the code you run on them, and this is what makes CPU performance a little more nuanced, and not directly comparable.
Re: Nvidia Pascal GPU to Feature 17B Transistors and 32GB HBM2 VRAM
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, this is exactly the marketing angle Nvidia CEO was using in his GPU Technology Conference presentation (10x speed-up on deep-learning vs their current Maxwell architecture): http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2015/03/17/pascal/
This also seems to be the motivation behind the already available Titan X with its 12GB of RAM. Some of the gaming hardware reviewers are scratching their heads as to why anyone would need 12GB attached to one die. I chuckled when I saw those reviews that were totally oblivious to the deep learning applications.
The community as a whole is completely oblivious. It's pretty funny to see the youtube reviewers get all worked up over how nvidia and amd are going at it again and such. As if gaming is what's driving this battle. Anyone working in computer science knows the battle is over machine learning, not first person shooters.
Soon headless, socketed solutions will be the preferred form factor for HPC. I image the desktop and server product lines will diverge at that point. It'll be curious to see what will happening to PC gaming at that point.