Nice info ! Thanks Theo !Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
Printable View
Nice info ! Thanks Theo !Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
Yessir, that's why I made sure I posted it in this thread and nowhere else :)Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
I wanted to make sure I posted something of value when I got it, especially when you consider the fact that I was originally one of the first few people propping up this thread with my own BS. :)
Update on the 3DCenter post (also, the numbers work out):Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
Code:GK110
SPs / SMX 128
TMUs / SMX 8
SMX / 4 GPC
GPC 6
SP 3072
TMUs 192
0850 clock
Teraflop / s SP 5.222
Teraflop / s DP 2.611
GTexel / s 163
Exactly what I said weeks and weeks ago..... ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Realistically speaking, nobody should be surprised at all. Anyone who's been following the situation could tell they were saving the fully-fledged part for GTC especially after I hounded them about CUDA performance and they were mum.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Expect a new CUDA Compute and fully-fledged Kepler :)
http://i829.photobucket.com/albums/z...ye_GTX_780.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Russian
3072 SP. What a beast ! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by iMacmatician
Do the math :) double GK-104 in transistors... double the cores seems pretty reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
it almost sounds like a dual gpu. unless they like the idea of 600mm2 againQuote:
Originally Posted by Russian
Yields already suck. There is no way they will double the die size. Not without a good expectation of solving the process problems.
At this point, I'm not entirely sure. I don't recall them EVER making a dual-GPU Tesla part. That's the only reason why I'd shy away from such a view...Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Tesla
And yes, I think we would be back to 588^m (to be exact)... which we all know NVIDIA has a lot of experience of dealing with :P
But at the same time, i'm not entirely sold that they'd necessarily have the exact same chip. I feel like there would be tradeoffs... I'm just not convinced they'd build a HUGE chip that's double the size.
i could easily see their 780 being ~2400 cores, but not much higher than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
and why not use dual gpu for cuda. i thought that servers wouldnt even care how many gpus they have since they are not limited to 4 like windows for home is. this is the first time theve had such a small chip that had great perf/mm2
do you think they would take the chip as is, or need to make some serious modification for cuda apps?
There is much much more to GPGPU performance than the number of cores. Two GK104 put together would not cut it, not at all.
I concur, I think that they will have to re-work it and I'm not entirely sure the GPGPU part will be a 3000+ core part, I think the 2400 core part could potentially be more plausible (I was thinking more like 2034).Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
The worst part is that I think people are confusing the dual GK-104 part with the GPGPU one being shown at GTC. I don't necessarily think they'll be one in the same.
So, if single core Kepler is two slots, will dual-core Kepler be 3 or 4 slots?
Dual-core won't happen with GPUs as it wouldn't make sense...GPUs are essentially multi-core in the first place. You can do mutiple gpu dies, but not a "dual-core" since dual core would seriously just be a waste of resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSmooth
What waste? If you designed the GPU with multicore in mind then there's no reason for tons of wasted resources.
Beyond that he didnt mean "dualcore" as in two cores glued together...
Exactly, I should have said two-GPU, sorry.
Yeah, yeah, we all know that it's the GTX 690.Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANCEFORMER
Fast forward to late 2012, already! The GTX 780 with 4GB+!!
thanks...Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
If you design such a large die could it not be possible to design it with salvage in mind rather than redundancy - ie. instead of having duplicate parts to ensure designs can meet the minimum specs which means an increase in die size, could you not design a chip so that it could be cut into smaller die and still sold? The increased interconnect logic on a fully working die may not be much greater than the otherwise redundant logic, and the percentage of fixed logic required by a GPU is shrinking each generation so the parts replicated to ensure dies could be cut would have less and less of an impact, and could be countered by the increased yield of saleable stock.
This would allow as an example:
100% of die intact = gk100/110 - sold as Tesla at big bucks
small defect on one half - die can be cut into 1 fully enabled gk104 and one crippled gk104, or 1 cripped gk100/110 which could be sold as a Halo 'ultra' gaming card.
small defect on both halves - die can be cut into 2 crippled gk104.
large defect on one half - 1 fully enabled gk104, defective area discarded.
Excess gk100 and demand for gk104 - cut die in half to give 2 gk104.
Makes a large die design more feasable as there is far less waste, and the costs of design would be shared between the product lines. Is there any glaring reason I'm overlooking why this couldn't be possible?
Not sure if GTX launch or zombie apocalypse... Got a package from Nvidia a couple of days ago... they sent me a crowbar...
yes, most reviewers i know have got it too.. lol new marketing launch are begin more and more.. huuh, strange . Note it is a success, all site post it and and annonce the iminent launch of the product.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstru