Isn't GM204 4 FP64 per SMM, not 1? (aka 1/32 DP rate)
Let me first start off by saying I believe GM200 is DP heavy, whether 1:4 or 1:2 or any other number I dont know..but I certainly believe that the DP rate is significantly higher than GM204.
Now regarding why release GK210 if GM200 is to follow? Well one thing to remember is that GK210 is late..IIRC it was supposed to release by mid 2014...or maybe even earlier. Sot it should have had a decent window to sell before GM200 came out. GM200 has yet to release and typically we see that the professional parts lag the consumer parts by ~6 months. So it should have had about a year's window or more to sell. Even with the delay..since it was ready and the cost already sunk..why not release it anyway and recover as much money as you can until GM200 comes out?
Oh I dont get another thing about GK210. Its meant to be compute focused so why not strip it down further of even excess ROPs and TMUs..those dont really have any bearing on compute performance. There would have been available die area to further increase SP and/or DP performance. Since they designed a whole new die, wouldn't this have been feasible?
Thats the exact question I've asked already and I'm still not convinced its necessary. 2x the ROPs of GK110 seems a bit overkill. And the clocks are higher this gen too so fillrates are higher anyway.
About GM204's performance..if you look at it from another angle..GTX 980 has about 70% more fillrate than GTX 780 Ti..but only about 10% more performance (Combination of 33% more ROPs and 30% higher clocks). So is that really efficient?
Didn't NVIDIA rep already say that they're skipping compute on Maxwell and there won't be "real DP part"?
iMacmatician
Regular
The GK210 being late definitely puts matters in perspective. I'm not convinced that the professional/consumer trend holds anymore (for NVIDIA) after the GK110. IIRC the GK180/GK110B was also professional first.
Perhaps the original intention was to use GK210 in the GeForce and/or Quadro lines as well, but those plans got shelved after the GK210 delay. (That assumes, of course, that the GK210 won't be used in any future products in those lines.) However, if the GM200 has slow DP then there's still a place for a GK210-based GeForce TITAN, regardless of any delays.
I'm not knowledgeable enough to actually answer this question, but here's my thought regarding that angle: A GM204 with half the ROPs removed running at the same clocks as the 980 would have lower performance than the 980. What would happen if the GM204 with 32 ROPs were scaled up and/or clocked higher to match the 980 in overall performance while keeping the ROP count?
Game-debate has some possible specs of big maxwell!
What do the esteemed knowledgeable members of B3D think?
Any validity, or click bait thin air?
At first glance the pixel fillrate already seems wrong for 96rops, if I am not mistaken.
What do the esteemed knowledgeable members of B3D think?
Any validity, or click bait thin air?
At first glance the pixel fillrate already seems wrong for 96rops, if I am not mistaken.
Clickbait, as are most "rumors" of this type. Just my opinion, of course.
If we look at the rumored specification of the Quadro full GM200: 384bit bus / 12GB - 3072 SP. http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/nvidia-gm200gm210-gpu-specs-surface.html
- The memory size seems wrong on GD: 8GB for a 384bit bus, 6GB seems more plausible.
- Core count wise, they seems think 1 GPC is removed ( 5GPC ).. seems plausible. ( or multiple SMM / GPC ? ).
Like allways, i got the feeling they update their " spec " based on any rumor. personally untill i see some more things, i will not touch to much of the rumor.
The full Maxwell is rumored to be 3072SP for 6GPC . i suppose they had remove 1 GPC ( 512SP ) for this equation.. This said.. impossible to know.
Personally i will more count on the 3072SP version for the TI but... well hard to know, as maybe the 3072SP are completely wrong.
Really? I must have missed it if they did. Any source or link for this?
Thats true to a certain extent..I do think they have concentrated heavily on professional over the last few years. But my point is that the professional parts always come out after the consumer parts due to the extra validation/testing/certification required of both the hardware and software. I dont know much about GK110 so not sure about where it was first seen.
I don't see much utility in using GK210 in the Geforce line. Given the timing of GM204, this would have made no sense. Quadro maybe. Yep..if the GM200 does have slow DP, then GK210 will still have a place in segments which require DP performance. However, GM200 will absolutely slaughter it in SP performance (especially performance/watt).
Well I am not saying they should have stayed at 32 ROPs. Maybe something in between would have been more area efficient, say 12 ROPs per MC so 48 ROPs for GM204 and 72 for GM200. However, given the usual power of 2 configs they like to use (i.e. 4, 8 or 16 ROPs per MC), I am not sure if this would have been feasible either. And as others have stated, always better to have more fillrate than less! And about your question, I guess noone outside of Nvidia actually could answer it!
ROPs would be 96, they dont scale with GPCs but with the MCs. 384 bit would be 96 ROPs.
With 5 GPCs, yes I believe 20-25% would be a reasonable expection. But the full 6 GPC config should be 40% or more.
iMacmatician
Regular
From Videocardz: "Exclusive: NVIDIA Maxwell GM206 pictured."
Can anyone give a good estimate of the die size from this picture? I normally use the background dots to scale these pictures but I can't see them in this one. The small triangle on the upper left corner seems too small. The only other thing I can think of is to use the four white points on the diagonals, but the locations of them vary depending on the chip.
Also, from the link, the specs of the 960 are as follows: 1178 MHz core clock, 2 GB 128-bit GDDR5, 7010 Mbps.
Can anyone give a good estimate of the die size from this picture? I normally use the background dots to scale these pictures but I can't see them in this one. The small triangle on the upper left corner seems too small. The only other thing I can think of is to use the four white points on the diagonals, but the locations of them vary depending on the chip.
Also, from the link, the specs of the 960 are as follows: 1178 MHz core clock, 2 GB 128-bit GDDR5, 7010 Mbps.
GK110 introductions:
- Tesla K20, K20X: November 2012
- GeForce GTX TITAN: February 2013
- GeForce GTX 780: May 2013
Something could obviously be lost in translation but
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://www.4gamer.net/games/121/G012181/20141225075/
For those who can read Japanese http://www.4gamer.net/games/121/G012181/20141225075/
Its a bit difficult to estimate since its very fuzzy. I did a quick comparison to a GM204 die shot and tried to line up and scale according to the position of the triangle. From my very rough estimation its about ~70% of the die size of GM204 so ~ 280 mm2.
I then also did a comparison with a die shot of GK106 and it appears to be about 20% larger than GK106 so around ~260 mm2 in that case. Bear in mind this was very rough so I could be off by a decent amount in both the analyses. However, I was expecting it to stay under 250 mm2 so it does seem a bit large..almost as big as GK104 if we take the high end of my range. I would expect 10 SMMs if this were the case.
Oh and I would be surprised if it was only 128 bit..I was expecting 192 bit and 3 GB GDDR5 as the standard configuration.
Oops that was meant to read GK110B. I was responding to your point that GK110B first came out in the professional segment and replied that I wasn't sure if it did.
Thanks..that is a bit telling. However, just to nitpick a bit..since GM200 wasn't out when he made those statements..perhaps be was talking about GM204?
Last edited:
iMacmatician
Regular
Oh, I see (I should have looked at the context more). As far as I know, the GK110B was first introduced in the Quadro K6000 in July 2013, then in the GeForce 780 Ti and Tesla K40 in November 2013 (the 780 Ti was announced a bit earlier). I'm not sure when the cards actually started shipping though.
Obviously possible, but then why mention "going this generation with Kepler 'till Pascal comes"?
I used Google translate link you shared and I didn't see that exact line anywhere in the article. The only relevant quote appears to be the one you already posted. Anyways..like I said..I was just nitpicking a bit.
PS: Anyone else had a stab at the die shot?
Would it make sense for NVidia to continue to support the new 2-wide fp16 SIMD FMAD feature to future desktop parts? Or is fp16 really most useful for mobile where you need to push a lot of pixels in comparison to the GPU size? Of course we won't know NVidia's rationale, but if fp16 were useful on the desktop, you would expect NVidia would have supported it long ago. Kepler's integer SIMD instructions seemed useful, but NVidia found otherwise and quietly removed them from Maxwell. So maybe they've found it's better to keep the ISA as clean as possible.
