Nvidia Turing Speculation thread [2018]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kaotik said:
Didn't notice this posted yet: http://www.expreview.com/63600.html

TU102 is apparently being made by both TSMC ("Taiwan", 12nm) and Samsung ("Korea", 14 or 11nm? they don't have 12nm)
Will be interesting to see if there's a difference between the two in die size or performance (overclocking potential)
Click to expand...

No, Silicon itself would be fabbed on TSMC with 12nm. Name of country is being printed where final packaging is made.

For example with Vega

pgBbUo5.jpg


Vega is all fabbed on Globalfoundaries but name of the country is different depends on where the final packaging was made. You have to actually look at those codes to find out if they are made on different foundaries but it is very unlikely Turing is fabbed on foundary other than TSMC.
 
Last edited:
Rufus said:
The only mining algorithm that really matters is Ethereum - it's 80% of the GPU mining revenue. [...]

That said the entire market has crashed, so mining should have 0 effect on the launch:
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/ethereum-mining_profitability.html#log
Click to expand...

Both arguments are misleading in the context. While I'd say it's not likely Turing will impact GPU mining significantly, it's certainly not impossible - you're being too dismissive

RT cores are there on the board because they're significantly more efficient than the standard CUDA cores at their given task.
Now, if any given mining algorithm could take advantage of these cores, it will also become more efficient on the Turing architecture.

Hence all the profitability discussions would then go to the bin - you may be only able to mine an obscure coin profitably but who cares ? So long as you'd need say 4 Pascal cards to achieve the same results as 1 Turing card, you'd take most of the revenue , and the profitability will be way higher.

We can take Vega as an example, and how it was distruptive for XMR mining. And it didn't even have special cores.
 
JasonLD said:
No, Silicon itself would be fabbed on TSMC with 12nm. Name of country is being printed where final packaging is made.

For example with Vega

pgBbUo5.jpg


Vega is all fabbed on Globalfoundaries but name of the country is different depends on where the final packaging was made. You have to actually look at those codes to find out if they are made on different foundaries but it is very unlikely Turing is fabbed on foundary other than TSMC.
Click to expand...
I've been under the impression if it's printed on the chip it marks where the actual chip was made, rather than assembled?
 
Img doesnt want to inline, but is it the one about shading performance?

The fourth leak for today is showcasing Turing shading performance. This is a relative comparison versus Pascal. If this chart stands true, then each Turing core could be ~50% faster than Pascal core in applications such as 3DMark. This might be very fruitful information for further comparisons.
 
Yea, relative shader performance Turing vs Pascal using some games/benchmark apps as examples.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Well TU104 has 80% of the RT and Tensor core count of TU102? That's seemingly a lot of die area according to the layout Nvidia has showed so far.
 
entity279 said:
Both arguments are misleading in the context. While I'd say it's not likely Turing will impact GPU mining significantly, it's certainly not impossible - you're being too dismissive

RT cores are there on the board because they're significantly more efficient than the standard CUDA cores at their given task.
Now, if any given mining algorithm could take advantage of these cores, it will also become more efficient on the Turing architecture.

Hence all the profitability discussions would then go to the bin - you may be only able to mine an obscure coin profitably but who cares ? So long as you'd need say 4 Pascal cards to achieve the same results as 1 Turing card, you'd take most of the revenue , and the profitability will be way higher.

We can take Vega as an example, and how it was distruptive for XMR mining. And it didn't even have special cores.
Click to expand...
rt cores
how exactly do we know that they are actually a new tech for a technology that is older than jesus and not just glorified tensor cores with some limitation and name?
 
giannhs said:
rt cores
how exactly do we know that they are actually a new tech for a technology that is older than jesus and not just glorified tensor cores with some limitation and name?
Click to expand...
You can’t accelerate the actually process of tracing rays with tensor cores. Tracing rays (ray/triangle intersection) is a completely different set of operations than vanilla bulk matrix multiplications (which is what tensor cores do.)

With tensor cores, you can only reduce the amount of rays by filling in the gaps.

If RT cores were tensor cores, one wouldn’t be able to run demos on a single Turing at the same speed as on 4x Volta.
 
silent_guy said:
You can’t accelerate the actually process of tracing rays with tensor cores. Tracing rays (ray/triangle intersection) is a completely different set of operations than vanilla bulk matrix multiplications (which is what tensor cores do.)

With tensor cores, you can only reduce the amount of rays by filling in the gaps.

If RT cores were tensor cores, one wouldn’t be able to run demos on a single Turing at the same speed as on 4x Volta.
Click to expand...
no offence but that whole "one turing card is faster than a single dxg system" is a complete lie
everyone knows he was reffering to the pica pica demo
but history is a bitch
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977225599805669376
the demo was running perfectly on a single card and nvidia insisted to use a dgx for pr and now we know why
 
giannhs said:
no offence but that whole "one turing card is faster than a single dxg system" is a complete lie
everyone knows he was reffering to the pica pica demo
but history is a bitch
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977225599805669376
the demo was running perfectly on a single card and nvidia insisted to use a dgx for pr and now we know why
Click to expand...
Just to be clear: Brian Karis (Epic) was referring to the Star Wars Reflections demo (which also didn't really require 4 Voltas but was definitely more demanding than PICA PICA) While Colin (SEED/EA) was indeed talking about PICA PICA.
 
Clukos said:
They messed up the FE pricing again like they did with the 1080 so the MSRP prices are pointless, no vendor will ever sell the Ti at $999 when the FE goes for $1199 and that's reflected in the prices. Typical Nvidia scummy practices here. They really like that FE tax and to make their partners look bad because they don't sell at MSRP.
Click to expand...
Previous gen I agree but from an AIB perspective the new Turing FE using fans with a full vapor chamber/pipe system could be a nightmare if it was undercutting them in price while also overclocked just as well.
I think partners would be happier either with the FE price being higher to be less competitive or not sold at all (which is not going to happen), especially as it seems they have also improved phase-power design on the reference models that was an area of design-marketing by AIB partners selling Nvidia GPUs historically (will still do so but how much it matters *shrug*).
 
giannhs said:
no offence but that whole "one turing card is faster than a single dxg system" is a complete lie
Click to expand...
There is absolutely no reason to think that HW ray tracing units are less than 5x faster than a traditional SM based solution for ray to triangle intersections.

So, no.

everyone knows he was reffering to the pica pica demo
Click to expand...
Claiming that “everyone knows this” doesn’t make it. During the presentation, Pica Pica wasn’t even mentioned.

nvidia insisted to use a dgx for pr and now we know why
Click to expand...
In a conspiratorial brain, yes.

Whatever...

It’d be extremely simply to make a ray tracing demo that conclusively proves whether RT cores are real... or not. Because, once again, tensor core math simply doesn’t map to ray to BB and ray to triangle intersection.

Meanwhile, you can see here: https://videocardz.com/77696/exclusive-nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-editors-day-leaks

RT cores: 72
Tensor cores: 576

But that’s probably all just part of the grand deception as well.
 
giannhs said:
no offence but that whole "one turing card is faster than a single dxg system" is a complete lie
everyone knows he was reffering to the pica pica demo
but history is a bitch
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977225599805669376
the demo was running perfectly on a single card and nvidia insisted to use a dgx for pr and now we know why
Click to expand...

14.jpg


This clearly shows that the Ray Tracing is using a separate part of the Turing to do the Ray Tracing (Green) and that the Tensor Cores (Purple) are on a different part of the chip.

13.jpg


This disproves you conspiracy theory. 4X Volta's took 55 ms to render a Ray traced frame whereas one RTX Turing only took 45 ms. That means that a single RTX Turing is 4.89 times faster than a single Volta.

The Pascal above is a GTX 1080 Ti and is 6.8 times slower than a RTX Turing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
AI Desktop Tools - Training and Inferencing
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
pharma
P
BRiT
Intel XeSS anti-aliasing discussion
8 9 10
Replies
194
Views
28K
Subtlesnake
S
D
Hardware implementation of threading models in contemporary GPUs
Replies
16
Views
3K
Lurkmass
L
R
Let's discuss the ways the future console architectures could potentially improve in efficiency
2 3
Replies
52
Views
5K
Miniature Kaiju
M
W
New Qualcomm silicon for new Surface May 2024
Replies
15
Views
1K
Arnold Beckenbauer
A
Back
Top