NVIDIA GF100 & Friends speculation

Well , it is my turn to steer you guys back on topic :D :

in Cypress I noticed that the 4 small ALUs in each 5D SP are only capable of 24-bit INT processing .. while being able to do FP32 in the same time , isn't that a bit odd ?

shouldn't FP32 have the same binary capacity as INT 32 ? binary32 for both?

For example like GF100 ALUs , where each one is able to do FP32 and INT 32.
 
Well , it is my turn to steer you guys back on topic :D :

in Cypress I noticed that the 4 small ALUs in each 5D SP are only capable of 24-bit INT processing .. while being able to do FP32 in the same time , isn't that a bit odd ?

shouldn't FP32 have the same binary capacity as INT 32 ? binary32 for both?

For example like GF100 ALUs , where each one is able to do FP32 and INT 32.

Actually, FP32 numbers are stored as follows:
23 bits for the mantissa
8 bits for the exponent
1 bit for the sign

The mantissa is guaranteed to have a leading '1' bit at the front for normalized floating-point numbers, which adds a free extra bit of precision - leading to 24 bits of precision for each 32 bit floating point number.

If you're curious about FP, there's a lot to learn - here's a good starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point
 
and PhysX is actually related to these new cards....

We could also find useless polls from other sites that ask what color fans most users want Fermi to have. That's related to these new cards! [Full disclosure: I prefer pretty pink fans]

Well considering this is the GF100 thread

pfft, everyone knows the true names are gt300 and r870, no matter what nvidia and wavey say. :p

Now back to [strike]gf100[/strike] gt300 discussion!
 
Actually, FP32 numbers are stored as follows:
23 bits for the mantissa
8 bits for the exponent
1 bit for the sign

The mantissa is guaranteed to have a leading '1' bit at the front for normalized floating-point numbers, which adds a free extra bit of precision - leading to 24 bits of precision for each 32 bit floating point number.

If you're curious about FP, there's a lot to learn - here's a good starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point
So because of that , the T-Unit must have a binary capacity of 40-bit right ?

if that was right , then Fermi ALUs must be 40-bit wide too ..
 
So because of that , the T-Unit must have a binary capacity of 40-bit right ?

if that was right , then Fermi ALUs must be 40-bit wide too ..

No, because the Fermi ALUs can't accept 40-bit wide data - they can accept *either* 32-bit FP or 32-bit int. There's no benefit to supporting a strange FP40 format, since it's not standard and no one could use it, neither under DX11 or OpenCL (or even CUDA).

The Fermi ALUs can accept 32-bit wide datatypes, either 32-bit integers or 32-bit FP. The details of how they've been implemented internally are likely much more complicated than just saying they have a "binary capacity of 40 bits", given that the ALUs are ganged up to operate on larger data types (like FP64).
 
pfft, everyone knows the true names are gt300 and r870, no matter what nvidia and wavey say. :p
FUCK THE MAN!
rocker.gif
 
No Fermi B1 respin?

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1035493002#post1035493002

If true, Nvidia would be giving up on the high end for this generation because their A3 silicon isn't remotely price/performance competitive with Cypress.

:cry: for 5850 prices.

Maybe Charlie was right about Nvidia coming out with their GF108 derivative next. Makes sense as the OEMs hungrily eye and are seduced by all those sexy new ATI features which they can plaster all over their boxes, computers and ads.
 
lol if its a small marginal lead in Dirt 2, its going to have a huge lead in other games if what we have seen in the past holds up for codemaster engine games.
Where does it say it has a marginal lead in Dirt 2? For all we know it could be slower.
That said, I don't think you really can extend the "this game prefers AMD over NVIDIA" theme necessarily to GF100. There's probably way more to this, but 2 obvious reasons why a game would run better in theory on radeons compared to geforces relative to other games are 1) the shader code is not too "serially scalar" and 2) the alu:tex ratio is rather high. But GF100 has vastly increased alu:tex ratio hence 2) should no longer be true.
 
The Fermi ALUs can accept 32-bit wide datatypes, either 32-bit integers or 32-bit FP. The details of how they've been implemented internally are likely much more complicated than just saying they have a "binary capacity of 40 bits", given that the ALUs are ganged up to operate on larger data types (like FP64).

FYI, paired double support required the multiplier for each 32b lane to be >2x the size as it would if it only supported SP or DP over 4 lanes. So each fermi lane likely has a 53bx27b multiplier array to support 2 lane ganged DP operation.
 
lol if its a small marginal lead in Dirt 2, its going to have a huge lead in other games if what we have seen in the past holds up for codemaster engine games.

Do people even read the linked articles? The reason the number looks good in the Nvidia material is because it was running the DX9 path. AKA, it is none comparable but nvidia decided to compare it anyways.
 
no way that is true.

I hope someone uses a 1ghz 5870 in these tests. It will be interesting to see what happens .
 
Be aware that the 5870 is set as reference card, so those are not FPSs in the graph below, but differences in %.
See here.

Tested games, 2560*1600:
Call of Duty World at War, 4xAA, 16xAF
Company of Heroes, Opposing Fronts
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky, NoAA, NoAF
Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood, Maxed
Enemy Territory: Quake Wors, 8xAA, 16xAF
Farcry 2, DX10, HDR On, 4xAA
Crysis Warhead DX10
Dawn of War 2, Ultra
Fallout 3, Ultra, High-Res Texture Pack
HAWX, DX10, SSAO Very High, 4xAA
Resident Evil 5, DX10, Maxed
Wolfenstein, 8xAA, 8xAF, Maxed
Batman: Arkham Asylum, NoAA, Maxed

So thats % not fps.

Anyway I don't know what to think. If its correct and thats a 512shader card at 600mhz does it have more performance than a 480shader 675mhz chip ? IF it does then thats really bad for nvidia.
 
Someone hide the benchmarks from Dave so he continues with the initial plan to drastically lower prices!
 
Back
Top