Bingo!
I don't recall that generation
Bingo!
Considering Denver's timeframe it's obviously for Maxwell. There is atleast one mention of this:Is Kepler going to be the first GPU bearing the fruits of Project Denver or is that honor reserved for Maxwell?
But if Kepler will be nextgen console winner, then i think it could or even should be bundled with Denver in SoCThe Register said:While Keane would not say how many ARM cores would be bundled on the Maxwell GPUs, he did confirm that Nvidia would be putting a multicore chip on the GPUs and hinted that it would be considerably more than the two cores used on the Tegra 2 SoCs
I don't think that Maxwell+Denver parts will hit GeForce/Quadro market. They'll probably use them for Tesla/console markets and GeForce/Quadro will get just Maxwell, without ARM cores integration.For Nvidia it could be a good deal, cause it could allow doing game's ports almost without any code changes, which would allow to reduce expenses for devrel and will give opportunities for growth in other areas, however for all others it would be not so well
ARM cores should be helpful for Quadro as well, they will break last barriers on the road to completely GPUs based offline rendering solutionsI don't think that Maxwell+Denver parts will hit GeForce/Quadro market. They'll probably use them for Tesla/console markets and GeForce/Quadro will get just Maxwell, without ARM cores integration.
Key words are "these days", but this could easily change in future. My opinion that decrease of software layer would be one of key directions for next gen XBox, command list generation and some other usually api/driver's stuff in the end could be standardized between the vendors, however looks like SM ISA apparently couldn't be due to fundamental architectural differencesGame porting is much more dependant on API compatibility than on binary h/w compatibility these days.
You are kidding, right?If they keep on this track we'll start talking wafer per chip ratio, not the other way around.
They did something similar with gf100 vs gf104 and with gf110 vs gf114.Couldn't they find a way to modulate their designs enough to be able to "easily" remove (at some of) the general purpose from the desktop parts without unbalancing the chip and making padding overuse a must? I know the design of the pipeline stages themselves are altered and thus it's not a simple external/independent block and thus making it hard to remove. But, there might be some ways to re-factor this issue and allow them to produce smaller and leaner desktop part.
It's typical of long running speculation threads.9 pages so far on this thread and no REAL speculation on how Kepler will be different from Fermi 1.1 (GF110).
It's typical of long running speculation threads.
I wouldn't be surprised if Kepler is a bunch of Tegras stitched together.
Didn't know you loved G7x so much Trini!
Since when had G7x or even generations before that FP20 PS ALUs?