A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y
Veteran
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 Allegedly Postponed To Q1 2015 Due To Strong GeForce GTX 980 and GTX 970 Sales
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-...2015-due-strong-geforce-gtx-980-gtx-970-sales
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 Allegedly Postponed To Q1 2015 Due To Strong GeForce GTX 980 and GTX 970 Sales
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-...2015-due-strong-geforce-gtx-980-gtx-970-sales
I'm guessing the reasoning would be whatever wafers they have available will be allocated to 970/980 production instead of 960? Which makes sense as I don't think there's really an overlap between the consumers of a 960 and 970 as they are different price tiers.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Possible rumours ....
Read more: http://wccftech.com/article/generation-graphics-prospects-nvidia-big-daddy-maxwell-16ff-ports/#ixzz3IteWLnac
Read more: http://wccftech.com/article/generation-graphics-prospects-nvidia-big-daddy-maxwell-16ff-ports/#ixzz3IteWLnac
Last edited by a moderator:
Next week, at SuperComputing 2014, would be a very appropriate time to announce (and perhaps ship) a GM200 based Tesla M20.
Well, as far as I managed to find out, there won't be any Maxwell-based Tesla soon (meaning: not in the next 6 months).
Instead, there will be a launch this month for a dual chip Kepler based Tesla SKU. As strange as it sounds..
Similar to Titan-Z? Or a new core? We still have yet to see the sm_37 part which has been hinted in the CUDA drivers for 6 months now.
iMacmatician
Regular
It could be the Tesla K80, which is rumored to be a dual-chip part.
If this image is real then the K80 (GK210-DUO) would have ~520 MHz core clock and ~5.0 Gbps memory, assuming all SMXs and memory interfaces are enabled.
If this image is real then the K80 (GK210-DUO) would have ~520 MHz core clock and ~5.0 Gbps memory, assuming all SMXs and memory interfaces are enabled.
Yes, that must be it.
I've been wondering about GPU-Z's 'ASIC quality' on the 9xx chips. There's still a perception in the casual overclocking market that a higher ASIC value tends to indicate a higher overclock. As I understand it, ASIC quality is more or less a proxy for 'default operating voltage', and a higher ASIC value means that the chip's default operating voltage is lower. I gathered from reading Dave Baumann's posts on this forum that for AMD Hawaii at least, a chip with a lower operating voltage is one that has high leakage as it needs to run at the lower voltage in order to stay within the TDP target, and I'm assuming that similar is true for NVIDIA's 9xx.
In one of the threads somebody speculated that perhaps we see comparatively fewer 'high ASIC' (high leakage) chips 'in the wild' because most of them probably fail to run at the lower voltage they require and so are discarded or binned into lower parts. With 9xx being relatively voltage-constrained by NVIDIA (ie you can't increase the core voltage much without bios mods) and most chips generally responding well to voltage, will these high ASIC/leakage chips tend to be better overclockers purely because there is more headroom to play with while staying within NVIDIA's constraints? Obviously there is still individual variance but I wonder if there is a general trend.
I also started wondering about the rarity of the high ASIC/leakage chips - if it is the case that comparatively few of them pass binning (because of the above voltage and TDP constraints), can we assume that as the process matures the foundries will tend to produce less high leakage and more low leakage chips to increase yields? Perhaps you are most likely to get a high ASIC chip if you order a reference card very shortly after launch of a new GPU, as this is the time when the process has not been refined as much, and reference cards are usually the first out of the gate.
In one of the threads somebody speculated that perhaps we see comparatively fewer 'high ASIC' (high leakage) chips 'in the wild' because most of them probably fail to run at the lower voltage they require and so are discarded or binned into lower parts. With 9xx being relatively voltage-constrained by NVIDIA (ie you can't increase the core voltage much without bios mods) and most chips generally responding well to voltage, will these high ASIC/leakage chips tend to be better overclockers purely because there is more headroom to play with while staying within NVIDIA's constraints? Obviously there is still individual variance but I wonder if there is a general trend.
I also started wondering about the rarity of the high ASIC/leakage chips - if it is the case that comparatively few of them pass binning (because of the above voltage and TDP constraints), can we assume that as the process matures the foundries will tend to produce less high leakage and more low leakage chips to increase yields? Perhaps you are most likely to get a high ASIC chip if you order a reference card very shortly after launch of a new GPU, as this is the time when the process has not been refined as much, and reference cards are usually the first out of the gate.
You should also consider when a product is defined relative to the process maturity.
There is also a possibility that some are being stockpiled for a higher clocked 980 should AMD release a competitor that falls between the current 980 and the GM200 (which I'm sure Nvidia would prefer to sell as a Quadro/Tesla given the prices), a dual GM204 (GTX 990) card, and Quadro's.
Has the ASIC quality changed with 0.8.0 ? Full support for GM 204 was lacking in previous builds of GPU-Z. It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that the ASIC quality calculation method prior wasn't completely correct.
Not as far as i know, reads the same for 0.7.5, 0.7.9 and 0.8.0 for me (the version I have to hand). Pure speculation on my part, prompted by my personal experiences and anecdotes on forums. I just figured that as the foundries refine the manufacture of a given design, they'll be aiming to increase yields by targeting the middle of the range, so we'd see more in say, the 65-85% range as GPU-Z sees it, and less outliers in the 65- and 85+ range.
I cant speak for the Maxwell 970-980. But in general the rules was (( but it is absolutely not warranty ):
Low Asic = can take high voltage, good for LN2 and subzero due to high leakage.
High Asic quality = Low voltage, dont suited for high level voltage, aircooling... Low leakage.
I suspect for Maxwell, that if you see so much low, average Asic quality is with the low TDP and high turbo speed, they can pass more chips in the wild, hence the high numbers of thoses used chips on non retail, overclocked gpu's.
Not sure where exactly to post this since there isn't a thread for GTX970/980, but I'm happy to report that my MSI GTX970 has no coil whine at all. My GTX670 would get pretty whiny on loading screens and under certain loads, but this 970 is dead silent. Also the fan doesn't even spin until the card gets hot!
I think that's the complete opposite of what Dave Baumann said, but perhaps I misunderstood. I think high leakage means low voltage (and thus high asic quality), because higher leakage means higher current and thus more power consumed at a given voltage. The voltage on a high leakage part has to be lower because otherwise it will breach the target TDP. Perhaps it's not so much that the high leakage parts can run at a lower voltage, it's that they have to. The ones you see in the wild are the ones that were stable at the lower voltage. Does this also mean that a given low leakage chip might run at the same lower voltage too, it just doesn't because it's bin didn't require it?
Dont compare AMD chips binning ( described by dave ) and the Nvidia one .
This said my experience is based on overclocking chips for Asic, not stock one.... But with turbo and highly overclocked retail gpu's i think it is valid as binning chips for a low TDP chips like Maxwell . ( not for official one, but it is possible to find some Nvidia official gpu's `? )
When we overclock under subzero, what we want is the lower Asic possible, for a reason, we control the leak by the cooling and thoses chips can take any voltage you want to throw at it, they are less willing to provide problem with cold bug .. and they can take any voltage ( for a golden chips ).
Last edited:
maybe someone else will chime in, but surely the principles are the same? they're both made on TSMC's 28nm process, the behaviour isn't going to be the complete opposite just because one is AMD and one is NVIDIA. The chip binning as described by Dave B makes sense:
- the PCB is designed to deliver and handle a certain amount of power, the cooler is also designed to dissipate a certain amount of power
- a 'high leakage' chip leaks more current and so uses more power at any given voltage
- it follows that in order to keep the power the within the designed limits of the PCB and cooler, high leakage chips must be run at a lower voltage than low leakage chips
If, on the other hand, what you say is true then within a given product family, in the wild, we would have a much wider range of operating TDPs: low leakage (high ASIC quality) chips running at low voltage and using little current (and thus power) and high leakage (low ASIC quality) chips at the complete opposite end of the spectrum, using high voltage and high current and exponentially more power. This makes no sense.
That's what i'm not sure about, I think they can but perhaps the manufacturers don't bother. I assume they don't test individual chips, they sample a few in a batch and characterize the leakage based on that. Given X leakage, we can run these chips at Y voltage. I don't think they bother testing to see if they'll actually run at a lower voltage.
