firstminion
Newcomer
So they shot down the guy who offered to help... I hope he keeps his job (or get a better offering).
He spoke out of line but I hope he keeps his job, he obviously likes nvidia and probably works hard for them. I do hope he learns to control himself because his post really didn't do nvidia any good.So they shot down the guy who offered to help... I hope he keeps his job (or get a better offering).
"He spoke out of line?" Well that is one way of putting it.He spoke out of line but I hope he keeps his job, he obviously likes nvidia and probably works hard for them. I do hope he learns to control himself because his post really didn't do nvidia any good.
We can't speak poorly about our dear leader and his vision/products. It doesn't help anyone other than those consumers who purchase our products based on our lies. /sarcasmI do hope he learns to control himself because his post really didn't do nvidia any good.
He said there would be a driver patch, which there wasn't. Consequences end up being that he lied too. Since he is part of nvidia, it just makes nvidia look even worse for not patching. What do you expect from there?"He spoke out of line?" Well that is one way of putting it.
The other way of putting it, is that he spoke honestly and without bias but got beat down by marketing and higher-ups.
You last part summarizes it nicely...
We can't speak poorly about our dear leader and his vision/products. It doesn't help anyone other than those consumers who purchase our products based on our lies. /sarcasm
Technically, if they were originally telling the truth that they didn't know about the memory allocation design, then a driver "fix" (loose definition) would be doable.He said there would be a driver patch, which there wasn't. Consequences end up being that he lied too. Since he is part of nvidia, it just makes nvidia look even worse for not patching. What do you expect from there?
Granted I haven't personally tested 980M, but we have already double-confirmed with NVIDIA that 980M has all 64 ROPs enabled, and the memory is arranged in a single segment. GTX 970 is the only GM204 SKU to use the reduced ROP configuration.
If I had to guess, they're using Nai's tool on a system with the 980M active, meaning some of the memory is already in use.
16GB/sec is almost exactly what PCIe 3 x16 offers. And this is exactly how it happens; CUDA keeps allocating VRAM until it runs out, then it goes to system RAM.Sorry Ryan, but I hardly doubt some memory occupance can descrease the bw that much and just at the very end in that way
Correct me if I am wrong
For what it's worth, I've already tested this on a GTX 970 that's set to PCIe 1 x16. 23GB/sec to memory across the affected area, which is many times the 4GB/sec such a connection offers. This value does not change when switching to PCIe 3.
You're wrong. You can show this exact same thing on GTX 680 or GTX 980 as well. Depending on the amount of stuff already in GPU memory at some point cudaMalloc will start returning pinned memory (system memory). On 2GB card that benchmark will allocate 1920MB (128MB less then total) and on 4GB it will allocate 3840MB (256MB less then total). This means that once buffers start to overflow to system memory you'll start seeing PCI-Ex bandwidth. And since it's not necessary for whole buffer to overflow you can also get some combination of the two bandwidths.Sorry Ryan, but I hardly doubt some memory occupance can descrease the bw that much and just at the very end in that way
Correct me if I am wrong
16GB/sec is almost exactly what PCIe 3 x16 offers. And this is exactly how it happens; CUDA keeps allocating VRAM until it runs out, then it goes to system RAM.
For what it's worth, I've already tested this on a GTX 970 that's set to PCIe 1 x16. 23GB/sec to memory across the affected area, which is many times the 4GB/sec such a connection offers. This value does not change when switching to PCIe 3.
Furthermore if I run it in a non-headless system (to force 3 tiers), there's a clear drop off at the end from 23GB/sec to ~3.6GB/sec with PCIe 1, and 23GB/sec to ~14GB/sec with PCIe 3.
Varying memory speeds isn't very effective due to various caches, and because even 800MHz of DDR3 is 13GB/sec in dual channel mode (128-bit). It's almost impossible not to saturate the PCIe bus.
This begs the question - is there something wrong with TSMC's 16nm FinFET process? According to rumors Qualcomm, Apple and now NVIDIA have jumped the ship. Same goes for AMD, though they're going for GloFo, but still to same Samsung developed 14nm FinFET process
Nvidia Newest Samsung Foundry Customer For 14nm Process
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-samsung-14nm-apple-qualcomm,28493.html
If this is true than Nvidia will more than likely use it for the next generation of graphic GPUs and not mobile (except for a possible Denver SOC) as mobile is on a yearly release and next release is Jan 2016.
This begs the question - is there something wrong with TSMC's 16nm FinFET process? According to rumors Qualcomm, Apple and now NVIDIA have jumped the ship. Same goes for AMD, though they're going for GloFo, but still to same Samsung developed 14nm FinFET process
Yes, with four big to huge customers, this is starting to look like a real trend. Actually, I wonder whether AMD will use Samsung or stick to GloFo only, because the latter is supposedly a little behind. The process is the same but you'd expect some latency between any development on Samsung's side and implementation on GloFo's.
Of course, if neither AMD nor NVIDIA is interested in using 14nm as soon as technically feasible, this might not matter.
A move from 16FF TSMC to 14nm Samsung is roughly 6 months to change libraries.
I need to get convinced first that NVIDIA can afford to delay Pascal and Parker at least by 6 months as it doesn't sound in their best interest right now.
On a sidenote if they'd want to ship Parker before this year runs out shouldn't it have taped out yet anyway?
Well... Apple has the resources to basically do whatever they want.They can always throw more manpower at it. Just ask Apple..apparently they're doing A9 and A9X on Samsung 14FF and TSMC 16FF respectively. But if NV is in fact making a move..I suspect it was decided a long time back.