Nvidia Pascal Announcement

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by huebie, Apr 5, 2016.

Tags:
  1. mczak

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,021
    Likes Received:
    119
    I don't think 14nm Samsung is really all that much worse. GTX 1060 is a 120W card. Now if you just look at SMs, yes you could (just) do 60% of it within 75W. But (unlike gm107/206) everything else seems to be 100% of GP106 - same amount of ROPs, same memory interface (ok maybe with a bit less max clock), even same number of GPCs/Rasterizers (if you believe anandtech's diagram). Which is also shown by the transistor count, which is 3/4 of GP106. So, if you'd take that number (that's quite simplified calculation, I know), you'd end up with 3/4 the power draw of 120W with the same clocks - IMHO there's no way they could have achieved these clocks on 16nm TSMC within 75W neither.
    Only with the cards drawing additional power from a pcie connector can you deduce anything if 14nm Samsung is really worse.

    At least 14nm Samsung is denser according to these numbers by about 10% compared to GP106...

    I'd expect better, the 1050 <75W should be roughly on par with the RX 460, the 1050Ti should clearly be above. Albeit a >75W 1050 is possibly going to beat a 1050Ti <75W, if nvidia is going to allow that...
     
  2. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    12,695
    Likes Received:
    7,699
    I just had to go back to make sure. GP107 has 32 ROPs at 128bit, whereas GP106 has 48 ROPs at 192bit.
    The GP107 is 60-66% of GP106 in pretty much every amount of functional units and TDP, but clocks are taking a 15% (base) to 20% (boost) hits.

    Though GP107's clocks are still ~20% higher than Polaris 11's.
     
  3. kalelovil

    Regular

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    102
    Gigabyte 1050(ti) cards with 6pin auxillary power have ~300mhz lower boost clocks than the equivalent 1070/1080s.
    http://www.gigabyte.co.nz/products/comparison/list.aspx?ck=3&pids=6054,5916,5915,6061
    http://www.gigabyte.com/fileupload/product/3/6061/20161017102136_big.png

    Although some of that may be down to yields and familiarity, Nvidia hasn't used a non-TSMC source for quite a while.
     
    #2143 kalelovil, Oct 18, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2016
  4. Razor1

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    NY, NY
    If the 6 pin connector is optional (and I think it is optional for all 1050's and ti's), then they will limit the boost clocks to maintain the 75 watts over the pci-e connector.
     
  5. mczak

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,021
    Likes Received:
    119
    Oops yes my bad. For a second I forgot GP106 is 48 ROPs/192bit.
    Yes, the chip having narrower memory interface changes things quite a lot. The power and die size saved there should be significant. Indeed it's 60% SMs, 66% MC/ROPs. Only GPCs/Rasterizers are the same amount (plus of course the non-duplicated fixed stuff). So I'll reverse my statement and say the opposite - it does look worse.
    (Even the transistor density doesn't look all that much more dense now, since MC take considerable amount of area compared to the number of transistors they use. Though even considering this it might still be slightly more dense - it is 75% of the transistors in 66% the area still.)
     
  6. mczak

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,021
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ok these numbers are lower than what I would have expected for cards with additional connector (just barely more than reference at least in the non-oc state, and oc doesn't add much neither).
    Maybe it really is ~15-20% worse then, though I'd like to see the clock/power curve in practice first.
     
  7. Picao84

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    1,072
    Looks very disappointing indeed. It looks like GM107 with additional features that were missing from Maxwell 1 and more ROPS. I have a feeling that its performance will be all over the place varying wildly with the game engine employed. Since an OC RX460 is already at GTX950 performance, if GP107 does not manage to beat its immediate predecessor (in product line up since that card uses a cut down GM206), this card is DOA, especially if it predictably follows the trend of better DX12 / Vulkan performance set out by RX480 against GTX1060. Lets hope benchmarks show a better light, otherwise this generation's low end GPU offers are truly terrible.

    https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_460_STRIX_OC/24.html
     
  8. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    12,695
    Likes Received:
    7,699
    That 6pin connector in the G1 models is giving them a 100MHz boost, at least in factory clocks. GP107 definitely has some more overclocking headroom compared to P11 (and so did Maxwell compared to GCN), but it's a lot lower comparable to the TSMC Pascal chips.

    This leads us to the question of why nvidia chose to go with 14nm Samsung instead of 16nm TSMC.
    Given TSMC's seemingly better performance, maybe the price per die area is substantially higher and nvidia wasn't willing to have their lower-margin product using a more expensive process.

    AMD's willingness to pay GF to use other foundries was already a sign that TSMC's 16nm was getting better results overall, but now we actually have an idea of how much.



    EDIT: worthless
     
    #2148 ToTTenTranz, Oct 18, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2016
    Lightman likes this.
  9. Picao84

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    1,072
    Just as you should before talking about the end of dedicated GPUs caused by APUs. Plus, hold your horses since we still don't know its real performance yet.

    I'm not talking about price, but the chip itself. GM107 aka GTX750Ti was a huge leap (especially so considering it was done in the same 28nm node) for the low end in terms of performance for cards under 75W. The GTX950 the GTX1050Ti is looking to replace has a TDP of 90W, not that far from the latter 75W. If they have the same performance then I believe this to be worst jump in perf/watt between GPUs done in different process nodes in quite a while.

    But even if we talk about price, if all the GTX1050Ti can do is match a GTX950 (at the same price point!), then there is no way the vanilla GTX1050 has increased performance for less money. In fact there would not have been any change at all in perf/[insert you currency here]!

    Are you looking for me to retract my statement that RX460 is a terrible chip? I won't, since it is as bad as GP107, they are both horrible. On the other hand, is it a good buy? Sure it is, but that is more because of nVIDIA's apparently spectacular failure (which is not even worse because this is not a halo product), than any merit from AMD.
     
  10. ieldra

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2016
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    116
    I imagine this chip will behave like all the other nvidia ones. Boost clock on the box says 1455, I expect you to see higher clocks in reality.

    I sincerely doubt this is only as fast as a 950
     
  11. Picao84

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    1,072
    If we go by the slides shown here, it will be around 25% faster:
    http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1050-ti-pascal-announce/

    But, as usual, slides are made to show the product in the best light possible. Even if it is faster by 15%, that is barely enough to justify an upgrade from GTX950 users.

    EDIT - If that is the case then it would offer 15% more performance than RX460 for also a 15% higher asking price.
     
    #2151 Picao84, Oct 18, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2016
  12. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    12,695
    Likes Received:
    7,699
    Boost clock of 1455 is for the non-Ti version. The GTX 1050 Ti is 1300-1400MHz, whereas the GTX 950 was 1200-1300MHz.
    "Typical boost" clocks are still unknown but yeah, we're probably seeing a 100MHz boost which should be good for 8-9% better performance.

    The GP107 does have 10% (300M) more transistors than GM206, though one could wonder how many of those are dedicated to Pascal-specific improvements like async compute support.


    EDIT: worthless argument is worthless.
     
    #2152 ToTTenTranz, Oct 18, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2016
  13. homerdog

    homerdog donator of the year
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    6,294
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Location:
    still camping with a mauler
    That's been the case for a long time now. Hard to find any modern card that stands out in price/perf.
     
  14. DuckThor Evil

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    5,956
    Likes Received:
    1,016
    Location:
    Finland
    There were GTX 950 cards without a 6-pin connector, at least from Evga, so these don't look too great compared to that. Perhaps TSMC really is quite a bit better, but also more expensive or has not enough production capacity to satisfy yet another line of cards at this time.
     
    Picao84 likes this.
  15. Picao84

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    1,072
    Hey, I'm not the one attacking people every time someone considers AMD is under delivering, which should also be a total irrelevant issue... and then running from a conversation with childish remarks.
     
    DavidGraham likes this.
  16. Razor1

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    NY, NY

    evga has stated 26% faster that a gtx 950 (I'm assuming this is for the 1050ti), so I'm thinking that is what we will be seeing on average. That should put it above the gtx 960, which by all counts is the typical new gen update, one tier difference. Nothing special to see. Still a good card for people that don't want that extra power connector. Better than anything else out there right now.

    http://videocardz.com/63898/evga-launches-ten-geforce-gtx-1050-graphics-cards

    yep here ya go
    so what you are getting here is the stock gtx 1050 at the same price as the rx 460 with more performance (or equal performance to the overclocked models and cheaper). And the 1050ti in a bracket of its own, which is going to be uncontested till AMD fills in that gap somehow.

    I don't see the 2gb's for the gtx 1050 holding it back at least on at what this card will be playing at certain resolutions and settings.
     
    #2156 Razor1, Oct 18, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2016
    pharma likes this.
  17. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    12,695
    Likes Received:
    7,699
    I would go as far as saying maybe 16FF TSMC 132mm^2 GP107 wasn't worth the effort/money/man-hours compared to the already developed 28nm TSMC 227mm^2 GM206, and Samsung's 14FF was the middle term.
    And if it wasn't for the power-critical mobile designs, this could be have been a chance to just rebadge the GM206.


    http://www.evga.com/articles/01063/evga-geforce-gtx-1050-ti-and-1050/

    That comparison is probably between a vanilla GTX 950 and EVGA's 1050 Ti FTW model with 1400MHz base / 1500MHz boost clocks, and a 6-pin connector.
    Divide that FTW's 1493MHz boost clocks by the GTX 950's "average boost" clocks of 1188MHz and you get 1.2567
    Given how the number of execution units is pretty much the same all around, it's a good (albeit optimistic) estimate.
     
    pharma and Razor1 like this.
  18. Razor1

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    NY, NY
  19. Erinyes

    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    276
    The RX460 currently trades blows with the GTX950. The1050Ti is basically the same but has ~17% higher clocks and ~27% more effective bandwidth so I expect it to beat GTX950 by about 20%. The RX460 and the GTX 1050 should be quite close though.

    A 16CU RX465 4GB at $129 should be somewhere between the 1050 and 1050Ti and would complete the lineup quite nicely.
    I think its clear that the Samsung process is a bit worse. If we look at GM107 vs GM206..the boost clocks were similar and the power consumption was very similar to the ratio of resources, i.e. ~60% of the SMs for ~60% of the power (75W/120W). With GP107 vs GP106 though, the same 60% ratio gives you ~20% lower boost clocks.

    Now this is complicated by the fact that power dosen't really scale linearly as we see with GM206 vs GM204 or GP106 vs GP104, but it gives us somewhat of an idea of the difference.
    A bit more than that actually since the smaller GPUs have lower density than the larger GPUs. However higher density does not necessarily mean lower per transistor costs (Though considering the performance I expect it is lower)
    Probably a combination of factors including cost per transistor and wafer availability.
    But those last gen mid end GPUs are roughly the same price or slightly higher today. So there isnt really significant increase in performance at this price point. However this is to be expected and its pretty much been the norm for low end GPUs for the last few generations (Barring GM107 maybe)
    True..it isnt a big upgrade from GTX950..but it isnt meant to be. This is targeted at users upgrading from GTX 650/750. 4K HEVC decode is a good feature to have though.
    The GTX 950 was actually 1024-1188 mhz so we're looking at a 200 Mhz or ~17% increase in boost clock. Combined with the ~25% increase in effective bandwidth..should be good for about 20% better performance IMHO.
     
    pharma, Razor1, Picao84 and 1 other person like this.
  20. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    4,495
    Likes Received:
    3,909
    Razor1 likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...