Nvidia Pascal Announcement

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

Tags:
  1. 3dilettante

    Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,122
    Likes Received:
    2,873
    Location:
    Well within 3d
    DP would give a 25x generational improvement in peak throughput, and FP16 would also scale above the transistor increase for the workload Nvidia wants to target that for in particular.

    Various complexity adders that either expand the applicability of the GPU or help massage glass jaws that could hinder sustained performance, and then there is a significant IO adder that would have an area increase disproportionate to its transistor count.

    Even not on those terms, 66% more performance on a 88% transistor increase may need some comparisons with other transitions to see how good or bad that might be considered. Transistor count hasn't given a 1:1 improvement generally.
     
  2. Adored

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2016
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    4
    It looks a lot like a card built for everything except gaming tbh. I'm not even sure we can glean any information from a gaming perspective from it.

    At the end he held up a PX2 board showing the GPUs - I thought they looked quite large compared to the specs also, ie specs look like GP107 but the die size looked more like 250mm2+ range. Did anyone catch that?

    wccf got a shot of it - http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/GTC-2016-PX-2-Board-Pascal.jpg

    That looks like a large mid-range sized GPU to me.
     
  3. CSI PC

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,050
    Likes Received:
    844
    Fingers crossed then they have learnt from the mess they created doing that for the 980-to-970 :)
    Although the 970 sold so well I am wary how that range of cards are going to pan out this time but I have my fingers crossed neither will be as crippled this time.
    Cheers
     
  4. ieldra

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2016
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    116
    First I heard of Gp102 in this thread, it would make sense to have a variant with no HBM and possibly die size reduction from having significantly reduced fp64. What are the odds of GP102 with more fp32 units per SM? Pretty miniscule eh ?
     
  5. fellix

    fellix Hey, You!
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,486
    Likes Received:
    397
    Location:
    Varna, Bulgaria
    Don't forget the additional DP logic that skews the SP perf/watt/die-size ratio, together with the extra space occupied by the quad NVLink interface and controllers. Also with all the DNN, Nvidia will put more emphasis on mixed precision FLOPs.
     
    Grall and Jawed like this.
  6. CSI PC

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,050
    Likes Received:
    844
    Just thought,
    I wonder how many big Pascals are being used by the two supercomputers NVIDIA are building with IBM.
    That will probably take a fair chunk of these poor yield for now chips; I assume they would be using these as milestones would be tight for next generation of cards *shrug*
    Cheers
     
  7. ieldra

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2016
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    116
    and Jen mentioned improvements over the maxwell scheduler, but didn't specify what exactly right ? speculation rampant, people claiming hardware queues/distribution are coming back
     
  8. Ext3h

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    294
    Hardware queues were never absent. Just not being made use of consistently.
     
  9. ieldra

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2016
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    116
    Well yes, what I meant was, I've seen many people claiming hardware scheduling is back in full, no more static scheduling essentially undoing the 'gutting' Fermi's scheduling subsystem underwent in its transformation into Kepler. Is there any solid indication warp scheduling is back in hardware?
     
  10. CarstenS

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,797
    Likes Received:
    2,056
    Location:
    Germany
    It just doesn't make sense for known-latency-functions.
     
  11. ieldra

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2016
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    116
    yeah thats why they removed it in the first place, where the hell are people getting this information from ?
     
  12. silent_guy

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,379
    Was it ever not in hardware?
     
  13. ieldra

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2016
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    116
    scheduling instructions within a warp has been software side since kepler
     
  14. 3dilettante

    Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,122
    Likes Received:
    2,873
    Location:
    Well within 3d
    What's the full wording for the TPC initialism? That documented somewhere?
     
  15. Razor1

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    NY, NY
    Bit too early to speculate on that lol from what they have shown. They did talk about preemption, well mentioned it quickly so there are probably some changes for that.
     
  16. silent_guy

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,379
    Ok. For me 'warp scheduling' meant scheduling between different warps, not scheduling within a warp. :wink:
     
  17. ieldra

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2016
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    116
    Yeah but i imagine it's going to be an incremental improvement, they mentioned finer grained preemption being in the works a while back, but that it was still far away
     
  18. ieldra

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2016
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    116
    apologies, been drinking ! intra-warp scheduling vs inter-warp scheduling :p
     
  19. LordEC911

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    'Zona
    128b Pascal. Should be a direct competitor to baby Polaris.

    The 250w for DrivePX makes no sense.
    GTX980M is already ~100w for the same amount of FP32 TFlops as this new 128b dGPU Pascal.
    Combining Denver with 4 ARM cores and having ~512 shaders on the new Tegra w/ iPascal shouldn't be 20-25w.
    There doesn't seem to be any power saving from 16/14FinFet. You would expect 60-80w for the 128b dGPU Pascal and <20w for the new Tegra w/ iPascal.
     
  20. mczak

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    112
    Thread Processing Cluster? I'm just guessing it's essentially the same thing as GT200 had (3 "multiprocessors" per TPC), so quite old-school ;-).
     
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...