D
90% new processes. Unless Nvidia decided to keep their secret...well secret.Out of curiosity is the 1080's high clock purely due to the new process or is implementation a contributor as well?
We've spoken about the positive attributes of moving down manufacturing processes, and one such goodness is the ability to drive higher frequencies. One would expect the 16nm geometry to offer a reasonable bump in frequency, though not as high as Nvidia has achieved.
Jonah Alben, who oversaw Pascal, said to us that a huge amount of work had been done to minimise the number of 'violating paths' that stand in the way of additional frequency. This is critical-path analysis by another name, where engineers pore over the architecture to find and eliminate the worst timing paths that actually limit chip speed. If successful, as appears to be the case here, the frequency potential is shifted to the right, or higher. Alben reckoned that Nvidia managed a good 'few hundred megahertz' by going down this path, if you excuse the pun, so Pascal is Maxwell refined to within an inch of its life.
I find it really hard to belive because maxwell already archive 1.5Ghz +/- with overclock on 28nm. Thats 15% lower frequencies than Pascal. And the diagram doesn't show much improvement really.Hexus's article says otherwise, its more like 25% from the process and 75% from actual design.
And it was a straight answer from the lead designer of Pascal (minus the %'s)
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graph...gtx-1080-founders-edition-16nm-pascal/?page=2
It's not an anomaly. The Anno games have been doing this for years now. Go look through the reviews at Hardware.fr. It seems you're new at this.There is one consistent anomaly I have noticed from multiple reviews.
The Anno games (2070 and 2205) with the default boost profiles seems to be 1607MHz base clock (needs the temp/power target modified to boost)....
I wonder if any publications will delve into what is happening and use that as a good example, due to being quite consistent.
Didn't the article you linked say 'a few hundred megahertz'? Which sounds like 200 to 300 mhz which is a 50% improvement.Hexus's article says otherwise, its more like 25% from the process and 75% from actual design.
Why would you compare overclocked to stock clocks?I find it really hard to belive because maxwell already archive 1.5Ghz +/- with overclock on 28nm. Thats 15% lower frequencies than Pascal. And the diagram doesn't show much improvement really.
Didn't the article you linked say 'a few hundred megahertz'? Which sounds like 200 to 300 mhz which is a 50% improvement.
Why would you compare overclocked to stock clocks?
LOL gee thanksIt's not an anomaly. The Anno games have been doing this for years now. Go look through the reviews at Hardware.fr. It seems you're new at this.
Unless they suffer the same thing!The irony...
Expecting a similiar slide from AMD at Polaris launch
Sorry if I missed it being linked in past, but oh man the Q&A regarding the pricing of the FE and what exactly makes it better than a previous reference is err rather painful to watch the response from NVIDIA staff on the stage.
You need to go to 3min50sec regarding the FE questions.
I would demand a raise if I was the NVIDIA employee on stage having to justify the FE and its pricing to 100s of reviewers and publications
I think the person in the background immersing themselves to VR had the right idea of getting out of it, just pretend none of it happened
Cheers