Nvidia Pascal Speculation Thread

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by DSC, Mar 25, 2014.

Tags:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rys

    Rys PowerVR
    Moderator Veteran Alpha

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2003
    Messages:
    4,156
    Likes Received:
    1,433
    Location:
    Beyond3D HQ
    A brief aside, but HBM is (going to be) used in more than just GPUs.
     
    Lightman and Alexko like this.
  2. ImSpartacus

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2015
    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    199
    I haven't been following this thread closely (or Pascal for that matter), but has this rumor been posted? How reasonable does it seem?

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Razor1

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    NY, NY
    using gp100 with both GDDR and HBM? Doesn't sound likely.
     
    fellix and Alexko like this.
  4. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    10,001
    Likes Received:
    4,574
    512bit GDDR5 memory controller and HBM2?
    Doesn't sound like the best way to take advantage of die area.
     
  5. Blazkowicz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    256
    384bit GDDR5 rather than 256bit GDDR5X? What was GDDR5X for, then.
     
  6. Blazkowicz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    256
    384bit GDDR5 rather than 256bit GDDR5X? What was GDDR5X for, then.
     
  7. homerdog

    homerdog donator of the year
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    6,153
    Likes Received:
    928
    Location:
    still camping with a mauler
    GDDR5X won't be available in time.
     
  8. ImSpartacus

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2015
    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    199
    Yeah, the gp100 predictions seem silly. I was mostly getting at the marketing name and gp104's configuration.
     
  9. silent_guy

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,379
    The smoking gun about this being fake are the number of units (too high to fit) and the base clock speed (there's no way they won't make use of the process being faster.)
     
  10. Newguy

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2014
    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    112
    Different number of rops for gp100 (fermi was the last time that happened?), clocks have barely been bumped, GDDR5 + HBM2? Not the most convincing fake I've seen.
     
  11. Adored

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2016
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    4
    They could theoretically be covering their bases incase they have serious issues with HBM. Also, Nvidia has some history of clock speed regression on a new node (40nm I think, maybe some earlier ones as well) and let's not forget that Maxwell's clock speed uplift came after two years on the 28nm process. There is no guarantee that those will follow over to early 16FF+ so perhaps 28nm Kepler chips like the 780 would be a more accurate comparison.

    I do believe GP104 will have a 384-bit bus as well and I don't recall seeing that rumour elsewhere.

    With all that said, I don't believe any of it either.
     
  12. iMacmatician

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    773
    Likes Received:
    200
    There's also an upcoming GP102 in the Pascal lineup. I don't think there's enough room between the abovementioned GP104 and GP100 for a GP102 to really fit. I could almost believe that the "X80 Ti" is GP102 (could explain the GDDR5), but the SP counts are too close to each other.
     
  13. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland
  14. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Dont it was due to double clock core speed mainly ?
     
  15. Adored

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2016
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    4
    No if I recall correctly they were dumb shrinks of low-end parts. I'll try to find the details.
     
  16. msia2k75

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    29
    BTW with HBMv2 modules being much bigger than HBMv1 ones, can we put a big 500sq mm die on a interposer?
     
  17. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Fury is 596mm2 ( taken on Anandtech review )... But at least at 28nm, both nvidia and AMD have hit the reticule limit of TSMC.. I dont know what is the limit on 14-16nm. ( But will they really want to hit the bigger sized chip on the first series of this new process ? ... I dont think... )

    Im not sure the interposer size is a limiter factor there.
     
    #897 lanek, Mar 18, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2016
  18. CarstenS

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,798
    Likes Received:
    2,056
    Location:
    Germany
    Reticle size should stay the same for all intends and purposes. But I haven't read anywhere, why HBM2 should be significantly bigger, quite the contrary, they're within the same JEDEC spec, not even officially named HBM2.
     
  19. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,430
    Likes Received:
    433
    Location:
    New York
    There's still a gaping hole in price and performance between the 960 and 970 in nVidia's lineup. I imagine the first pascal rollout will fill that gap or we'll see another cut down gm204 part very soon.
     
  20. ImSpartacus

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2015
    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    199
    I used to wonder the same thing. But now that I think about it, AMD also has a health gap between the 390 and 380X.

    Both the 970 and the 390 can be had for as little as $300. The 960 is a bargain at as low as $170 and the cheapest 380X is currently going for just under $200 (and before that came out, the 380 was the next best thing and it's only $170-180). There's definitely a noticeable gap, as you mentioned.

    I'm thinking that both Nvidia and AMD figure that anyone spending around $200-$300 will want to "buy-up" to a $300 GPU to ensure that their GPU is officially ready for VR (the VR min spec is 970 or 290). VR is getting pretty hyped at the moment.

    Alternatively, another possibility is that both AMD and Nvidia know that it's in their best interest to get as many people to have VR-qualified machines so those consumers can get VR headsets. Granted, not every GPU owner would purchase a VR headset endorsed by their respective GPU manufacturer, but they would still get a healthy chunk.

    Either way, considering both AMD and Nvidia have this peculiar gap in their lineup, I bet there's some reason for it.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

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...