Yes?
- Status
Blazkowicz
Legend
Agreed.
What IBM is able to do is to bundle many modules next to each other and use powerful liquid cooling.
That will do, with the usual low tech measure of stacking computers (or nodes) on top of each other
Right, that's why the technology behind NVLink won a best paper award at ISSCC.
http://isscc.org/about/awards_2013.html
Already first design win for Pascal !!!
more at the source: http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/11/14/what-is-nvlink/
more at the source: http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/11/14/what-is-nvlink/
Actually, I believe these machines are Volta based.
correction, finally it's not Pascal but Volta
source: http://info.nvidianews.com/rs/nvidi...k at Summit and Sierra Supercomputers-3-1.pdf
page 4:
source: http://info.nvidianews.com/rs/nvidi...k at Summit and Sierra Supercomputers-3-1.pdf
page 4:
300 PetaFLOPS 
EDIT: If I remember correctly, Skynet from Terminator 3 ran at about 55 TFLOPS. Skynet had better watch out!
EDIT: If I remember correctly, Skynet from Terminator 3 ran at about 55 TFLOPS. Skynet had better watch out!
Last edited:
No, Jensen said Pascal has 2x the single precision performance, with FP16 being an additional 2x.
Orion
Regular
Interesting, I take it that means that FP16 Pascal performance is 4x maxwell's single precision performance?
T
I got more the impression that it is, Pascal have 2x the FP32 performance of Maxwell and if they compare FP16 performance , you have 2x the performance in FP16 than Maxwell.
Orion
Regular
Some sources are saying 4x the mixed precision performance over maxwell, I take it that means 4x the fp16 performance. I'm not sure what maxwell's mixed precision performance is, I assume by mixed precision they refer to FP16. So if you have 4x the performance, it should be either 4x times the single precision(if maxwell fp16 performance is the same as its single precision performance) or if maxwell's fp16 performance is twice the single precision performance then Pascal should be 4x that which would mean its FP16 performance would be 8x maxwell's single precision performance.
Discrete Maxwell currently has to do FP16 ops on its FP32 ALUs, 1:1. Tegra X1 introduced bundled FP16 instructions, which allowed for 2 FP16 instructions (that are the same operation) to be executed together in a FP32 unit, doubling FP16 throughput. This feature is coming to discrete GPUs with Pascal, and will lead to Pascal having 2x the FP16 throughput as Maxwell, all things held equal. Meanwhile Pascal is supposed to also offer 2x the perf-per-watt (NVIDIA is careful not to say raw performance) of Maxwell, hence 2x * 2x = 4x.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Pascal is Nvidia’s follow-up to Maxwell, and the first desktop chip to use TSMC’s 16nmFF+ (FinFET+) process. This is the second-generation follow-up to TSMC’s first FinFET technology — the first generation is expected to be available this year, while FF+ won’t ship until sometime next year.
Jen-Hsun claims that Pascal will achieve over 2x the performance per watt of Maxwell in Single Precision General Matrix multiplication. But there are two caveats to this claim, as far as gamers are concerned. First, recall that improvements to performance per watt, while certainly vital and important, are not the same thing as improvements to top-line performance. The second thing to keep in mind is that boosting the card’s SGEMM performance doesn’t necessarily tell us much about gaming.
Pascal will be the first Nvidia product to debut with variable precision capability. If this sounds familiar, it’s because AMD appears to have debuted a similar capability last year. It’s not clear yet how Nvidia’s lower-precision capabilities dovetail with AMDs, but Jen-Hsun referred to 4x the FP16 performance in mixed mode compared with standard (he might have been referencing single or double-precision).
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/2...mance-gains-from-upcoming-pascal-architecture
Last edited by a moderator:
Pascal has 2x the throughput in FP16 compared to FP32. The 4x comes because Pascal can do 2x the FP32 throughout at the same power, or 4x the FP16 throughput. Jensen referred to mixed precision because most algorithms will still use FP32 for a few numerically critical parts of the application. I certainly will - FP16 is great for training deep neural networks, except in the reductions where we overflow and need FP32.
Pascal is Nvidia’s follow-up to Maxwell, and the first desktop chip to use TSMC’s 16nmFF+ (FinFET+) process. This is the second-generation follow-up to TSMC’s first FinFET technology — the first generation is expected to be available this year, while FF+ won’t ship until sometime next year.
Jen-Hsun claims that Pascal will achieve over 2x the performance per watt of Maxwell in Single Precision General Matrix multiplication. But there are two caveats to this claim, as far as gamers are concerned. First, recall that improvements to performance per watt, while certainly vital and important, are not the same thing as improvements to top-line performance. The second thing to keep in mind is that boosting the card’s SGEMM performance doesn’t necessarily tell us much about gaming.
Pascal will be the first Nvidia product to debut with variable precision capability. If this sounds familiar, it’s because AMD appears to have debuted a similar capability last year. It’s not clear yet how Nvidia’s lower-precision capabilities dovetail with AMDs, but Jen-Hsun referred to 4x the FP16 performance in mixed mode compared with standard (he might have been referencing single or double-precision).
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/2...mance-gains-from-upcoming-pascal-architecture
July 2015 for volume FF+ is what I've seen the last four months. Not that it matters at all for Pascal, if nVidia says 2016 at this point in time, we have no real reason to doubt that this is their (realistic) target.
The window is annoyingly wide though, 9-21 months from now. HBM2 may be just as much of a restriction timing wise.
Tonga (GCN 1.2) though does not get any peak flops throughput increase due to fp16 support, unlike pascal. Might still be faster in practice due to needing less registers, however. (And of course doesn't mean that future gcn iterations couldn't support 2xfp16 packed operations.)
I assume the use of FP16 would have to be something specifically supported/implemented by developers and won't just automatically work in existing games?
Theoretically games could already support this, since d3d11.1 supports specifying variables which are allowed to have less precision (the lesser precision isn't guaranteed, so this should always work as the driver is free to ignore this). Doubtful though anyone already does this...
It is also possible a driver compiler could try to recognize some operations which don't require full precision, but this is probably more or less impossible to get fully correct in some way which would really help. Of course, in the past nothing stopped certain IHVs from implementing shaders requiring fp24 precision with some lower precision version or just replacing them with something different providing "similar" results (or probably in some cases, really the same result) which would be one reason how one could benefit from this without explicit app support - unless this is some high-profile game used a lot in benchmarks, I wouldn't really expect much, though...
- Status
