Nvidia Post-Volta (Ampere?) Rumor and Speculation Thread

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by Geeforcer, Nov 12, 2017.

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

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,363
    Likes Received:
    3,735
    Yeah, I corrected that before your post.
     
    DuckThor Evil likes this.
  2. troyan

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2015
    Messages:
    202
    Likes Received:
    371
    Pascal perf/mm2 doubled over Maxwell. Reference GP104 with 317mm^2 is faster than a (reference) GTX980TI with 50W less power. Dont see why would this not possible going from 12(16)nm to 7nm after three years since Volta...
     
  3. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    3,735
    Likes Received:
    2,594
    They say the 50% performance increase is not impossible due to 7nm node improvements and features. Sounds like there might be some hardware feature performance trade-offs depending on how they play it.
    https://www.techpowerup.com/262592/...to-be-50-faster-than-turing-at-half-the-power
     
    techuse and PSman1700 like this.
  4. Benetanegia

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    316
    3x is not 4-6 times as good as that. 70% is equal to 1.7x and 3x is just 1.76x times 1.7x.

    16FF+ used in pascal offered 1.9x density at some 45-50% lower power, compared to 28nm.
    7n is 3.3x density and 65% lower power, compared to 12nm.

    That means that if Pascal had enjoyed the same node improvementsl, for the same die size, they could have crammed 70% more transistors at very similar power. So the original 1.7x of Pascal multiplied by 70% larger chip 1.7 * 1.7 = 2.89. So there you have it 3X improvement. We didn't even take into account here that a 70% larger chip would be ludicrously much faster and thus they would more likely than not clock it lower increasing efficiency even further.
     
  5. gamervivek

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    747
    Likes Received:
    244
    Location:
    india
    980Ti had the disadvantage of not boosting high like the turbo boost 3.0 does for Pascal and newer cards. Clocked to the max, the difference should be around 50%. Similar to 2080Ti and 1080Ti.

    As for RT, it was due to my expectation of nvidia optimizing their first implementation of RTX and Ampere should improve it better than what FLOPS improvement over Turing.

    I'm not sure about how perf/mm2 would change, but the talk is about perf/W and that was about 50-70% for pascal over Maxwell(different cards doing different efficiency in TPU reviews) and so a 3x perf/W for Ampere is just highly unlikely.

    I miswrote, it's not 3x improvement, but 2x improvement, which would be ~3-4 times better than the improvement Pascal had over Maxwell. Highly unlikely.

    The calculation you're doing is already factoring in Pascal's improvement and thus makes it look like nvidia wouldn't need to really do that well to see 3x perf/W.

    The second part of your comment is for perf/mm2 and I'm not sure what calculations you're doing there.
     
  6. Benetanegia

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    316
    Of course it's already factoring Pascal's improvements, because I'm then adding the relative benefits that 7n/7n+ has over 16FF+ (i.e 1.7x relative more density for 7nm instead of the actual 3.3x more density). I can make it easier tho:

    16nm improvements: 1.9x more transistors @ 0.5x power = Pascal 1.7x improvement
    7nm improvements: 3.3-3.7x more transistors @ 0.35x power = Ampere 3x improvement

    In both cases we are seeing an improvement that is some 10% lower than the full potential of the node. Nothing really specially impressive or unexpected for Ampere. Both achieve the same based on what's available...

    No it's not for perf/mm2 because it's been calculated for iso power.
     
  7. w0lfram

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2017
    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    40
    70% more:
    70% is actually x0.70. (You can then take that .70 value and add it to original to get the summation of original + % more. = x1.70). Naturally, everyone understands x 170% (ie: 1.7 x) and instantly uses that to calculate sum of both.

    But we are not calculating sum, just % more. And .70 + .70 <does not equal> 3 wholes. Thus not 3x/3 times. (70% more per node x 70% more per node) = 140% more.. So, 1.4 times, not 2.89 times.



    Or am I just high..?
     
    #387 w0lfram, Jan 4, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2020
  8. DavidGraham

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,363
    Likes Received:
    3,735
    You can clock the 1080/1080Ti/2080Ti to 2000MHz as well. Clocking the 980Ti to 1400MHz will screw it's power efficiency so hard, it's going to be a power hog, this shouldn't be a factor.

    RT acceleration is not a one time thing, NVIDIA has showed that it relies on 3 things in Turing, acceleration through RT cores, normal CUDA cores utilization and separation of FP32 and INT32 units, you can clearly see this in the GTX Turing cards, where the 1660Ti achieves near 1080Ti performance running DXR games. RT performance will improve in Ampere through the low hanging fruits of increased TFLOPs and the increase in count of the separated FP/INT units, enhanced RT cores/increased RT cores count are also guaranteed to happen, it's going to be a cumulative effect through all of these factors.
     
  9. Benetanegia

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    316

    Probably. Or just plain wrong, I wouldn't know.

    With simple numbers.

    2 is 2x times 1 OR 2 is 200% of 1 OR 2 is +100% above 1
    3 is 3x times 1 OR 3 is 300% of 1 OR 3 is +200% above 1

    Correct?
    Also:
    3 is 1.5x times 2 OR 3 is 150% of 2 OR 3 is +50% above 2

    Correct?

    However:

    3 is not 100 + 50 = +150% above 1

    Or is it?
     
  10. w0lfram

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2017
    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    40
    70% <PLUS> 70%. = 140% gain in node improvements.

    You are trying to multiply them, instead of adding what each node has done to dies.
     
  11. Benetanegia

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    316
    You have to multiply them...

    3 is not 100 + 50 = +150% above 1
    3 is not 1x + 0.5x = +1.5x above 1 that would be 2.5 not 3
    3 is 2x * 1.5x = 3x of 1

    Seriously... Derailing a thread with this... (I'm posting this here insteam of PM because there's clearly at least 2 users confused by this)
     
  12. w0lfram

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2017
    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    40
    My friend.
    You didn't closely read my original post. Please go back and do so.

    You are mixing fractions and percentages wrong. In your formulas above, what is 3..?
    I think you mean to say 3x an arbitrary value (3x, or x 300%..?) , not the number #3.

    Again, simple math:
    Node 1 + 70% improvement
    Node 2 + 70% improvement

    Node 1 + Node 2 improvements = 140% in improvement. (Hence, 1.4x improvement)
     
  13. Benetanegia

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    316
    Sigh. That's simply wrong.

    Read last posts with the 1 2 3.

    Node 1 improvement is represented by the 2 which is a +100% improvement on 1
    Node 2 improvement is represented by the 3 which is a +50% improvement on 2

    If we want to know 3's improvement over 1, we do not add 100 + 50, we multiply 2 * 1.5.

    I'm appaled...

    EDIT: And no on those posts I don't mean an arbitrary 3x value, I mean literally the number 3 is 3x times 1 (DUH!!) and 3 is 1.5x times 2, etc, etc...
     
    Remij likes this.
  14. BRiT

    BRiT (>• •)>⌐■-■ (⌐■-■)
    Moderator Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    16,927
    Likes Received:
    16,826
    Wouldnt that be?

    Let N = original performance on Node 0
    Let 70% be performance increase from transition to Node 1
    Let 70% be performance increase from transition to Node 2 from Node 1

    Performance at Node 1 = N + .70 N = 1.7 N
    Performance at Node 2 = (1.70 N) + .70 (1.70 N) = 1.70 N + 1.19 N = 2.89 N
     
    Remij likes this.
  15. Benetanegia

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    316
    Yes and no. I mean no because the second 70% is NOT the improvement of the second node that would be 3.3x, but the relative improvement over the improvement. I literally came up`with 1.7 x or 70% by dividing 3.3x density of 7n by 1.9 density of 16FF+.
    It was an attempt to calculate how efficient would Pascal have been if it had a node jump equivalent to "16ff to 7n" instead of (28nm to 16ff).
    I can see my mistake now. I should have just posted:

    16nm improvements: 1.9x more transistors @ 0.5x power = Pascal 1.7x improvement
    7nm improvements: 3.3-3.7x more transistors @ 0.35x power = Ampere 3x improvement

    EDIT: BTW that's a complicated way of achieveing the same 1.7 * 1.7 = 2.89 result tho.
     
    #395 Benetanegia, Jan 4, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2020
  16. BRiT

    BRiT (>• •)>⌐■-■ (⌐■-■)
    Moderator Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    16,927
    Likes Received:
    16,826
    Yeah, was just showing all the steps and all the work to some who might not be understanding or following along and why it's not just addition but multiplication. Personally, I did direct improvement formula: 1.7 * 1.7 * N
     
    pharma and Benetanegia like this.
  17. w0lfram

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2017
    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    40
    I understand now what he is trying to convey, but is failing to recognize, that you do not multiply the %, you add them up.

    Coincidentally, TSMC is not claiming a 300% increase in density shrinkage over 2 nodes.... or 2.89x that he is claiming above. They have said that going from 7nm -to- 7nm+ will yield 20% shrink in die space. And from 12nm TSMC to 7nm TSMC is what... another 25% ~ 35% reduction in die space..? Or about 55% node shrinkage from 12nmTSMC to 7nm+TSMC.

    Think about what percentile, 2.89x node shrink is..?
     
  18. Benetanegia

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    316
    Sigh...

    https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/7_nm_lithography_process#N7

    As for the math, I give up, I shouldn't be doing the job that your math teacher clearly failed to do...
     
    Picao84 and pharma like this.
  19. w0lfram

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2017
    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    40
    70% is 0.70x, not 1.7x...!

    .70 = 70%
    1.7 = 170%
     
  20. BRiT

    BRiT (>• •)>⌐■-■ (⌐■-■)
    Moderator Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    16,927
    Likes Received:
    16,826
    Original Performance is 1.0.
    An increase of 70% means: 0.70 more in addition to the original performance of 1.0, so you're at 1.70.
     
    Alexko, Cuthalu, pharma and 1 other person like this.
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...