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. w0lfram

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2017
    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    40
    Correct^
    In that, you add them BOTH, to get the SUM = (x 1.7). We are talking only about the 70%. (Not the sum of both.)
    So 70% = x 0.70

    Not to mention, he was trying to multiply percentiles. 50% + 50% is different from 50% x 50%. This error was skewing his math and throwing off his calculations. I just wanted to bring this to his attentions.


    If you EVER have any doubt, just type the equation in @Wolfram|Alpha. You can just type in words if you want and ask W|A.
     
  2. BRiT

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

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    16,945
    Likes Received:
    16,848
    He is correct. If you have 70% improvement on top of 70% improvement you multiply them.
     
    Alexko likes this.
  3. gamervivek

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    747
    Likes Received:
    244
    Location:
    india
    If you're already factoring in Pascals' improvement, firstly we're talking past each other and secondly the rumor is not Ampere's improvement over Maxwell, but Turing.

    What I've said is that for the previous node jump, Maxwell->Pascal, nvidia improved their perf/W by 50-70%, not some theoretical number derived from foundry figures for their new process, but for the chips that were released. If a rumor claims 200% perf/W jump for their next node change, Turing->Ampere, then it's doing ~3-4 better than the previous.

    Too unlikely to see that in practice which is all that should matter.

    I wasn't aware of the 3.3x figure for density for 7nm, that's just obscene. Interesting that AMD's 14nm->7nm transition is only 1.64x

    You're confusing two separate things. 980Ti's size and 1080Ti's improvement over it which when clocked to max is around 50%, and I'm not just using 980Ti's highest clocks. And there's no point in mentioning the power usage since it's not under consideration.

    As for the RT, I'm not sure why you need to argue when it's obvious that RT would have far better improvements than FP performance.
     
  4. Remij

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    185
    You're wrong dude.

    Example:

    Node 0 = 1
    Node 1 = 1.70 (70% improvement over Node 0)
    Node 1 becomes 1 now since it's 100% of itself
    Node 2 = 1.70 (70% improvement over Node 1)
    Node 2's performance = 1.7 x 1.7 which is 2.89x the original Node 0.

    Pretty easy stuff man...
     
  5. DavidGraham

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,363
    Likes Received:
    3,735
    When you mention the 980Ti highest clocks you have to take into consideration the 1080Ti highest clocks as well, you don't just pick one and discard the other. The 1080Ti is perfectly capably of doing 2000MHz as a fixed permanent clock (even 2.1GHz), doing so will make it maintain it's 70% lead even on a max clocked 980Ti.

    Besides, you want to screw the TDP of the 980Ti upwards of 350w and screw it's temps north of 90c just to clock at 1400MHz, be my guest, my point still stands, at the same TDP (of 250w) the 1080Ti beats the 980Ti by 70%, bringing the 980Ti overclocking potential to the discussion is irrelevant and pointless, as I can do the same to any card in any generation.


    I am not sure what you are trying to do here exactly. Power is under heavy consideration, it's what the original rumor is fixating on, and it's why I mentioned the 3080Ti to be 70% faster than 2080Ti at the same TDP.
    Because the RT will not be improved without a significant improvement in FP performance, simple as that.
     
  6. DuckThor Evil

    DuckThor Evil Anas platyrhynchos
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    5,883
    Likes Received:
    902
    Location:
    Finland
    Not really commenting on how much 1080Ti beats 980Ti in general, it definitely is a huge upgrade, but 980Ti was more conservatively clocked out of the box. It is one of better overclockers of nVidia's chips, perhaps ever?

    Here are links to Techpowerup's MSI Lighting reviews for both models, which are among the highest performing cards for both chips.

    https://www.techpowerup.com/review/msi-gtx-980-ti-lightning/26.html

    https://www.techpowerup.com/review/msi-gtx-1080-ti-lightning-z/33.html

    Compared to the stock reference model, when max OC'd the Lighting 980Ti performs 35.9% better, whereas similar comparison with the 1080Tis gets 19.2% increase.
     
    no-X likes this.
  7. gamervivek

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    747
    Likes Received:
    244
    Location:
    india
    I'd like to reply but I'm not seeing this conversation go anywhere. I'd just repost my comment I made which was NOT a reply to either you or to Benetanegia,

    I'd correct in the above that the 3x pert/W for Ampere would be 3-4 times as good as the previous node change for nvidia.

    And that I wasn't aware of the density jump from 16nm to 7nm/+ for TSMC, thinking that it'd be similar from 28nm to 16nm.
     
  8. xpea

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2013
    Messages:
    421
    Likes Received:
    461
    All this math conversation is nice but as a lurker with a bit of industry insider, Ampere will benefit from the highest node improvement ever of the last decade. From 16-12nm to 7nm EUV, you can argue all night long, but when did we get a >3 times density uplift coupled with more than 50% power decrease ? I don't remember.
    What I know is that Ampere had a tough gestation with multiple goals to accomplish on graphics, compute and AI. All the 3 departments were "fighting" to get more transistors allocated to their needs. Lot of internal politics where the AI guys want their dedicated silicon to not get their lunch eaten by the hungry AI startups... and Intel.. I even heard some fears in Nvidia management talking of Ampere as Jack of all trades, master of none.
    With AI market maturing and dedicated silicon available, Nvidia dominance is at risk. That's why they have AI accelerator ready to spin in case of Ampere not being competitive enough in this field.
    Very interesting times ahead...
     
    Alexko, nnunn, entity279 and 6 others like this.
  9. Benetanegia

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    316
    And what I did was not calculating Ampere over Maxwell. What I did was simply calculating a fictional Pascal improvement if it had had a fictional 3.3x density + 0.35x power node available instead of the 1.9x and 0.5x. To calculate Maxwell to Ampere, or rather 28nm to 7nm, I'd have done 1.7 * 3.3 =5.61.

    The reason I'm mixing a real number (1.7x) with those of the foundry, is because we are talking about potential so some sort of reference is needeed. Sure most of the times, actual improvements would be below those of the process, but there's times when they are greater (i.e Maxwell).

    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

    Both situations are equally close (10%) to maximizing the node's advantages. How come one (Pascal) is reality and the second is somehow impossible?
     
  10. gamervivek

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    747
    Likes Received:
    244
    Location:
    india
    I get now where you're coming from but as I had replied to pharma, my comment wasn't about what you guys were posting earlier. I'm still wary of using transistors as proxy for performance.

    I hadn't looked up the node changes, assuming that it'd be similar to the previous node jump. Now I'm quite curious why AMD's 7nm chips are so bad at transistor density and not even 2x of 14nm at which it was similar to TSMC 16nm. Heat density too much for higher clocks? And would nvidia need to follow suit?
     
  11. Benetanegia

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    316
    In regards to density, I guess you are calculating based on their reported numbers and personally after the "Bulldozer is 2 billion transistor, not sorry it is actually just 1.2 billion." thing I don't know if you can really pay too much attention. Who knows how they are counting them for each node/chip.

    In terms of actual gains, on top of the ones you mention, AMD probably had to pay the price of implementing many things (i.e. variable rate shading, RT) that Turing already has, maybe some Turing doesn't have... Also coupling it with having to fix some "issues" the architecture had, like lack of scaling beyond 64 CUs, if that was really a thing. And who knows what else.
     
  12. DavidGraham

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,363
    Likes Received:
    3,735
    Anymore insights you can give on the RT/graphics side of improvements? is that Taiwanese report accurate or not?
     
  13. Entropy

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,243
    Likes Received:
    1,244
    Both nVidia and AMD have much lower transistor density on 16/14nm than LP designs (roughly half). It’s to be expected that this discrepancy will be extended to and in all likelyhood reinforced further by the move to 7nm.

    I would avoid making statements about the densities AMD achieve on 7nm until we have other manufacturers delivering similar products on the node, giving us something real to actually compare.
     
    pharma likes this.
  14. gamervivek

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    747
    Likes Received:
    244
    Location:
    india
    I'm looking at TPU's DB for chips, it's gone from around 25Mt/mm2 to 41Mt/mm2 for AMD's 7nm jump. Not even close to being 2x. Their other issue could be improving clocks.

    While you're right about that, but from the numbers I'm seeing, 28nm to 16/14nm led to almost 92% more for nvidia and almost similar for AMD if you look at chips like Tonga vs Vega.
     
  15. Entropy

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,243
    Likes Received:
    1,244
    Yup, the improvement in density 14nm->7nm is significantly less than for AMD than for instance Apple got for their SoCs. Do note though that AMD was using GF for 14nm, not TSMC, so there’s an additional unknown there.

    But we just don’t know if this is simply what to expect from a HP design on vanilla 7nm. Unfortunately, I suspect that it is. EUV and designing for lower power should help a bit.

    If so, I daren’t make any prognosis for density gains on TSMC 5nm, as that generally seems to be pretty similar to 7nm, but taking a lot more advantage of EUV, but without (as far as I’m aware) doing anything drastic on the basic transistor level, still FF.

    If there is anyone around who have a bit more insight into how the changes made to a process to make it better suited to HP applications are likely to scale going to TSMC 5nm, and generally to GAA at 3nm, your input would be much appreciated.
     
  16. Benetanegia

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    316
    Yeah, I was not casting doubt on the numbers you provided, I was just making the point that those numbers may be based on different ways of reporting the transistor count. In a similar fashion on how they suddenly change power reporting from TBP to TDP or viceversa.
     
  17. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,782
    Likes Received:
    914
    Location:
    New York
    I could see there being tension in terms of business and R&D priorities but silicon budgets for shipping products should be an easier problem to solve. AI and HPC capabilities can be scaled back significantly for lower market segments where raw performance is less important.

    Either way Nvidia certainly has the resources to produce a pure gaming focused product line if they need to.
     
  18. CarstenS

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    5,126
    Likes Received:
    2,599
    Location:
    Germany
    Chip design always is a compromise between multiple targets, not an exercise in achieving the densest chips possible. While smaller chips lend themselves more naturally to higher clocks, you can actively design around that by investing more transistors in order to shorten a critical path or such.
     
    w0lfram, pharma and DavidGraham like this.
  19. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    2,596
    Speculation: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080, RTX 3070 leaked specs: up to 20GB GDDR6 RAM
    https://www.tweaktown.com/news/7005...070-leaked-specs-up-20gb-gddr6-ram/index.html
     
  20. no-X

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,345
    Likes Received:
    313
    These are the same names and numbers, which were posted by kopite7kimi 8 months ago:
     
    pharma, trinibwoy and DegustatoR 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...