DavidGraham
Veteran
Sounds like HPC Ampere is a 128CU, another chip just showed up, with 7936 CUDA cores.
Nvidia Post-Volta (Ampere?) Rumor and Speculation Thread
- Status
DavidGraham
Veteran
More chips are appearing, this time we have a 118CU chip:
The 124CU chip @1100MHz achieves a CUDA score of: 222337
The 118CU chip @1100MHz achieves a CUDA score of: 169368
So going from 118 to 124 resulted in an increase of 31%!
Also worth noting that these results are not comparable to CUDA scores for Tesla or Turing, as the tests for Ampere are using insider drivers and CUDA 11 which is yet to be released.
The 124CU chip @1100MHz achieves a CUDA score of: 222337
The 118CU chip @1100MHz achieves a CUDA score of: 169368
So going from 118 to 124 resulted in an increase of 31%!
Also worth noting that these results are not comparable to CUDA scores for Tesla or Turing, as the tests for Ampere are using insider drivers and CUDA 11 which is yet to be released.
Yeah because that makes sense. No other factors are involved of course.
Oooh Nvidiaaaaaaaa!
Benetanegia
Regular
I think it's interesting that if the clocks are not being missrepresented, those benchmark results are pretty consistent with previous rumors/leaks.
First, the higher than expected performance-per-SM is consistent with the proposed setup of 16xFP32 + 16xINT or 16xFP32 + 16xFP32, and I'd even say that by the expected amount. Turing would be effectively ~1.4x warps every 2 cycles (36 INT per 100 FP thing), while Ampere would actually be able to do the full 2 warps, which is a 40% perf increase, which we are kinda actually seeing in those benches.
Second, 50% higher performance is roughly what we are shown and I think with such low clocks on 7nm and the afforementioned setup, half the power consumption is pretty realistic, almost a given to be very low.
First, the higher than expected performance-per-SM is consistent with the proposed setup of 16xFP32 + 16xINT or 16xFP32 + 16xFP32, and I'd even say that by the expected amount. Turing would be effectively ~1.4x warps every 2 cycles (36 INT per 100 FP thing), while Ampere would actually be able to do the full 2 warps, which is a 40% perf increase, which we are kinda actually seeing in those benches.
Second, 50% higher performance is roughly what we are shown and I think with such low clocks on 7nm and the afforementioned setup, half the power consumption is pretty realistic, almost a given to be very low.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Yea, I know it must hurt so much!
DegustatoR
Legend
Could be just as easily due to memory bandwidth changes.
Benetanegia
Regular
You think? It's the same memory setup as Volta except for clocks, and perf on Volta vs Turing is more consistent with TFLOPS than it is with Volta's 50% higher memory BW. In this particular benchmark anyway.
DegustatoR
Legend
I'm just saying that it's hard to tell from these results. L2 is 5X+ larger, memory size varies from 24 to 32 to 48 GBs so it's hard to say if it's even four stacks and not six now for example.
Also how does Geekbench count the number of SPs? Shouldn't it detect the proper number if it's 2X per SM now? Or does it just use some fixed number per SM and multiply it by SM count?
Last edited:
Benetanegia
Regular
Yeah, I get what you mean, but I still think there's more to it.
As far as I can tell, the bench doesn't count the number of SPs at all. It only reports number of CUs.
Since it uses OpenCL and CUDA, it can read it directly from what the driver reports.
That would put an Ampere SM at 15% higher IPC than Turing. We're looking at the same alu config + better caches I think.
Last edited:
Those frameworks report the number of SMs not ALUs correct?
AND...? (is it not obvious?)
Navi10 is faster in games, not equal in games. That is why nVidia released SUPER. (that still can't compete in some games). Understand?
Secondly, navi-10 uses a hybrid design rdna(1), and the long held secret of rnda2 (AMD's full new gaming architecture) has yet to be seen. But we know it is not weighed down with gcn, or what limited that design... it free from that.
TU-106 equalized (for mhz, transistors, etc) can't beat hybrid navi, then how will it compete whit rdna2's gaming efficiency ? We are talking about a uArch, that AMD has been working on (in secret) for 3 years and once shown to Clients years ago, jumped on board. Both the new Xbox & PlayStation will be using rdna2, not to mention we've seen some of the specs. Xbox might have the gaming performance of the rtx2080, using rdna2.
You might want to stop on let that sink in.
Thridly, Ampere is not new, it's architecture is 100% based off of Turing, just further refined. You are fabricating. And yes, on a full node shrink, that is totally new to nVidia. They will have growing pains.
But you still have not refuted the fact that rdna(1) is more powerful (at gaming) than turing architecture. And more of nvidia's design (turing 2.0?), is not going the help in games, because (again) it's based on an antiquated design.
I don't want a bigger 2080 shrink down, I want a revolutionary one. And this ampere, as we know it, is only nvidia's next volta business sector dGPU.
Navi isn’t faster in games, it’s roughly on par with Turing while having less features. Also, please don’t peddle this “Navi/RDNA is a hybrid” that came from the lowest of the low tech publications...
RDNA2 will be a solid improvement but nothing revolutionary.
full stop. I just proved my case above, there is no argument here.
If navi10 and TU-106 are the same size and navi-10 is on average +15% faster... how is it not more efficient. More performance ("ipc"), using less transistors..? No matter how you scale it, rdna(1) comes out on top for freq vs output.
And, I am not peddling anything. rdna2 is different, period!
Fact that 445mm2 12nm GPU is competing against 251mm2 7nm2 not only in performance but efficiency pretty much ends the argument period. Its AMD that needs to catch up, not the other way.
You are completely ignoring 7nm advantage vs 12nm on same number of transistors. Without that advantage on Performance/Power Savings, Navi wouldn't look pretty against Turing.
Last edited:
Not really. You're just repeating unfounded statements over and over. That doesn't amount to proof.
How did you calculate the transistor count? How many transistors did you allocate to tensors and RT?
Instead of random guessing why don't you compare the 5700xt and 2070 super. They literally have the same specs.
I dont necessarily agree with Wolfram overall but hes correct in terms of transistor counts. 5700xt is 10.3 billion. The 2070 super is 13.6 billion.
- Status