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

Titillating.

 

Holy shit this is taking so long. I have my cash in hand here. Get something launched already.

 

@Kyyla

Taking so long?

I also can't wait for RTX v2, but... RTX launched just 17 months ago.

 

I think it's almost guaranteed that we'll see the "Big Ampere" in a couple of weeks via the "virtual GTC". As for the gaming models, well, there's no rush and these will likely come in May/June or Aug/Sep.

 

5700XT uses 28% more power for ~7% (in console ports) more performance over the RTX2070. Without the 20% clock advantage of the 7nm process Navi10 wouldnt even faster than TU106.
And Turing has the better graphics, compute, Raytracing and DL/AI architecture.

The only fair comparision is GTX1660TI and 5500XT. Both uses chips with the same amount of transistors and have the "same" feature set. The GTX1660TI delivers 30% more performance at the same power consumption. And TU116 is still on 12nm.

 

Not really though. "Small Turing" doesn't have BVH cores and has a version of tensor array cut down to FP16x2 support only but the rest of Turing features are there: VRS, mesh shaders, sampler feedback.

 

I understand troyan "same" as 5500XT and GTX1660Ti have more "similar" features than RTX ones.

 

And the concurrent INT32/FP32 execution.

 

Not really a feature you can use.

 

Yeah, that's more of a front-endish type of thing, enabling you to make better use of available ressources. Transistors and die-space not translating into raw TFLOPS but into achieved percentage of theoretical throughput.

 

Rumor: Nvidia Ampere GA100-GPU would get 8192 cores and boost speed up to 2200 MHz

https://www.guru3d.com/news_story/n...192_cores_and_boost_speed_up_to_2200_mhz.html

 

Yes, but I meant that it accelerates RT workloads compared to Pascal.

 

NO..!
You are simply trying ostracize the facts, not illustrate them. Why not compare Navi-10 DIRECTLY with Turing..? There is a reason why NVidia came out with SUPER re-spins. It is because the full TU-106 die, could not compete with rdna1

Again, the rtx2070 (full TU-106 die) is 10.6 billion transistors, 2304 Cores, 64 ROPS & 144 TMUs. Nearly equal to the navi in every way.... yet the full TU-106 losses to Navi-10 (5700xt) by 25% in many DX12/Vulkan games. With Navi-10 surpassing even the rtx2080 in some games.


And that is rdna1, with rdna2 being 50% better performance/per watt.

 

It is rumoured that the new nVidia Ampere is going to be 3 more powerful than Xbox Series X.

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/7107...d-specs-3x-faster-than-xbox-series/index.html

edit: fixed typo

 

Xbox One X != Xbox Series X

 

Yeah, they are doing a little "mis marketing"...

Using old data, instead of new. Of just looking at generalities, the new Xbox Series X (XSX), should equal the 2080 in gaming performance.

 

This isnt even in the realm of possibility WRT any consumer GPU.

 

Talking about perf/mm².

Because you end up comparing apples with oranges. You cannot compare those two directly and objectively without choosing some metrics while ignoring others.

 

What...?
No, you can run both dies up against games... then compare. The only metric that counts is frames per second, which has already been done and navi comes out ahead by 20% or greater in some instances. If you have to, run them both at the same freq, to see how each compares. But in the end, rdna is more powerful at gaming, than the 2070... because we know 5700xt also beats the 2070 Super in some games, while the 2070 is not capable of that feat. Navi10 also beats the 2080 in some games, and (again) the 2070 will never do that.

So therefore... we already know that rdna1 has greater potential in gaming than Turing, therefore we know that rdna2 is superior to Turing at gaming.

 

I'm very interested in seeing the "potential" of RDNA1 in games which will be made for future consoles and how it will actually compare there with Turing. Fun times ahead.