Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : NVIDIA BigKepler
Author | Message |
---|---|
Hi, NVIDIA plans to introduce GK100 (or GK110) known as Big Kepler in the upcoming GPU Thechnology Conference in San Jose (California, USA) May 14-17, 2012 Has 7,000 milion transistors. Greetings. | |
ID: 24499 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Well that's good news!! Wonder how the design will be in regards to the FP32 vs. FP64 core layout, meaning I'm wondering if it will just be a monster at FP32, and slightly so at FP64 (like 680), or if they will make this one a more well-rounded GPU for crunching purposes. | |
ID: 24500 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Suggestion: they handle it just as with Fermi. The big chip gets FP64 at 1/2 speed. It's active on Telsa and Quadro, but restricted on Geforce. Probably not 1/24 (as GK104) though, more like the previous 1/8. | |
ID: 24504 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
I mean the 680 isn't restricted though like other cards though if I'm not mistaken. 680 only has 8 fp64 cores which run at 1/1. They're not throttled, they just don't exist, not even added in the core count too. | |
ID: 24505 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
This should be interesting. Probably should be somewhere between 25-30% faster than 680? My guess anyways. Hope they have yields compared to 680! Rollout has been way to slow | |
ID: 24506 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Now that I think about it, with 7B transistors, couldn't this be the 690? | |
ID: 24507 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
I am surprised to see 7000 M. A gtx680 has only 3500 M, while the number of cores is only 50% more (2304) on gk110 according to some websites. | |
ID: 24508 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
If it is a 685, and if it does have 2305, instead of 2048. Those extra cores could be the FP64 cores ? Seems like there's no way they could fit this on a 520 die though. IMHO. Also saw release date was rumored at August to September, which at the current rate of availability of 680 would probably make them AVAILABLE around Xmas. | |
ID: 24510 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
If it is a 685, and if it does have 2305, instead of 2048. Those extra cores could be the FP64 cores ? one thing for sure: they will come up with a chip that has decent DP-capabilities for the quadro/tesla line. did you read the announcement? "low-overhead ECC" will definitely mean something not to be seen on consumer-cards.... ..so most likely it's not a GTX-something. | |
ID: 24511 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Very true. Seems weird they would post it on Twitter feed to me anyways. If it wasn't consumer based. Have seen dev based betas 301.26 and 301.27 for them to build their tools. My 680 is using 301.25, which isn't even on their website yet, which has quaddro feature on it, as well as 670 or 660 ti specs as well. | |
ID: 24512 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
I still think nVidia won't release BigKepler as a consumer card (i.e. GeForce). Besides the crunchers, there is no need for such a card in this market segment. We crunchers are a minority among the consumer card buyers, so we do not present such an urge for nVidia to release a cheap cruncher card built on an expensive chip. | |
ID: 24519 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Non-professional video editors might disagree, as might their favourite software developer. | |
ID: 24521 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
7B transistors seem fit for typical nVidia strategy: build it as large as TSMC will allow you. And 2x the transistors for 1.5x the shaders makes sense considering these will have to be cores, which can do FP64 at 1/2 the FP32 rate, just like on GF100 and GF110, which requires more transistors per shader. And I wouldn't be surprised if they moved away from the superscalar execution again, just like on GF10 and GF110, which improves the utilization of the shaders in typical HPC code, but requires more control logic (i.e. more transistors) per shader, again. Support for ECC memory may add some transistors. There may also be larger caches and other tweaks we do not yet know about. | |
ID: 24530 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
I am surprised to see 7000 M. A gtx680 has only 3500 M Nowhere does it say all those 7B transistors are all on a single die. In marketting-speak at least, a dual-GK104 card would satisfy the description "7B transistor GPU". MJH | |
ID: 24533 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Sure, but GK104 would be far worse than an unlocked GF110 for FP64 compute. You can't offer a compute chip without good FP64 performance, the usage cases would be far too few. And I don't think it's got ECC either, as this is not needed for gaming. | |
ID: 24535 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
7B transistors seem fit for typical nVidia strategy: build it as large as TSMC will allow you. They learned a lesson from the Fermi-fiasco not to come out with the largest chip first. And 2x the transistors for 1.5x the shaders makes sense considering these will have to be cores, which can do FP64 at 1/2 the FP32 rate, just like on GF100 and GF110, which requires more transistors per shader. And I wouldn't be surprised if they moved away from the superscalar execution again, just like on GF10 and GF110, which improves the utilization of the shaders in typical HPC code, but requires more control logic (i.e. more transistors) per shader, again. Support for ECC memory may add some transistors. There may also be larger caches and other tweaks we do not yet know about. I agree. However if all of this is true, I would be surprised if the BigKepler had more than 1024 cores. And considering the market for Quadros is still large compared to the market for pure Teslas, I'm sure these chips will still have graphics capabilities. This way they can be used for both markets, lowering design cost. Or they return to the design of the GT200, and use a discrete chip for this purpose. And if there's graphics hardware in there and the chip is faster in games than GK104 (which it should be at this transistor count, although by far less than a factor of 2), they will introduce consumer Geforce cards based on them. I hope it's right, and then we could have a nice cruncher card. The win margin on these high end cards is huge and since they already have the chip, it doesn't cost them much. The win margin is high on Teslas and Quadros, but it's low on the top end GeForces (like the GTX 295, the GTX 590, or even the GTX 580). And the high end GPUs will be bought, just like in previous generations. Despite the fact that GK104 should be much more efficient (power and price) for games. It's true, but they still could build a dual GPU card on the GK104, which would be very fast and very efficient at the same time. Name of the product: who knows, maybe even nVidia themselves have not decided this yet. Maybe straight GTX780 (which would make GTX680 look bad), or GTX685 (which would make big Kepler look weak) or "GTX680XT XXX Ultra-Monster-Core Golden Sample Edition" (which would make their other names look pretty good). Personally I'd bet the name of my sisters first-born on the latter ;) :) I'm sure they will find a fully satisfying name for this product, if there will be a product to name. What I meant was that if the GTX 680 is the flagship (GeForce) product, then we won't have a better (single-chip) GeForce this time. | |
ID: 24536 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Safe to say they gave just enough to get us excited didn't they!!! | |
ID: 24537 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
They learned a lesson from the Fermi-fiasco not to come out with the largest chip first. This may be wise and intentional, although some rumors were floating around they tried to introduce the chip ealier, but couldn't due to some problems. I agree. However if all of this is true, I would be surprised if the BigKepler had more than 1024 cores. If they just expanded GF110 to 7B transistors, that would indeed yield ~1024 shaders. However, by getting rid of the hot clock they can save some transistors, as well as everything already implemented in "little Kepler". Starting from GK104 we could remove the superscalar capability, i.e. 1/3 the shaders and as a first-order approximation 1/3 the transistors. That yields 1024 shaders for 2.33 billion transistors, so for 2048 shaders only 4.7 billion would be neccessary, ~2400 could be possible at 5.5 billion transistors. These would be FP32 only, so now add some of the suff I mentioned in my post above and I think it works out. Or they return to the design of the GT200, and use a discrete chip for this purpose. Wasn't that the same chip for all of them? And the dual GK104 will come, I'm sure. It will rock for gaming and it will sell. The purpose of building GK104 fast & efficient, yet not so big to reach 250 W again was probably to have a decent dual chip GPU again (without heavy binning and downclocking to stay below 300 W). MrS ____________ Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002 | |
ID: 24539 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
And the dual GK104 will come, I'm sure. It will rock for gaming and it will sell. The purpose of building GK104 fast & efficient, yet not so big to reach 250 W again was probably to have a decent dual chip GPU again (without heavy binning and downclocking to stay below 300 W). SINGED! until now they had a single chip design for consumer and professional purposes and simply limited the consumer cards on DP-performance. is it such a wild guess, that this will no longer be the case? they will have absolutely no problem to scale down from GK-104 to feed every range they want. and they will come up with something to replace the current quadro/tesla line. but we will know mid of may.. | |
ID: 24543 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
If they just expanded GF110 to 7B transistors, that would indeed yield ~1024 shaders. However, by getting rid of the hot clock they can save some transistors, as well as everything already implemented in "little Kepler". From what you say I got the feeling that the GF100 and the GF110 is a very wasteful design regarding the transistor count. I think nVidia wouldn't develop their professional product line from the consumer product line, which was derived from the previous professional product line. | |
ID: 24546 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
GF100 and GF110 have been about as wasteful as GF104 compared to GK104. It's actually the other way around: Kepler is a huge step forward in efficiency, both power-consumption and transistor-wise. | |
ID: 24547 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
http://www.hardware.fr/news/12254/nvidia-gk110-7-milliards-transistors-gtc.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+hardware%2Ffr%2Fnews+%28HardWare.fr+-+News%29 | |
ID: 24575 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
I MAY have found something interesting, unless this is old news... But what do you notice that is interesting about this pic from Microcenter (probably old, and they forgot to change it) | |
ID: 24594 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
There is a 8+6 pin PCIe connector on the first image, while there is only a 6+6 pin on the second one. | |
ID: 24596 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
And tease they did.... Knew it was of a 680, but with all the talk of them switching the 670 to 680, or whatever everyone was "rumor mill' talking about when it first came out, I still found it interesting none the less. Still looking forward to this release date though. :) | |
ID: 24599 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
In 12 hours, in appears that they will be releasing (paper release at 680 rate) the lower end Keplers. Could be the 690 but I doubt it. Should be interesting to see the specs. | |
ID: 24616 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
http://smooth-las-akam.istreamplanet.com/live/demo/nvid1/player.html | |
ID: 25100 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Well here's GK110 Tesla style http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2012/5/15/nvidia-tesla-k20-ie-gk110-is-71-billion-transistors2c-300w-tdp2c-384-bit-interface.aspx | |
ID: 25104 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
And here's the whitepaper. Would love to know if any of those interesting new features (doubt will get them) would be beneficial to this project. Also, what do you guys think, could this be what they release for us as a 780 next year? | |
ID: 25121 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
...what do you guys think, could this be what they release for us as a 780 next year? They released a modified GTX 690 as a compute card, so I don't think they will do the opposite with GK110. BTW looking at the GK110 architecture, I can see that it is superscalar (in single precision) as well as the GK104, so only 960 of its 2880 shaders could be utilized by GPUGrid. | |
ID: 25123 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
I would not be surprised if we can get a 2x compared to a gtx680. | |
ID: 25124 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
GK110 looks like it's basically GK104 but with an increase in registers/thread, Hyper‐Q and Dynamic Parallelism. | |
ID: 25125 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
If I was nVidia I would surely put this chip on a Geforce. Even if this wouldn't make much sense, some people would by it to have the latest and greatest. Castrate DP, as usual, leave out ECC memory, but give it all the rest. Make it expensive, if you must. BTW looking at the GK110 architecture, I can see that it is superscalar (in single precision) as well as the GK104, so only 960 of its 2880 shaders could be utilized by GPUGrid. Isn't that "1920 out of 2880"? Assuming the superscalar capabilities can still not be used (newer architecture, newer software.. not sure this still holds true for Kepler). MrS ____________ Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002 | |
ID: 25126 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
From Amorphous@NVIDIA, he saw us discussing K10 and K20 in regards to how this "confirmed" that GK104 was originally the 660Ti (680) and 660 (670). | |
ID: 25165 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Well maybe the cloud will gobble up all the K20's, leaving us research enthusiasts floundering. It will be interesting to see how these perform with 1/3 (I think) FP64/DP performance against the HD7970's and probably some dual AMD version. | |
ID: 25166 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
K20's will not be for us. They may be more a lot efficient at Milkyway than other nVidia chips.. but that's still way too expensive to consider over AMDs. | |
ID: 25178 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
GK110 based Geforce should arrive in 2013. I wouldn't take this source trustworthy. AMD maybe could force nVidia to release the BigKepler as a GeForce card by releasing a new series of GPU, but it would be a prestige card only (to keep the "fastest single chip GPU card manufacturer" title at nVidia), because it wouldn't be much faster than a GTX 690 (but producing a GK110 chip costs more than producing two GK104 chips). I think there is no sense in releasing a card which is not faster than the GTX 690 while it costs more to produce (and last but not least it shrinks the supply of Teslas and Quadros). There is only one way for nVidia to top the GTX 690: releasing a GeForce card with two GK110 on it. Now that would be a miracle. | |
ID: 25180 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
You can trust that source as far as it says "someone at the conference (presumably nVidia) said, they're planning to introduce GK110 based Geforce's in 2013". Obviously nVidia could change their mind any day. | |
ID: 25183 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Hello: The truth is that in the light of these returns, it is interesting to consider the use of in GPUGRID RADEON. Greetings. | |
ID: 25187 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
It's well known that radeon is faster. That's not the issue, the issue is the coding in opencl. Radeon does not help out the researchers code their work like NVIDIA (CUDA) does. From what I've read and heard, you're on your own. This is one reason why many prefer CUDA. They get help when asked. | |
ID: 25188 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
The article says it all: for simple code AMD gives you more bang for the buck. However, GPU-Grid does not fit into this category (as far as I see it). | |
ID: 25191 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Hi, What I find is that AMD inmegable is getting the batteries. Greetings. | |
ID: 25205 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Hi, What I find is that AMD inmegable is getting the batteries. Is that a machine translation? Sorry, I can't figure out any sense in this sentence. MrS ____________ Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002 | |
ID: 25214 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Hi, What I find is that AMD inmegable is getting the batteries. Hi, I'm sorry, I mean that AMD is getting better and pushing Nvidia. Greetings. ____________ http://stats.free-dc.org/cpidtagb.php?cpid=b4bdc04dfe39b1028b9c5d6fef3082b8&theme=9&cols=1 | |
ID: 25220 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
BTW looking at the GK110 architecture, I can see that it is superscalar (in single precision) as well as the GK104, so only 960 of its 2880 shaders could be utilized by GPUGrid. Looking at the performance of the beta workunits, I came to the conclusion that Kepler can utilize only 1/3rd of it's shaders. | |
ID: 25379 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
You're referring to this post? If so (I don't want to read the entire thread now, it's quite long and the forum says I haven't read it yet) .. you forgot an important factor of 2! | |
ID: 25385 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
I got your point. BTW: the lower clock speeds of Kepler chips are key to its power efficiency. Yes, it's the key for every chip. That's why Intel couldn't reach 10GHz with Pentium 4, as it was planned when the netburst architecture was introduced. I wonder how much overclock the Kepler could take? | |
ID: 25398 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Depends on the chip. But not alot. 1300 seems to be about the limit. At this point, the locked voltage becomes an issue. However, realistically most are seeing 1200-1250. | |
ID: 25400 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Won't be until next year that we see the full potential of the Keplers, in any format. | |
ID: 25404 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
My 'reviewed' conclusion is that while it can utilize 2/3rd of its shaders, the Kepler performs as if it could utilize only the 1/3rd of its shaders, because of the eliminated hot clocks. On the other hand it's much more power efficient for the same reason. While we're talking about the same numbers, I prefer to use the "real" clock speed and say "2/3 of the shaders", as this corresponds directly to not being able to use the super scalar ones. This is more straight forward and easier to understand. Saying "can use only 1/3 of its shaders" makes it seem like a really really bad design - which it isn't. MrS ____________ Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002 | |
ID: 25446 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : NVIDIA BigKepler