Are Multi-Threaded GPUs just not a possibility?

[RavenSEAL]

Oh wow, my brain just forked while I was making this thread.

I can't believe I couldn't put the pieces together...Move along folks

 

[Lonyo]

What do you mean "multi threaded?"
All GPUs are "multi threaded". When you see "1600 shaders", that means 1600 "cores".
The GTX580 has 512 cores.

How much more multi-threaded do you want?!?!


http://www.anandtech.com/show/4061/amds-radeon-hd-6970-radeon-hd-6950/4
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2977/...tx-470-6-months-late-was-it-worth-the-wait-/3

CPU: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2716/3

 

[andg]

GPUs are already more parallel/"multi-core" than CPUs ever will be. I'm not really that much into the techy details, so I can't give you a good explanation... Google it!

 

[RavenSEAL]

What do you mean "multi threaded?"
All GPUs are "multi threaded". When you see "1600 shaders", that means 1600 "cores".
The GTX580 has 512 cores.

How much more multi-threaded do you want?!?!

Oh wow, my brain just forked while I was making this thread. D:

I can't believe I couldn't get that together...

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

GPUs are already many-core and completely multi-threaded/parallel. My GPU, for example, has 336 cores.

 

[Lonyo]

Oh wow, my brain just forked while I was making this thread. D:

I can't believe I couldn't get that together...

It's OK, we've had posts in the past about "dual core" GPUs.
Like a GTX560 (384 shaders) isn't just a "dual core" GTX550Ti (192 shaders).

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Shaders aren't really cores though, it's just marketing from AMD/Nvidia.

I believe the clusters are more akin to what we'd consider "cores".

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

What I don't understand is how adding another GPU isn't just like adding more shader units.

Why do we need tech like AFR when GPUs are already very parallel?

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Shaders aren't really cores though, it's just marketing from AMD/Nvidia.

I believe the clusters are more akin to what we'd consider "cores".

They're a lot less complex, but they're cores. Very small ones, but they're made to work in parallel.

 

[-Slacker-]

It's OK, we've had posts in the past about "dual core" GPUs.

Goddamnit I think that was me :hmm:

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Yeah they're "units", but it's like saying each pipeline within a x86 core is a core in of itself.

Here is a shot of GF100:

32 shaders per cluster, 512 shaders total but there are more units inside the cluster that do other things, shaders are only one part of a gpus performance. You also have ROPs and TMU's and other things contributing to performance.

GTX 480 had 1 cluster diabled, 480 "shader cores" 15 tess units (poly engines) while the GTX 470 had two clusters disabled for 448 "shader cores" and 14 tess units (poly engines).

The 580 is a refined core, but the same setup, with all clusters enabled for 512 "shader cores" and 16 tess units (poly engines). But clock for clock core for core GF100 and GF110 are nearly identical performance wise which can be seen clearly when the 560 ti 448 benches against a 470.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Yeah they're "units", but it's like saying each pipeline within a x86 core is a core in of itself.

Here is a shot of GF100:

32 shaders per cluster, 512 shaders total but there are more units inside the cluster that do other things, shaders are only one part of a gpus performance. You also have ROPs and TMU's and other things contributing to performance.

GTX 480 had 1 cluster diabled, 480 "shader cores" 15 tess units (poly engines) while the GTX 470 had two clusters disabled for 448 "shader cores" and 14 tess units (poly engines).

The 580 is a refined core, but the same setup, with all clusters enabled for 512 "shader cores" and 16 tess units (poly engines). But clock for clock core for core GF100 and GF110 are nearly identical performance wise which can be seen clearly when the 560 ti 448 benches against a 470.

More like execution engines, yes, but I consider an execution engine a "core". Now, is a single one of these "cores" much slower than a traditional X86 core? Obviously yes, so that's why they're made to work in parallel. They also share a lot of resources, but I don't think that disqualifies it from being a "core".

Anyway, it's just terminology. If you look at it from either my POV or yours then we're both right.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Yeah I agree it's just terminology, though I did notice the slide says GPC, which I thought of as "Graphics Processing Core" but I could be totally wrong

4 Clusters per core, 32 shaders per cluster, 128 shaders per core, quad core

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Yeah I agree it's just terminology, though I did notice the slide says GPC, which I thought of as "Graphics Processing Core" but I could be totally wrong

4 Clusters per core, 32 shaders per cluster, 128 shaders per core, quad core

It is mostly terminology. Come to think about it, all it does it confuse people by saying they have cores in cores in cores, or shaders in clusters in a core.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Marketing 101, confusion is key!