I had to laugh when I saw the news, because when the two slot rumor came out and I mentioned it, someone quickly tried to claim it was BS. Now here we are. I didn’t make up the rumor, but I figured it was probably true. NVIDIA has been investing heavily in this area whereas most partners have not. The FE cards were out of this world compared to partner cards.That new FE for the 5090 looked really cool. Small for high power card, and notice that both fans are flow through with only a tiny PCB in the middle.
There is an app to do that with any card, though it doesn’t compensate for latency like NVIDIA appears to be doing.
Well, it's unlikely to clock better, especially with extra VRAM, if it's -10% clocks then we are back to square 1.There is room for a 5090 Ti. The 5090 is 170 SMs of 192 plus they could give a 5090 Ti 48 GB GDDR7 at faster speeds.
So Nvidia claimed 5070 with 4090 performance (of course there was no details about what they used to measure that). According to Tech Power Up the 4090 is on average 71% faster at 1440p than the 4070. And on the Nvidia slide on their website the performance increase from the 4070 to 5070 is only getting maybe 20-30% on the 2 games that don't utilize MFG. Man I really hate these marketing tactics.
View attachment 114400
View attachment 114401
Jensen said something interesting there about the changes in the SM.
He probably meant RTX Neural Shaders - "bringing AI to programmable shaders"Jensen said something interesting there about the changes in the SM.
That's not a blanket thing. That's why we always talk about "light and "heavy" RT. We have a game where 7900XTX surpasses 4090 even with RT on and when we look at the RT, its only 1 effect, with not even full resolution, and all the GPUs are very close together in performanceDoes it though? 4k ray tracing is as GPU bound a scenario as possible, a 14900k versus a 9800x3d won't change much when even chart topping 4090 is under 120fps..
View attachment 114394
Furthermore FC6 RT results are just... Not representative of how Nvidia and AMD cards normally fare with RT. Given the low FPS penalties involved, as well as the relative performance of RDNA keeping up with Ampere/Ada. 6800XTs and 7900XTs do not normally keep up with RTX 3080s and RTX 4080s under RT..
He said that the SM changed. How they changed does not necessarily increase TFLOPs (Remember Turing HALVED TFLOPS per SM compared to Pascal gtx 10 series)nVidia confirmed that the cores per SM have not changed.
Transformer based DLSS looks to really improve on the "blurryness" issues (just look at the Horizno comparison)
Process node is the same or almost the same. I don't understand why people expected a huge performance increase?
Power consumption is already much higher compared to the past, like 6-8 years ago top of the line cards consumed 250W, today it's closer to 350-400W in gaming loads.
So yeah, Nvidia going balls to the walls incresing cores and bandwidth a huge amount is great, but this doesn't come at no power consumption cost.
That's why Nvidia should've used 3nm, I mean, this thing is 2000$, foh trying to save money when people pay for the best of the best.
Isn't the reticle limit on N3 like 450-500 mm^2? Probably would end up with similar xtor budget and perf? Idk.Process node is the same or almost the same. I don't understand why people expected a huge performance increase?
That's why Nvidia should've used 3nm, I mean, this thing is 2000$, foh trying to save money when people pay for the best of the best.
I expected clock rates to go up to take advantage of the additional memory bandwidth.I don't understand why people expected a huge performance increase?
Isn't the reticle limit on N3 like 450-500 mm^2?
~858mm or so as I recall. But who knows what is actually feasible to make.Isn't the reticle limit on N3 like 450-500 mm^2? Probably would end up with similar xtor budget and perf? Idk.
Based on the info NVIDIA has released the difference will be more than 10%. The 5090 has 33% more SMs, less than a 5% reduction in clock, and significantly more memory bandwidth. That says nothing about actual IPC increases.I wasn't expecting huge, but I was expecting more than 10%, which looks like what you might get for Raster before the 5090.
Has there ever been a release that generally only delivered 10% or less?
This release is very marginal increase other than the 5090 (seems familiar).
It might be a good time to start talking about IPC decreases. If 5090 was doing well in raw perf (raster/RT) then they would not have focused so much on new fake frames. 4090 got away with it because it was actually good double normal perf and x4 if you really want fake frames, so that was ok.The 5090 has 33% more SMs, less than a 5% reduction in clock, and significantly more memory bandwidth. That says nothing about actual IPC increases.
I don't think so. It should be the same at minimum.It might be a good time to start talking about IPC decreases
Not for the 5070 relative to the 4070. It has higher advertised boost clock and a 50W higher TDP to brute force any problems.Suspecting there's an game clock regression