GP104 will be much, much faster than Polaris 10 if Polaris 10 is around 240mm^2.
GP104 will be much, much faster than Polaris 10 if Polaris 10 is around 240mm^2.
May I know the reasons behind this?
wow so optimistic about AMD and pessimistic about NvidiaOne word. Hardware. Think a second. Which GPU will be faster? 232mm2 3072 GCN core GPU with 1150 MHz with 125W of TDP, or 330mm2 2560 CUDA core GPU with 1.48 GHz turbo core. with around 200W TDP?
GM200 has 8 billion transistors, Fij has 9,2 billions and is only as fast as GM200.
GP104 should be around 8 billions (25 million transistors per mm^2) while Polaris 10 should be around 7 billions (~30 million per mm^2).
There doesnt exist any reason to believe that AMD will beat nVidia on performance per transistor with the 16nm generation.
Around 200W does not mean "more than". I don't know how people can understand it that way. 180-200W. That is absolutely realistic estimate based on what we know about TSMC process. People forget that this is 1.48 GHz boost clock. Most of 300W TDP of GP100 comes from that high boost clock.wow so optimistic about AMD and pessimistic about Nvidia
what about something more unbiased ?
1/ I highly doubt that GP104 will have higher TDP than GM204. Nvidia won't make this mistake. It should will be 150~180W for the top SKU with GDDR5X
2/ I highly doubt that Polaris 10 will have 3072 GCN cores. All leaks go for 2560, much more reasonable if 232mm2 is right
If we take into account 1+2, it will change completely the equation and it will be much closer to the reality...
On an unrelated note, can nvidia dictate the terms of initial benchmarking?
What I'm asking is - can nvidia dictate (i.e. by contract of whatever) that sites can only use reference 980tis instead of superclocked/lightning/whatever variants when initially reviewing Pascal?
On an unrelated note, can nvidia dictate the terms of initial benchmarking?
What I'm asking is - can nvidia dictate (i.e. by contract of whatever) that sites can only use reference 980tis instead of superclocked/lightning/whatever variants when initially reviewing Pascal?
They give a guide. Same as amd.On an unrelated note, can nvidia dictate the terms of initial benchmarking?
What I'm asking is - can nvidia dictate (i.e. by contract of whatever) that sites can only use reference 980tis instead of superclocked/lightning/whatever variants when initially reviewing Pascal?
no. the 300W TDP comes from the FP64 ALUs that consume much more FP32. That's why Titan has higher clock in gaming mode than in compute.Most of 300W TDP of GP100 comes from that high boost clock.
wow so optimistic about AMD and pessimistic about Nvidia
what about something more unbiased ?
1/ I highly doubt that GP104 will have higher TDP than GM204. Nvidia won't make this mistake. It should will be 150~180W for the top SKU with GDDR5X
2/ I highly doubt that Polaris 10 will have 3072 GCN cores. All leaks go for 2560, much more reasonable if 232mm2 is right
If we take into account 1+2, it will change completely the equation and it will be much closer to the reality...
Agree. The hype train is at hyperspeed for Polaris, while the same people are busy downgrading Pascal.
You would be surprised if Polaris beats the 390 on average? Nice ninja edit btw.
If you believed Polaris 10 wouldn't beat the 390 you wouldn't have hastily removed it from your post Shintai
Let's get real here, it'll be 980/390X minimum and if that's all it'll be a real disappointment. Beating the 980 Ti would make it the greatest GPU of all time, I don't see that happening either.
Both cards will be disappointing performance improvements going on what we know so far. GP104 has the same number of transistors as GM200, any performance improvement will be coming from architecture and potential clockspeed improvements, not packing more transistors into the same area. Still, Maxwell managed to deliver about 40% more performance than full GK110 on the same process with just a 10% die size increase and removing DP functionality. The new architecture alone will probably deliver enough of an increase to justify calling the card the new flagship.
We don't know if it will clock any better than GM200 does. Intel hasn't gotten any consistent clock speed improvements going from 22nm to 14nm that I've seen. Overclock speeds are about the same on average. How that equates to TSMC's move from 28nm to 16nm, I don't know. I don't expect it will clock much better than Maxwell, it could clock similarly, it could clock worse.
I'd be happy to see 30% improvement over GM200 and expect that to be a best case scenario. I expect it will land more between 15-25% and with driver neglect of Maxwell as new games release, improve another 10% compared to its predecessor over time.
We do know it will clock better. Just look at the P100(Gp100) clocks. Up to 40% higher than GM200 counterpart.
Isn't that with 300W power consumption though ? 980ti TDP is what, 220 or 240 ? I can clock one of my cards to 1600 on the core and it uses 350W+ This is why I don't think clocks will be much better.
Its Tesla cards, forget your Geforce as compare.
M40 is 250W, 948Mhz base, 1114Mhz Boost.
P100 is 300W, 1328Mhz base, 1480Mhz Boost.
P100 also comes with NVLink(Intels Omipath adds 15W to compare with KNL).
They always use stock cards when they compare them to the other cards. It would be far from being fair to compare overclocked GPU with stock GPU.
Of course, Nvidia and AMD can make any demand they want. Whether or not the site agrees to it depends on how much they value future pre-release cards, information and ad revenue.
I checked. 980ti is also 250W. So no difference there. I think we are just seeing the same silly season expectations. I've seen the same here before every mid range die launch as flagship from nvidia. People thought 680 would be huge performance and people thought the same of 980. 680 was mediocre and 980 was pathetic.
If it's space age technology and somehow delivers something amazing then great. But realistically, it's likely going to be a very marginal performance improvement. Probably a 1200 base / 1300 boost clock setup. Another power consumption marketed release with less focus on absolute performance. There is not enough die there to give something meaty.