NVIDIA's Fermi: Architected for Tesla, 3 Billion Transistors in 2010
by Anand Lal Shimpi on September 30, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The RV770 Lesson (or The GT200 Story)
It took NVIDIA a while to give us an honest response to the RV770. At first it was all about CUDA and PhsyX. RV770 didn't have it, so we shouldn't be recommending it; that was NVIDIA's stance.
Today, it's much more humble.
Ujesh is wiling to take total blame for GT200. As manager of GeForce at the time, Ujesh admitted that he priced GT200 wrong. NVIDIA looked at RV670 (Radeon HD 3870) and extrapolated from that to predict what RV770's performance would be. Obviously, RV770 caught NVIDIA off guard and GT200 was priced much too high.
Ujesh doesn't believe NVIDIA will make the same mistake with Fermi.
Jonah, unwilling to let Ujesh take all of the blame, admitted that engineering was partially at fault as well. GT200 was the last chip NVIDIA ever built at 65nm - there's no excuse for that. The chip needed to be at 55nm from the get-go, but NVIDIA had been extremely conservative about moving to new manufacturing processes too early.
It all dates back to NV30, the GeForce FX. It was a brand new architecture on a bleeding edge manufacturing process, 130nm at the time, which ultimately lead to its delay. ATI pulled ahead with the 150nm Radeon 9700 Pro and NVIDIA vowed never to make that mistake again.
With NV30, NVIDIA was too eager to move to new processes. Jonah believes that GT200 was an example of NVIDIA swinging too far in the other direction; NVIDIA was too conservative.
The biggest lesson RV770 taught NVIDIA was to be quicker to migrate to new manufacturing processes. Not NV30 quick, but definitely not as slow as GT200. Internal policies are now in place to ensure this.
Architecturally, there aren't huge lessons to be learned from RV770. It was a good chip in NVIDIA's eyes, but NVIDIA isn't adjusting their architecture in response to it. NVIDIA will continue to build beefy GPUs and AMD appears committed to building more affordable ones. Both companies are focused on building more efficiently.
Of Die Sizes and Transitions
Fermi and Cypress are both built on the same 40nm TSMC process, yet they differ by nearly 1 billion transistors. Even the first generation Larrabee will be closer in size to Cypress than Fermi, and it's made at Intel's state of the art 45nm facilities.
What you're seeing is a significant divergence between the graphics companies, one that I expect will continue to grow in the near term.
NVIDIA's architecture is designed to address its primary deficiency: the company's lack of a general purpose microprocessor. As such, Fermi's enhancements over GT200 address that issue. While Fermi will play games, and NVIDIA claims it will do so better than the Radeon HD 5870, it is designed to be a general purpose compute machine.
ATI's approach is much more cautious. While Cypress can run DirectX Compute and OpenCL applications (the former faster than any NVIDIA GPU on the market today), ATI's use of transistors was specifically targeted to run the GPU's killer app today: 3D games.
Intel's take is the most unique. Both ATI and NVIDIA have to support their existing businesses, so they can't simply introduce a revolutionary product that sacrifices performance on existing applications for some lofty, longer term goal. Intel however has no discrete GPU business today, so it can.
Larrabee is in rough shape right now. The chip is buggy, the first time we met it it wasn't healthy enough to even run a 3D game. Intel has 6 - 9 months to get it ready for launch. By then, the Radeon HD 5870 will be priced between $299 - $349, and Larrabee will most likely slot in $100 - $150 cheaper. Fermi is going to be aiming for the top of the price brackets.
The motivation behind AMD's "sweet spot" strategy wasn't just die size, it was price. AMD believed that by building large, $600+ GPUs, it didn't service the needs of the majority of its customers quickly enough. It took far too long to make a $199 GPU from a $600 one - quickly approaching a year.
Clearly Fermi is going to be huge. NVIDIA isn't disclosing die sizes, but if we estimate that a 40% higher transistor count results in a 40% larger die area then we're looking at over 467mm^2 for Fermi. That's smaller than GT200 and about the size of G80; it's still big.
I asked Jonah if that meant Fermi would take a while to move down to more mainstream pricepoints. Ujesh stepped in and said that he thought I'd be pleasantly surprised once NVIDIA is ready to announce Fermi configurations and price points. If you were NVIDIA, would you say anything else?
Jonah did step in to clarify. He believes that AMD's strategy simply boils down to targeting a different price point. He believes that the correct answer isn't to target a lower price point first, but rather build big chips efficiently. And build them so that you can scale to different sizes/configurations without having to redo a bunch of stuff. Putting on his marketing hat for a bit, Jonah said that NVIDIA is actively making investments in that direction. Perhaps Fermi will be different and it'll scale down to $199 and $299 price points with little effort? It seems doubtful, but we'll find out next year.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
415 Comments
View All Comments
rennya - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
I have already countered your suggestion that ATI 5870 is just a paper launch, somewhere in this same discussion.Plus, if nVidia really has working silicon as you showed in the fudzilla link, where then I can buy it? Even at the IDF, Intel shows working silicon for Larrabee (although older version), but not even the die-hard Intel fanboys will claim that Larrabee will be available soon.
SiliconDoc - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Gee, we have several phrases. Hard launch, and paper launch. Would you prefer something in between like soft launch ?Last time nvidia had a paper launch, that what everyone called it and noone had a problem, even if cards trickled out.
So now, we need changed definitions and new wordings, for the raging little lying red roosters.
I won't be agreeing with you, nor have you done anything but lie, and attack, and act like a 3 year old.
It's paper launch, cards were not in the channels on the day they claimed they were available. 99 out of 100 people were left bone dry, hanging.
Early today the 5850 was listed, but not avaialable.
Now, since you people and this very site taught me your standards and the definition and how to use it, we're sticking to it when it's a god for saken red rooster card, wether you like it or not.
rennya - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
You defined hard launch as having cards on retail shelf.That's what happened here in the first couple of days at the place I lived in. So, according to your standard, 5870 is a hard launch, not paper launch or soft launch. I can easily get one if I want to (but my casing is just crappy TECOM mid-tower, the card will not fit).
As far as I am concerned, 5870 has a successful hard launch. You tried to tell people otherwise, that's why I called you a liar.
Where to know where I live? Open up the Lynnfield review at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?... then look at the first picture in the first page. It shows you the country where I am posting this post from. The same info can also be seen in AMD Athlon X4 620 review at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?... . The markup from MRSP can be ridiculous sometimes, but availability is not a problem.
Zingam - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
This CPU is for what? Oh, Tesla - the things that cost 2000 :) And the consumers won't really get anything more by what ATI offers currently!Seems like it is time for ATI to do a paper launch.
Just to inform the fanboys: ATI has already finalized the specs for generation 900 and 1000. The current is just 800.
So on paper, dudes, ATI has even more than what they are displaying now!
BTW who said: DX11 won't matter?? :)
cactusdog - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Its unbelievable that Nvidia wont have a DX11 chip in 2009. Massive fail.strikeback03 - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Not if there are no worthwhile DX11 games in 2009.yacoub - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
"Perhaps Fermi will be different and it'll scale down to $199 and $299 price points with little effort? It seems doubtful, but we'll find out next year."Yeah okay, side with their marketing folks. God forbid they actually release reasonably-priced versions of Fermi that people will actually care to buy.
SiliconDoc - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Derek did an article not long ago on the costs of a modern videocard, and broke it down part and piece by cost, each.Was well done and appeared accurate, and the "margin" for the big two was quite small. Tiny really.
So people have to realize fancy new tech costs money, and they aren't getting raked over the coals. its just plain expensive to have a shot to the moon, or to have the latest greatest gpu's.
Back in '96 when I sold a brand new computer I doubled my investment, and those days are long gone, unles you sell to schools or the government, then the upside can be even higher.
yacoub - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
And yet all of that is irrelevant if the product cannot be delivered at a price point where most of the potential customers will buy it. You're forgetting that R&D costs are not just "whatever they will be" but are based off what the market will support via purchasing the end result. It all starts withe the consumer. You can argue all you want that Joe Gamer should buy a $400 GPU but he's only capable of buying a $300 GPU and only willing to buy a $250 GPU, then you're not going to get a sale until you cross the $300 threshold with amazing marketing and performance or the $250 threshold with solid marketing and performance. Companies go bust because they overspend on R&D and never recoup the cost because they can't price the product properly for it to sell the quantities needed to pay back the initial investment, let alone turn a significant profit.Arguing that gamers should just magically spend more is silly and shows a lack of understanding of economics.
SiliconDoc - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Well I didn't argue that gamers should magically spend more.--
I ARGUED THAT THE VIDEOCARDS ARE NOT SCALPING THE BUYERS.
---
Deerek's article, if you had checked, outlined a card barely over $100.00
But, you instead of thinking, or even comprehending, made a giant leap of false assuming. So let me comment on your statements, and we'll see where we agree.
--
1. Ok, the irreverance(yes that word) here is that TESLA commands a high price, and certainly has been stated to be the profit margin center (GT200) for NVIDIA- so...whatever...
- Your basic points are purely obvious common sense, one doesn't even need state them - BUT - since Nvidia has a profit driver where ATI does not, if you're a joe rouge, admitting that shouldn't be the crushing blow it apparently is.
2. Since Nvidia has been making the MONEY, the PROFIT, and reinvesting, I think they have a handle on what to spend, not you, and their sales are much higher up to recoup costs, not sales, to you, your type.
----
Stating the very simpleton points of even having a lemonade stand work out doesn't impress me, nor should you have wasted your time doing it.
Now, let's recap my point: " So people have to realize fancy new tech costs money, and they aren't getting raked over the coals."
--
That's a direct quote.
I also will reobject your own stupidty : " You're forgetting that R&D costs are not just "whatever they will be" but are based off what the market will support via purchasing the end result."
PLEASE SEE TESLA PRICES.
--
Another jerkoff that is SOOOOOOOO stupid, finds it possible that someone would even argue that gamers should just spend more money on a card, and - after pointing out that's ridiculous, feels he has made a good point, and claims, an understanding of economics.
-
If you don't see the hilarity in that, I'm not sure you're alive.
-
Where do we get these brilliant analysts who state the obvious a high schooler has had under their belt for quite some time ?
--
I will say this much - YOU specifically (it seems), have encountered in the help forums, the arrogant know it all blowhards, who upon say, encountering a person with a P4 HT at 3.0GHZ, and a pci-e 1.0 x16 slot, scream in horror as the fella asks about placing a 4890 in it. The first thing out of their pieholes is UPGRADE THE CPU, the board, the ram, then get a card....
If that is the kind of thing you really meant to discuss, I'd have to say I'm likely much further down that bash road than you.
You might be the schmuck that shrieks "cpu limitation!, and recommends the full monty reaplcements"
--
Let's hope you're not after that simpleton quack you had at me.