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
Dobs - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
I'm with the zorro - will be setting this up for my son pretty soon - he is an extreme gamer who has mentioned multiple monitors to me a few times over the last few months. Up until now I only had a vague idea on how I could accommodate his desire.... that has all changed since the introduction of Eyefinity.Finally - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
..pussy-whipped by your son?the zorro - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
moron, i am going to buy two more monitors and then... eyefinity.chizow - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
Nvidia didn't mention anything about multi-monitor support, but today's presentation wasn't really focused on the 3D gaming market and GeForce. They did spend a LOT of time on 3D Vision though, even integrating it into their presentation. They also made mention of the movie industry's heavy interest in 3D, so if I had to bet, they would go in the direction of 3D support before multi-monitor gaming.It wouldn't be hard for them to implement it though if they wanted to or were compelled to. Its most likely just a simple driver block or code they need to port to their desktop products. They already have multi-monitor 3D on their Quadro parts and have supported it for years, its nothing new really, just new on the desktop space with Eyefinity. It then becomes a question if they're willing to cannibilize their lucrative Quadro sales to compete with AMD on this relatively low-demand segment. My guess is no, but hopefully I'm wrong.
Dobs - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
I think Nvidia are underestimating the desire and affordability for multi-monitor gaming. Have you seen monitor prices lately? Have you seen the Eyefinity reviews?By not making any mention of it is a big mistake in my book. Sure they can do it, but it will reduce there margins even further since they obviously hadn't planned spending the extra dollar$ this way.
I do like the sound of the whole 3D thing in the keynote though... and everyone wearing 3D glasses...(not so much). But it will be cool once the Sony vs Panasonic vs etc.? 3D format war is finished, (although it's barely started) so us mainstream general consumers know which 3D product to buy. Just hope that James Cameron Avatar film is good :)
chizow - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Yeah I've seen the reviews and none seemed very compelling tbh, the 3-way portrait views seemed to be the best implementation. 6-way is a complete joke, unless you enjoy playing World of Bezelcraft? There's also quite a few problems with its implementation as you alluded to, the requirement of an active DP adapter was just a short-sighted half-assed implementation by AMD.As Yacoub mentioned, the market segment for people interested or willing to invest in this technology is so ridiculously small, 0.1% is probably pretty close to accurate given multi-GPU technology is estimated to only be ~1% of the GPU market. Surely those interested in multi-monitor is below that by a significant degree.
Still for a free feature its definitely welcome, even in the 2D productivity sense, or perhaps for a day trader or broker....or anyone who wanted to play 20 flops simultaneously in online poker.
Dobs - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Lol @ 20 flops simultaneously in online poker. I struggle with 4 :)Agree with 6 monitor bezelcraft - Cross hair is the bezel :)
I guess I'm lucky that my son is due for a screen upgrade anyhow so all 3 monitors will be new. Which one will be the problem - I hear Samsung are bringing out small-bezel monitors specifically for this, but I probably can't wait that long. (Samsung LED looks awesome though) I might end up opting for 3 of Dell's old (2008) 2408WFP's (my work monitor) as I know I can get a fair discount for these and I think they have DisplayPort. I'm not sure if my son will like Landscape or Portrait better but I want him to have the option... and yeah apparently the portrait drivers are limited (read crap) atm.
Appreciate your feedback as well as your comments on the 5850 article... I actually expected the GT prices to be $600+ not the $500-$550 you mentioned. Oops... rambling now. Cheers
chizow - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Heheh I've heard of people playing more than 20 flops at a time....madness.Anyways, I'm in a similar holding pattern on the LCD. While I'm not interested in multi-monitor as of now, I'm holding out for LED 120Hz panels at 24+" and 1920. Tbh, I'd probably check out 3D Vision before Eyefinity/multi-monitor at this point, but even without 3D Vision you'd get the additonal FPS from a 120Hz panel along with increased response times from LED.
If you're looking to buy now for quality panels with native DP support, you should check out the Dell U2410. Ryan Smith's 5870 review used 3 of them I think in portrait and it looked pretty good. They're a bit pricey though, $600ish but they were on sale for $480 or so with a 20% coupon. If you called Dell Sm. Biz and said you wanted 3 you could probably get that price without coupon.
As for GTX 380 price, was just a guess, Anand's article also hints Nvidia doesn't want to get caught again with a similar pricing situation as with GT200 but at the same time, relative performance ultimately dictates price. Anyways, enjoyed the convo, hope the multi-mon set-up works out! Sounds like it'll be great (especially if you like sims or racing games)!
RadnorHarkonnen - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Eyefinity is screaming for DIY.Bezel Craft can be easly avoided. Just tear you monitor apart. A stand for 3 monitors is easly ordered/DIY made. Ussually the bezel is way thicker than it need to be.
Unfortunely i alreayd have a 4850 CF that i will keep for more a year or two and let the tecnology mature for now.
wifiwolf - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
Can we have a new feature in the comments please?I just get tired of reading a few comments and get bugged by some SiliconDoc interference.
Can we have a noise filter so comments area gets normal again.
Every graphics related article gets this noise.
Just a button to switch the filter on. Thanks.