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
A Different Sort of Launch
Fermi will support DirectX 11 and NVIDIA believes it'll be faster than the Radeon HD 5870 in 3D games. With 3 billion transistors, it had better be. But that's the extent of what NVIDIA is willing to talk about with regards to Fermi as a gaming GPU. Sorry folks, today's launch is targeted entirely at Tesla.
A GeForce GTX 280 with 4GB of memory is the foundation for the Tesla C1060 cards
Tesla is NVIDIA's High Performance Computing (HPC) business. NVIDIA takes its consumer GPUs, equips them with a ton of memory, and sells them in personal or datacenter supercomputers called Tesla supercomputers or computing clusters. If you have an application that can run well on a GPU, the upside is tremendous.
Four of those C1060 cards in a 1U chassis make the Tesla S1070. PCIe connects the S1070 to the host server.
NVIDIA loves to cite examples of where algorithms ported to GPUs work so much better than CPUs. One such example is a seismic processing application that HESS found ran very well on NVIDIA GPUs. It migrated a cluster of 2000 servers to 32 Tesla S1070s, bringing total costs down from $8M to $400K, and total power from 1200kW down to 45kW.
| HESS Seismic Processing Example | Tesla | CPU |
| Performance | 1 | 1 |
| # of Machines | 32 Tesla S1070s | 2000 x86 servers |
| Total Cost | ~$400K | ~$8M |
| Total Power | 45kW | 1200kW |
Obviously this doesn't include the servers needed to drive the Teslas, but presumably that's not a significant cost. Either way the potential is there, it's just a matter of how many similar applications exist in the world.
According to NVIDIA, there are many more cases like this in the market. The table below shows what NVIDIA believes is the total available market in the next 18 months for these various HPC segments:
| Processor | Seismic | Supercomputing | Universities | Defence | Finance |
| GPU TAM | $300M | $200M | $150M | $250M | $230M |
These figures were calculated by looking at the algorithms used in each segment, the number of Hess-like Tesla installations that can be done, and the current budget for non-GPU based computing in those markets. If NVIDIA met its goals here, the Tesla business could be bigger than the GeForce one. There's just one problem:
As you'll soon see, many of the architectural features of Fermi are targeted specifically for Tesla markets. The same could be said about GT200, albeit to a lesser degree. Yet Tesla accounted for less than 1.3% of NVIDIA's total revenue last quarter.
Given these numbers it looks like NVIDIA is building GPUs for a world that doesn't exist. NVIDIA doesn't agree.
The Evolution of GPU Computing
When matched with the right algorithms and programming efforts, GPU computing can provide some real speedups. Much of Fermi's architecture is designed to improve performance in these HPC and other GPU compute applications.
Ever since G80, NVIDIA has been on this path to bring GPU computing to reality. I rarely get the opportunity to get a non-marketing answer out of NVIDIA, but in talking to Jonah Alben (VP of GPU Engineering) I had an unusually frank discussion.
From the outside, G80 looks to be a GPU architected for compute. Internally, NVIDIA viewed it as an opportunistic way to enable more general purpose computing on its GPUs. The transition to a unified shader architecture gave NVIDIA the chance to, relatively easily, turn G80 into more than just a GPU. NVIDIA viewed GPU computing as a future strength for the company, so G80 led a dual life. Awesome graphics chip by day, the foundation for CUDA by night.
Remember that G80 was hashed out back in 2002 - 2003. NVIDIA had some ideas of where it wanted to take GPU computing, but it wasn't until G80 hit that customers started providing feedback that ultimately shaped the way GT200 and Fermi turned out.
One key example was support for double precision floating point. The feature wasn't added until GT200 and even then, it was only added based on computing customer feedback from G80. Fermi kicks double precision performance up another notch as it now executes FP64 ops at half of its FP32 rate (more on this later).
While G80 and GT200 were still primarily graphics chips, NVIDIA views Fermi as a processor that makes compute just as serious as graphics. NVIDIA believes it's on a different course, at least for the short term, than AMD. And you'll see this in many of the architectural features of Fermi.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
415 Comments
View All Comments
siyabongazulu - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
rennyathe one I was going to buy on the 24 was from ncix.com but shipping and handling was gonna be a bit too much. The fact that they had the cards on the launch date, 23 goes to show how a big liar silicondoc is. Plus his link on fudzilla, just like I said before, betrays him since it does not say that the model being shown is a working model. I can say I'm making a remote that can trump all other remotes on performance levels and will be the next big thing for gadget lovers. But if I come up with a supposed model and just flash it around, it doesnt mean that it's a working model unless I can prove that it is by using it. So until Nvidia shows the card at work and gives us numbers based on such task then we can talk about it. Hey don't forget that we also go for bang for buck, reason why I got the 5870. I have a feeling that when GT300 does launch, it will be big but also would like to see how ATI responds to that.
siyabongazulu - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
rennyaI think we all get it. This guy is mentally ill. So I posted those links to refute his argument and he hasn't touched any. He knows he's lying and that his fudzilla link betrays him. So he'll keep on ranting. silicondoc has to remember this, all big companies that have a working model of an upcoming product do a demo and show the figures and they don't just give you paper work (which is what Nvidia is doing right now.) And it doesn't take a genius to see that GT300 w/e they wanna call it is not even close to be released unless you would want to call many sources such as tgdaily, the inquirer (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1052025/g...">http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1052025/g... and ofcourse anand big liers then go ahead silicondoc..So until it comes out ( be it Nov, Mid Oct or Jan) then we can come back and talk performance. Have fun silicondoc and when GT300 performance trumps HD5870 then I'll sell 5870 for Gt300 card but don't forget we also need to see how much power that monster will be drawing. I call it monster because so far the on "paper" performance puts it that way
siyabongazulu - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
by the way sorry I forgot to pass you the link where I got mine.. here you go http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowPr...">http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.ph...=pd&... and here is another site they have had them in stock since the 23rd of sept just like predicted. Man you are full of shit..was gonna buy mine from there but decided to save the money on shipping and boom 3 days later it was in a store right next door.wwohoo..I just said bye bye to my nvidia card and if you wanna know it was yes you guessed it GTX 285 and glad I got almost full value for that!!siyabongazulu - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
Here SD..And that's where I got mine you dumb prick.. now stop fussin and if you ask when I got it, well so just you know it was on the 29th you idiot and that is simply because I'm in Canada. So if Nvidia had it launched, wouldn't it be somewhere on the web now. by the way here is an article that refutes your claim that Radeon HD 5870 was a fud (http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/24/4-000-alienware...">http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/24/4-00...-benchma... Dell had it already. Here is another (http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/23/maingear-cyberp...">http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/23/main...-desktop.... And all of those pc makers had the cards prior to launch date. So I don't know how you can argue that. So if you Nvidia was to have its card as you claim by using fudzilla pictures, then please provide us with a link that shows any manufacture that is already selling a pc with your GT300 and here is another link that shows how dumb you are http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/23/ati-radeon-hd-5...">http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/23/ati-...o-the-sc... hope that helpsTA152H - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
I agree, it shows sooooo much intelligence and class to curse! It's so creative! It's so wonderful! It's a real shame we don't have more foul mouths in positions of power, because it's just so entertaining!Yay!
yacoub - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
I'm with you. Oh wait, don't forget the bold to make sure no one misses it!TA152H - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Admin: You've overstayed your welcome, goodbye.I am beginning to think this site is lost. One thing I always liked about Anand was his tone was never harsh, even if I didn't agree with the content.
Now he's cursing. Yes, and as you said, in bold. Ugggh.
This and their idiotic pictorials of motherboards, then the clear bias towards Lynnfield. Again, I'm not complaining they liked it, so much as the way they lied about the numbers, and it took a lot of complaints to show the Bloomfied was faster. They were trying to hide that.
Their unscientific testing is also gotten to the point of absurdity.
I like their web page layout, but it's getting to the point where this site is become much less useful for information.
It's easy to get to the point where you do what people say they want. Yes, the jerks like to see curses, and think it's cool. I'm sure they got page reads from the idiotic pictorials of motherboards. Most of the people here did want to be lied to about Lynnfield, since it was something more people could afford compared to Bloomfield. It's tempting, but, ultimately, it's a mistake.
I'd like to see them do something that requires intelligence, and a bit more daring. Pit one writer (not Gary, he's too easy to beat) against another. Have, point and counterpoint articles. Let's say Anand is pro-Lynnfield, or pro-ATI card, or whatever. Then they use Jarrod to argue the points against it, or for the other card. Now, maybe Anand isn't so pro this item, or Jarrod isn't against it. Nonetheless, each could argue (anyone can argue and make points, because nothing in this world is absolutely good or bad, except for maybe pizza), and in doing so bring up the complexity of parts, rather than making people post about the mistakes they make and then have them show the complexity.
You think Anand would have put up those overblown remarks in his initial article on Lynnfield if he knew Jarrod would jump on him for it? I'd be more careful if I were writing it, so would he. I think the back and forth would be fun for them, and at the same time, would make them think and bring out things their articles never even approach.
It's better than us having to post about their inaccuracies and flaws in testing. It would be more entertaining too. And, people can argue, without disliking each other. Argument is healthy, and is a sign of active minds. Blind obedience is best relegated to dogs, or women :P. OK, I'm glad my other half doesn't read these things, or I'd get slapped.
ClownPuncher - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Don't let the door hit you in the ego on the way out.the zorro - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
this is a catastrophe.really, nvidia is finished.
this means four or five months of amd ruling.
seriously nvidia has nothing, nothing,zero, nada,
kaput nvidia is over.
Lifted - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
Huh? Is that really all the troll you could muster for this article? SiliconDoc has you beat by a mile.