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
samspqr - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
ATI's availability will be sorted out soon, NVIDIA's weird design choices that are targeted at anything but graphics won'tin fact, I have just realized: NVIDIA IS DOING A MATROX!
(forget about graphics, concentrate in a proffessional niche, subsequently get run over by competitors in its former main market... eventually dissappear from the graphics market or become irrelevant? with some luck, RayTracing will be here sooner rather than later, ATI will switch to GPUcomputing at the right time -as opposed to very much too soon-, and we will have a 3 players market; until then, ATI domination all over)
andrihb - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
What a huge leap of the imagination :Psamspqr - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
sorry, I was just trying to imagine how many weird things would have to happen so that we don't have a single GPU maker in the marketin any case, if you want some imaginative thinking, try here:
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/10/01/nvidia-fake...">http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/10/01/nvidia-fake...
(I'm not sure yet who is the one making stuff up -charlie or nvidia-, but so far my bet would be on nvidia)
mindless1 - Saturday, October 3, 2009 - link
What they may have done is take an existing PCB design for something else, and tacked down the parts and air-wired them. It is a faster way to debug a prototype, as well as just drilling a few holes and putting makeshift screws in to test a cooling design before going to the effort of the rest of the support parts before you know if the cooling subsystem is adequate.IF that is the situation, I feel nVidia should have held off until they were further along with the prototypes, but when all is said and done if they can produce performance in line with the expectations, that would prove they had a working card.
IGoodwin - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
First off, I don't know the truth about a fake or real Tesla being in existence; however, when an article shows a strong emotional bias, I do find it hard to accept the conclusions.Here is a link to the current Tesla product for sale online:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTool...">http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications...tails.as...
This clearly shows the existing Tesla card with screws on the end plate. Also, if memory serves, having partial venting on a single slot for the new Tesla card would equal the cooling available on the ATI card. Also, six-pin connector is in roughly the same place.
As for the PCB, it is hidden on the older Tesla screen shots, so nothing can be derived.
The card may be fake, or not, but Charlie is not exactly unbiased either.
jonGhast - Saturday, October 3, 2009 - link
"but Charlie is not exactly unbiased either."What's the deal with that, I keep trying to read Semi's articles, though his 'tude towards MS and Intel is pretty juvenile, but I've got to ask; did somebody at Nvidia gang rape his mom?
mindless1 - Saturday, October 3, 2009 - link
I simply assume he is either directly or indirectly on ATI's payroll.Fudzilla wrote "The real engineering sample card is full of dangling wires." To display such a card to others they could simply epoxy down some connectors and solder the wires to them.
monomer - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
Here's an article from Fudo saying that the card was a mock-up. Nvidia claimed it was real at the conference, and are now saying its a fake, but that they really, truly, had a real one running the demos. Really! I completely believe them.http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15798/1/">http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15798/1/
Yojimbo - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
What makes you think it isn't the right time? You can only really tell in hindsight, but you give in your post any reason that you think now is not the right time and later, when amd is gonna do it, is the right time. I think the right time is whenever the architecture is available and the interest is there. Nvidia has, over the past 5 years, been steadily building the architecture for it. Whether the tools are all in place yet and whether the interest is really there remains to be seen.It has nothing to do with matrox or any shift to a "professional niche." Nvidia believes that it has the ability to evolve and leverage its products from the niche sector of 3d graphics into a broader and more ubiquitous computing engine.
wumpus - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Do you see any sign of commercial software support? Anybody Nvidia can point to and say "they are porting $important_app to openCL"? I haven't heard a mention. That pretty much puts Nvidia's GPU computing schemes solely in the realm of academia (where you can use grad students a cheap highly-skilled labor). If they could sell something like a FEA package for pro-engineer or solidworks, the things would fly off the shelves (at least I know companies who would buy them, but it might be more a location bias). If you have to code it yourself, that leaves either academia (which mostly just needs to look at hardware costs) and existing supercomputer users. The existing commercial users have both hardware and software (otherwise they would be "potential users"), and are unlikely to want to rewrite the software unless it is really, really, cheaper. Try to imagine all the salaries involved in running the big, big, jobs Nvidia is going after and tell me that the hardware is a good place to save money (at the cost of changing *everything*).I'd say Nvidia is not only killing the graphics (with all sorts of extra transistors that are in the way and are only for double point), but they aren't giving anyone (outside academia) any reason to use openCL. Maybe they have enough customers who want systems much bigger than $400k, but they will need enough of them to justify designing a >400mm chip (plus the academics, who are buying these because they don't have a lot of money).