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
LawRecordings - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Buwahahaha!!!What a sad, lonely little life this Silicon Doc must lead. I struggle to see how this guy can have any friends, not to mention a significant other. Or even people that can stand being in a room with him for long. Prolly the stereotypical fat boy in his mom's basement.
Careful SD, the "red roosters" are out to get you! Its all a conspiracy to overthrow the universe, and you're the only one that knows!
Great article Anand, as always.
Regards,
Law
Vendor agnostic buyer of the best price / performance GPU at the time
SiliconDoc - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
They can't get me, they've gotten themselves, and I've just mashed their face in it.And you're stupid enough to only be able to repeat the more than thousandth time repeated internet insult cleche's, and by your ignorant post, it appears you are an audiophile who sits bouncing around like a retard with headphones on, before after and during getting cooked on some weird dope, a HouseHead, right ? And that of course does not mean a family, doper.
So you giggle like a little girl and repeat what you read since that's all the stoned gourd can muster, then you kiss that rear nice and tight, brown nose.
Don't forget your personal claim to utter innocence, either, mr unbiased.
LOL
Yep there we have it, a househead music doused doped up butt kisser with a lame cleche'd brain and a giggly girl tude.
Golly, what were you saying about wifeless and friendless ?
ClownPuncher - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
What exactly is a cleche?Is it anything like a cliche?
Your spelling, grammar, and general lack of communication skill lead me to think that you are actually a double agent, it's an act if you will...an ATI guy posing as a really socially stunted Nvidia fan in an attempt to turn people off of Nvidia products solely by the ineptitude of your rhetoric.
UNCjigga - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
I'd hate to have a political conversation with SiliconDoc, but I digress...Some very interesting information came out in today's previews. Will Fermi be a bigger chip than Cypress? Certainly. Will it be more *powerful* than Cypress? Possibly. Will it be more expensive than Cypress? Probably. Will it have more memory bandwidth than Cypress? Yes.
Will it *play games* better than Cypress? Remains to be seen. Too many factors at play here. We don't know clock speeds. We have no idea if "midrange" Fermi cards will retain the 384-bit memory interface. We have
For all we know, all of Fermi's optimizations will mean great things for OpenCL and DirectCompute, but how many *games* make use of these APIs today? How can we compare DirectX 11 performance with few games and no Fermi silicon available for testing? Most of the people here will care about game performance, not Tesla or GPGPU. Hell, its been years since CUDA and Stream arrived and I'm still waiting for a decent video encoding/transcoding solution.
Calin - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Even between current cards (NVIDIA and AMD/ATI) the performance crown moves from one game to another - one card could do very well in one game and much worse in another (compared to the competition). As for not yet released cards, performance numbers in games can only be divined, not predictedBull Dog - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
So how much in NVIDIA's focus group partner paying you to post this stuff?dzoni2k2 - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
You seriously need to take your medicine. And call your shrink.dragonsqrrl - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
I know it seems like SiliconDoc is going on a ranting rage, because he kinda is, but the fact remains that this was a fairly biased article on the part of Anandtech. I've been reading reviews and articles here for a long time, and recently there has been a certain level of prejudice against Nvidia and its products that I haven't noticed on other legitimate review cites. This seems to have been the result of Anandtech getting left out of the loop last year. Throughout the article there is a pretty obvious sarcastic undertone towards what the Nvidia representatives say, and their newly announced GPU. I can only hope that this stops, so that anandtech can return to its former days of relatively balanced and fair reporting, which is all anyone can ask of any legitimate review cite. Articles of this manner and tone serve no purpose but to enrage people like SiliconDoc, and hurt Anandtech's image and reputation as a balanced a legitimate tech cite.Keeir - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Curious in where you see the Bias.I see a little bit of the tone, but it seems warranted for a company that has for the last few years over-promised and under delivered. Very similar to how AMD/ATI was treated upto the release of the 4 series. Nvidia needs to prove (again) that it can deliever a real innovative product priced at an affordable level for the core audience of graphics cards.
Here we are, 7 days after 5870 launch and Egg has 5870s for ~375 to GTX 295s at 500. Yet again, ATI/AMD has made it a puzzling choice to buy any Nvida product more than 200 dollars.... for months at a time.
SiliconDoc - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
What's puzzling is you are so out of touch, you don't realize the GTX295's were $406 before ati launched it's epic failure, then the gtx295 rose to $469 and the 5870 author edsxplained in text the pre launch price, and now you say the GTX295 is at $500.Clearly, the market has decided the 5870 is epic failure, and instead of bringing down the GTX295, it has increased it's value !
ROFLMAO
Awwww, the poor ati failure card drove up the price of the GTX295.
Awww, poor little red roosters, sorry I had to explain it to you, it's better if you tell yourself some imaginary delusion and spew it everywhere.