Rumor: Nvidia Mobile Pascal-GPUS during Computex 2016

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Feb 26, 2016.

  1. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    42,121
    Likes Received:
    10,095
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
  2. kinggavin

    kinggavin Master Guru

    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    gtx 980TI super jetstream
    when i look at windows 10 with the store and the apps xbox app it makes me wonder if microsoft will come out with sme kind of windows 10 xbox-pc hybrid type gaming device which is portable with nvidia pascal gpus in it
     
  3. Fender178

    Fender178 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,186
    Likes Received:
    207
    GPU:
    GTX 1070 | GTX 1060
    Hmm interesting. Well considering that this is a rumor we can wait and hope for more information and clarification from Nvidia. I hope we get more information about the desktop cards and whether or not they are going to have more than 4gb Vram for the 1070 and 1080.
     
  4. Undying

    Undying Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    16,655
    Likes Received:
    5,559
    GPU:
    Aorus RX580 XTR 8GB
    Not long ago nvidia said that new mobile Maxwell based GPU's are coming, 970mx and 980mx.

    This seems just like the title said, a rumor and probably fake.
     

  5. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,527
    Likes Received:
    3,073
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080
    Yeah idk, seems weird, I think mobile will come later.

    At CES Nvidia said that PX2 would start shipping early samples to select partners in Q2, will full availability in the second half of the year. The PX2 has a total TDP of 300w with 2 PASCAL GPU's on it. So those two pascal units are probably 120w each or something.

    I would imagine those exact units would show up on something, either desktop and or mobile before the PX2 ships. I personally think desktop. I think Hilbert's right about the timeframe. They'll probably paper launch in April and the cards won't show up till like June, July. I imagine Polaris will already be shipping by then.
     
  6. GeniusPr0

    GeniusPr0 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    31
    GPU:
    RX 6800 XT Black Ed
    That rumor was debunked the next day. This rumor is likely true.
     
  7. HonoredShadow

    HonoredShadow Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,284
    Likes Received:
    17
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 1080 ti
    So is it true what some guys have been saying in the forum of late that these and the big day pascal are not going to be great at Direct X 12? Essentially they are Maxwell ++?

    If true I will wait till Volta and more DirectX 12 games.
     
  8. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,527
    Likes Received:
    3,073
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080
    No one knows because no one knows anything about Pascal yet.
     
  9. HonoredShadow

    HonoredShadow Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,284
    Likes Received:
    17
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 1080 ti
    Well that's good to hear. Damn people and their opinions veiled as truth...
     
  10. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,527
    Likes Received:
    3,073
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080
    Well people are assuming that Pascal was already in it's design phase when the whole Async problem hit, so based on that chances are it might not be fixed. There is nothing concrete yet as to whether its fixed or not, if Nvidia even needs to make a change (Nvidia is claiming they can fix it with drivers), or if it even matters in terms of overall performance.

    There are two DX12 benchmarks out, both feature Async, The Fury X wins one, the 980Ti wins the other.

    People are trying glean information from both those benchmarks, but it's essentially pointless until there are more of them, including actual games.
     

  11. HonoredShadow

    HonoredShadow Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,284
    Likes Received:
    17
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 1080 ti
    Yer I been keeping up to date. One thing I don't understand is that if DX12 is meant to be less reliant on drivers how come we need a driver fix for Async to fix it?
     
  12. Ieldra

    Ieldra Banned

    Messages:
    3,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 980Ti G1 1500/8000
    On top of nobody knowing much about pascal yet, except that it's much faster for neural network applications, we don't know much about DX12 performance yet. There have been two benchmarks, two.

    This is one : http://www.anandtech.com/show/9659/fable-legends-directx-12-benchmark-analysis/2

    This is the other: http://anandtech.com/show/10067/ashes-of-the-singularity-revisited-beta/6 (the recent beta, not the old)

    asynchronous compute exists to take advantage of idle hardware, in simple terms - if you turn it off and the code performs better, you should probably keep it off.

    Contrary to popular belief 'async compute effects' don't exist, you're still running those operations on the same hardware; as somebody said "GPUs are already embarrassingly parallel" - the main advantage of 'async', from what I've been able to glean, is concurrency; ie: executing an operation (eg timewarp) without it having to wait in queue for whatever shader was running previously. This is useful when you're optimizing for latency, such as in VR - a benchmark for which nvidia was lambasted as being hugely inferior to AMD, and the issue afaik was then fixed in a driver update - queue people claiming these things can't be fixed in a driver because it's a hardware problem.

    I mean take a look at these fable legends results
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    noticing any strange inconsistencies ? It's odd to say the least

    Also from the say extremetech feature on fable, they have this graph
    [​IMG]

    leaving aside the fact I don't know what these numbers mean, let's take this to be a perfect representation of performance in this game;

    Fury X outperforms a Ti, more interestingly a 390X is almost on par with r9 fury

    (I could have sworn there was an article about the fix for vr latency but I can't find it I found this https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/3rsezo/new_nvidia_driver_finally_allowed_me_to_try_vr/)

    If you're really interested read through this thread, somebody wrote a simple program to test pure compute and mixed loads on both gcn and maxwell
    https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/...and-analysis-thread.57188/page-9#post-1869030

    https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/3gwnsm/nvidia_gameworks_vr_sli_test/

    TLDR: We need more information about everything

     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2016
  13. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,527
    Likes Received:
    3,073
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080
    Nvidia currently does not have the hardware to do simultaneous compute/graphics queuing, at least as far as we know -- they essentially process everything serially at the moment. On Nvidia GPU's the majority of scheduling those tasks takes place in software, on the CPU. Some people are claiming Nvidia can work around the lack of hardware by using some of the parallelism stuff they build into the architecture for CUDA purposes. But these changes would take place at a driver level because the scheduling is at the driver level.

    Whether or not Nvidia can fix the problem with a driver remains to be seen. The head of their SW development team recently made a tweet that may have hinted towards this coming. And they have said in the past that they can can do it with drivers. But there hasn't yet been a driver that officially declares his solved or anything.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2016
  14. HonoredShadow

    HonoredShadow Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,284
    Likes Received:
    17
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 1080 ti
    That's interesting and answers a few questions. Thanks guys. Will be watching these cards closely.
     
  15. GeniusPr0

    GeniusPr0 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    31
    GPU:
    RX 6800 XT Black Ed
    Not only does Fable not emphasize async compute, but nvidia has its own path, and amd theirs AFAIK.


    In the context of DX12 and what can and should be done with async compute, AMD has it right.

    Arguing about the semantics is useless. One is on one's own to determine what or shouldnt be explained.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2016

  16. Ieldra

    Ieldra Banned

    Messages:
    3,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 980Ti G1 1500/8000
    I'm going to argue asynchronous compute is a misnomer and just obfuscates the issue

    They did solve the VR latency issue in drivers amidst a frenzy of criticism and accusations of the problem being in hardware
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2016
  17. GeniusPr0

    GeniusPr0 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    31
    GPU:
    RX 6800 XT Black Ed
    It is a misnomer.
     
  18. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,527
    Likes Received:
    3,073
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080
    Of course AMD has it right, they wrote the specification for it.

    Fable uses Async compute fine, its just that it's not computing hundreds of different light sources like AoS is. The type of game definitely matters in how much it gets used and obviously an RTS with massive battles and hundreds of light sources is going to emphasize the performance over a third person moba. Which was my point in the other thread, AoS is literally worse case for Nvidia's performance in regards to Async.

    Games should have two different paths, eventually every architecture is going to have it's own path. That's part of DX12's strength, the developer is capable of optimizing specifically for the architecture and vendor.

    I don't know enough about the VR latency stuff to really comment on it. I know that I have a Oculus DK2 and I used it on my 980 and it seemed to work fine in every game I played, including the Crytek Dino demo thing. But aside from that, no idea.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2016
  19. Ieldra

    Ieldra Banned

    Messages:
    3,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 980Ti G1 1500/8000
    Check out that beyond3d thread, you'll find it interesting
     
  20. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,809
    Likes Received:
    3,366
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    Explanation is simple. Both Hawaii and Fiji have same amount of ROPs (64) and ACEs (8). And probably many other things remained in same count or unimproved on uArch level.

    There can be scenario where r9-290x/390x performs better than Fury X, and that is when application relies only on pixel fillrate. As core of Hawaii can be clocked higher and therefore it can achieve higher fillrate.
    But in that case 980Ti would beat both chips as it has 96 ROPs and like 50% higher fillrate as it has quite some boost out of the box.

    If game was all about texture fillrate, then 980Ti = 290x/390x and Fury X would take crown by far.

    And those are just 2 aspects out of dozens which matter. And weakest point for each requirement matters. And that's way how gtx 960 can outperform gtx 780Ti.
     

Share This Page