Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NVIDIA Predicts 570x GPU Performance Boost

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the lets-talk-about-diminishing-returns dept.

Gianna Borgnine writes "NVIDIA is predicting that GPU performance is going to increase a whopping 570-fold in the next six years. According to TG Daily, NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun Huang made the prediction at this year's Hot Chips symposium. Huang claimed that while the performance of GPU silicon is heading for a monumental increase in the next six years — making it 570 times faster than the products available today — CPU technology will find itself lagging behind, increasing to a mere 3 times current performance levels. 'Huang also discussed a number of "real-world" GPU applications, including energy exploration, interactive ray tracing and CGI simulations.'"

208 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. Goody! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Then we can use our GPUs as our CPUs!

    1. Re:Goody! by MarkRose · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yo dawg, I herd you like CPUs, so I put a CPU in your GPU so you can still get work done in vi while emacs is loading!

      --
      Be relentless!
  2. Predictions of the future by mollog · · Score: 1

    I see a few tags that cast doubt on the prediction. Why? I'll bet there were skeptics of Moore's Law when that became widely disseminated.

    What troubles me is that this sort of cell GPU is not more widely used in everyday applications. We who program for a living are feeling like we have been engaging in 'self stimulation' for years and wish there were some new target platform/market that we could so some interesting work in.

    --
    Best regards.
    1. Re:Predictions of the future by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Well, it comes down to simple math. For the performance to get to 570-fold more than what it is now, in the same style package, either:
      1. The GPU has to become 570-fold more efficient
      2. The GPU has to become ~570-fold smaller so they can fit 570 of the things onto a card

      Both seem highly unlikely.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:Predictions of the future by eln · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't doubt the prediction at all, I just have concerns about the vat of liquid nitrogen I'm going to have to immerse my computer in to keep that thing from overheating, and the power substation I'm going to need to build in my backyard to power it.

    3. Re:Predictions of the future by javaman235 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Its easy to get a 570x increase with parallel cores. You will just have a GPU that is 570 times bigger, costs 570 times more and consumes 570 times more energy. As far as any kind of real break through though, I'm not seeing it from the information at hand.

      There is something worthy of note in all this though, which is that the new way of doing business is through massive parallelism. We've all known this was coming for a long time, but its officially here.

      --
      -The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
    4. Re:Predictions of the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The prediction is complete nonsense. It assumes that CPU processors only get 20% faster per year (compounded). That would only be true if they did not add more cores to the CPU. And finally GPUs are hitting the same thermal/power leakage wall that CPUs hit several years ago - they will at best get faster in lock step with CPUs.

      A GPU is not a general purpose processor, as is a CPU. It is only good at performing a large number of repetitive single precision (32 bit) floating point calculations without branching. Double precision (64 bit) calculations - double in C speak - is 4 times slower than single precision on a GPU. And the second you have an "if" in GPU code, everything grinds to a halt. Conditions effectively break the GPU SIMD (single instruction multiple data) model and bring the pipeline to a halt.

    5. Re:Predictions of the future by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt the prediction at all, I just have concerns about the vat of liquid nitrogen I'm going to have to immerse my computer in to keep that thing from overheating, and the power substation I'm going to need to build in my backyard to power it.

      But GPUs today are somewhat more than 570x more powerful than they were several years ago and we haven't had to submerge them in a vat of liquid nitrogen yet, so what makes you think that's going to be the case in the next 570x power increase? (whenever that happens ...)

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    6. Re:Predictions of the future by LoudMusic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, it comes down to simple math. For the performance to get to 570-fold more than what it is now, in the same style package, either:

      1. The GPU has to become 570-fold more efficient
      2. The GPU has to become ~570-fold smaller so they can fit 570 of the things onto a card

      Both seem highly unlikely.

      You don't feel it could be a combination of both? Kind of like they did with multi-core CPUs? Make a single unit more powerful, then use more units ... wow!

      There is more than one way to skin a cat.

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    7. Re:Predictions of the future by eln · · Score: 1

      Maybe not, but they do require a lot more cooling and power than they did before.

    8. Re:Predictions of the future by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Even more curious, he claims that GPUs will see 570x improvement, with CPUs only getting 3x.

      One wonders what night-miraculous improvement in process, packaging, logic design, etc. will improve GPUs by hundreds of times, while somehow being virtually useless for CPUs...

    9. Re:Predictions of the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Even generously assuming they'd achieve an 8x die shrink, that'd need to be producing chips with a 41000mm^2 die area. (Their current chips are already the biggest at 576mm^2.)

    10. Re:Predictions of the future by oldhack · · Score: 1

      That's where your backyard dirt patch growing watermelon comes handy.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    11. Re:Predictions of the future by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      Perhaps for the top end models that holds true, but as the market for roll your own HTPC's has shown (at least in terms of cooling), there are plenty of passive heat sink options available.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    12. Re:Predictions of the future by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Or 3d-erize the chip?

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    13. Re:Predictions of the future by BikeHelmet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or... not.

      Currently CPUs and GPUs are stamped together. Basically, they take a bunch of pre-made blocks of transistors(millions of blocks, billions of transistors in a GPU), and etch those into the silicon, and out comes a working GPU.

      It's easy - relatively speaking - and doesn't require a huge amount of redesign between generations. When you get a certain combination working, you improve (shrink) your nanometre process and add more blocks.

      However, compiler technology has advanced a lot recently, and with the vast amounts of processing power now available, it should be simpler getting more complex blocks fully utilized. A vastly more complex block, with interconnects to many other blocks, could perform better at a swath of different tasks. This is evident when comparing the performance hit from Anti-Aliasing. Previously even 2xAA had a huge performance hit, but nVidia altered their designs, and now Multisampling AA is basically free.

      I recall seeing an article about a new kind of shadowing that was going to be used in DX11 games. The card used for the review got almost 200fps at high settings - with AA enabled that dropped to about 60fps, and with the new shadowing enabled, it dropped to about 20fps. It appears the hardware needs a redesign to be more optimized for whatever algorithm it uses!

      Two other factors you're forgetting...

      1) 3D CPU/GPU designs are coming slowly, where the transistors aren't just on a 2D plane... that would allow vastly denser CPUs and GPUs. If a processor had minimal leakage, and low power consumption, 500x more transistors wouldn't be a stretch.

      2) Performance claims are merely claims. Intel claims a quad-core gives 4x more performance, but in many cases it's slower than a faster dual-core.

      570x faster for every game? Doubtful. 570x faster at the most advanced rendering techniques being designed today, with AA and other memory-bandwidth hammering features ramped to the max? Might be accurate. A high end GPU from 6 years ago probably won't get 1fps on a modern game, so this estimate might even be low.

      A claim of 250x the framerate in Crysis, with everything ramped to the absolute maximum, might be even accurate.

      But general performance claims are almost never true.

    14. Re:Predictions of the future by volsung · · Score: 4, Informative

      The GeForce 9 series was a rebrand/die shrink of GeForce 8, but the GTX 200 series has some major improvements under the hood:

      * Vastly smarter memory controller including better batching of reads, and the ability to map host memory into the GPU memory space
      * Double the number of registers
      * Hardware double precision support (not as fast as single, but way faster than emulating it)

      These sorts of things probably don't matter to people playing games, but they are huge wins for people doing GPU computing. The GTX 200 series has also seen a minor die shrink during the generation, so I don't know if the next generation will be more of a die shrink or actually include improved performance. (Hopefully the latter to keep up with Larrabee.)

    15. Re:Predictions of the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Simple. GPUs are already massively parallell in a way that is actually usable. While the gigahertz-race has pretty much stopped, the transistor-race is still on, but getting the most out of a multi core CPU for a single application is non-trivial. GPUs however are a completely different ballgame, where the performance of the card pretty much scales with the number of shader cores.

    16. Re:Predictions of the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Doing multiple layers either via lamination or deposition would make sense. But then there's this problem: How do you get the heat out of it? Those things aren't exactly running cool as they are now.

      But then again, maybe they figured something out that we don't know.

    17. Re:Predictions of the future by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Perhaps have them running at lower clock speeds. Slightly slower clock speeds means much cooler chips afaik.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    18. Re:Predictions of the future by C18H27NO3+ · · Score: 2, Funny

      We'll obviously need a Turbo button on it set in the off position until such time that the CPUs catch up.

    19. Re:Predictions of the future by Ant+P. · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1. The GPU has to become 570-fold more efficient
            2. The GPU has to become ~570-fold smaller so they can fit 570 of the things onto a card

      Both seem highly unlikely.

      If graphics card development in the last 10 years is anything to go by, nVidia's plan is that the GPU will become 570 times larger, draw 570 times more power and the fan will spin 570 times faster

    20. Re:Predictions of the future by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      From reading slashdot, I know there are several technologies which have been "a couple of years away" for a while now which could (if people bothered with the expense) turn the most common problem in computer heat dissipation into "how do I prevent it from getting too cold and forming condensation on everything?"

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    21. Re:Predictions of the future by Poorcku · · Score: 1

      If I were the NVIDIA chairman I would make the GPU 570 fold bigger and smack you in the face with it you all knowing bastard ! :)

      --
      I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
    22. Re:Predictions of the future by Tomfrh · · Score: 1

      I know where you're coming from, but "570-fold" does mean 570 times greater. It doesn't mean 570 doublings.

      The analogy is zig-zag folds, not doubling folds.

    23. Re:Predictions of the future by SocratesJedi · · Score: 1

      Indeed, if both were improved at the same rate you would only need a SQRT(570x) ~= 24x improvement in both technologies to get a combined increase of 570x (also ignoring Amdahl's law). Nothwithstanding the (possibly serious) limitations of Moore's law there are four 18-month periods in 6 years predicting a 16x reduction in chip size over that time period. I have no experience in the increase in efficiency increases, so I won't comment on that, but to my mind the combination at least doesn't seem horrifically farfetched.

      Regardless though, you are right to be skeptical of a long range prediction like that.

    24. Re:Predictions of the future by melf-san · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe the high-end ones, but the low-end GPUs are mostly passively cooled and still much more powerful than old GPUs.

    25. Re:Predictions of the future by tyrione · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, it comes down to simple math. For the performance to get to 570-fold more than what it is now, in the same style package, either:

      1. The GPU has to become 570-fold more efficient
      2. The GPU has to become ~570-fold smaller so they can fit 570 of the things onto a card

      Both seem highly unlikely.

      It's not a linear relationship.

    26. Re:Predictions of the future by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Moore's law is ending. The fab issues at the scale can be costly. Moore's law is about cost, not speed.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    27. Re:Predictions of the future by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's also worth noting that a 570x improvement over six years means doubling performance ever 9 months. Just from die shrinkages from process improvements, you can fit twice as many pipelines on the same amount of silicon in a slightly longer period than this. It isn't hard to imagine that improved designs will fill up the gap.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    28. Re:Predictions of the future by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      People don't seem to be buying these faster CPUs anymore, as there is a recession on, and the existing ones are fast enough. The machines I see in the shops still have pretty much the same Intel models they had two years ago. I don't think that has ever happened before.

      I think the main change we will see in the next three years or so is faster Atoms rather than blazingly fast Core i9s or whatever Intel chooses to call them.

    29. Re:Predictions of the future by raftpeople · · Score: 2, Informative

      "GPUs however are a completely different ballgame, where the performance of the card pretty much scales with the number of shader cores."

      But only to the degree that your problem maps to that level of parallelization. There are many problems that do not perform well on the GPU.

    30. Re:Predictions of the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      But that's why there's a specific problem right in the name.

    31. Re:Predictions of the future by Starayo · · Score: 1

      The day when my computer also doubles as a mini fridge will be awesome indeed.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    32. Re:Predictions of the future by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Funny

      Either

      • your post contains a false dichotomy, or
      • Angelina Jolie is giving me a blowjob right now

      Neither seem highly unlikely.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    33. Re:Predictions of the future by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 1

      more like a mini-hotplate

      --
      never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
    34. Re:Predictions of the future by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      No, no, it runs on _cold_ fusion. That's only 2 years away, right? Peter Hagelstein has been writing that kind of letter, article, and review of scientific papers for over a decade now. But they keep accidentally publishing his work in the "science fact" section, rather than the "short fiction" categories.

    35. Re:Predictions of the future by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Performance claims are merely claims. Intel claims a quad-core gives 4x more performance, but in many cases it's slower than a faster dual-core.

      570x faster for every game? Doubtful.

      Why? Rendering is specifically a task that is easily parallelizable, and thus using more cores will scale well even in existing games (unlike what happened with quad-core on desktops) - just split the output area in chunks, and render in parallel...

    36. Re:Predictions of the future by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Funny

      If graphics card development in the last 10 years is anything to go by, nVidia's plan is that the GPU will become 570 times larger, draw 570 times more power and the fan will spin 570 times faster

      At that point, it would effectively become a helicopter, no?

    37. Re:Predictions of the future by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Well, it comes down to simple math. For the performance to get to 570-fold more than what it is now, in the same style package, either:

      1. The GPU has to become 570-fold more efficient
      2. The GPU has to become ~570-fold smaller so they can fit 570 of the things onto a card

      Both seem highly unlikely.

      Either in isolation seems highly unlikely, true. But a 23x improvement in efficiency coupled with a 23x improvement in the number of cores on a GPU? In six years? That sounds a bit more feasible.

      If there were, just coincidentally, to be some theoretical progression rate that involved doubling every 18 months, you'll notice that after ~6.87 years you're at ~570. Which is close enough to their estimate that it could be how they arrived at this figure.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    38. Re:Predictions of the future by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Why? I'll bet there were skeptics of Moore's Law when that became widely disseminated.

      Ok, so since there were skeptics at Moore's Law in the beginning, then anything goes from now on? Somehow you use this as a justification to never listen to skeptics anymore. That is just idiotic. You know there will people skeptical about the P4 as well, and Itanium.

    39. Re:Predictions of the future by russotto · · Score: 1

      What troubles me is that this sort of cell GPU is not more widely used in everyday applications.

      I've looked at it for a few things (encryption, mostly) and there always seem to be a few "gotchas" which end up becoming a bottleneck. It's not clear if this is due to the programming model or the chip, however... access to the accursed carry flag or equivalent keeps coming up, and I know that one is in the programming model.

    40. Re:Predictions of the future by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Embed a network of microscopic cooling tubes, with coolant flowing through via either capillary action or forced by a pump.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    41. Re:Predictions of the future by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be more like "in many cases the car is slower than two faster cars"?

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    42. Re:Predictions of the future by LBt1st · · Score: 1

      Yes a helicopter.. with Really Sweet Graphics!!

    43. Re:Predictions of the future by Klintus+Fang · · Score: 1

      You do need to keep in mind one of the primary reasons CPUs are designed the way that GPUs are designed. GPUs are very good at doing massively parallel repetitive computations like what you need to do when processing an image for a display or like some small segments of the HPC market regularly do. But GPU performance grinds to a halt as soon as your code needs to take a branch.

      Unless you write the kind of code in which if statements are nearly non-existent, you are likely to find programming for a GPU-style architecture to be unhelpful.

      --
      In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. -T.S. Eliot
    44. Re:Predictions of the future by Klintus+Fang · · Score: 1

      You need to keep in mind the reason that CPUs are not designed the way that GPUs are designed. GPUs are very good at easily parallelizable repetitive computations. GPU performance grinds to a snails pace as soon as you have to take a branch.

      Unless you are writing the kind of code in which if statements are nearly non-existent, you are not likely to find programming for a GPU-style pipeline to be very palatable.

      --
      In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. -T.S. Eliot
    45. Re:Predictions of the future by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      A 570-fold increase over 6 years is less than a 3-fold increase per year. This is fast (towards double Moore's Law), but then it's possible that an Nvidia engineer knows something about GPU research that we don't...

      I'd say this is news, and it's remarkable, but it's not totally implausible.

    46. Re:Predictions of the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm pretty sure it's the first one. Even Angelina Jolie can't be in two places at the same time.

    47. Re:Predictions of the future by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      Why? Rendering is specifically a task that is easily parallelizable, and thus using more cores will scale well even in existing games (unlike what happened with quad-core on desktops) - just split the output area in chunks, and render in parallel...

      I think I explained my position fairly well. But if, by freak chance, we end up playing Crysis in 6 years at 34200fps, I will happily eat crow.

    48. Re:Predictions of the future by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the second you have an "if" in GPU code, everything grinds to a halt. Conditions effectively break the GPU SIMD (single instruction multiple data) model and bring the pipeline to a halt.

      This isn't totally accurate. Generally conditions are handled by conditional writeback. You simply ignore the result if the test fails. You effectively have to perform both branches of a condition so there's a performance hit over a CPU there but "if(x 0){x = -x)" isn't going to hurt your performance.

    49. Re:Predictions of the future by Starayo · · Score: 1

      It already does that. My room is warm in winter without anything heating it besides my computer.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    50. Re:Predictions of the future by Briareos · · Score: 1

      If graphics card development in the last 10 years is anything to go by, nVidia's plan is that the GPU will become 570 times larger, draw 570 times more power and the fan will spin 570 times faster

      At that point, it would effectively become a helicopter, no?

      A flaming, almost flat helicopter that makes the horns of Jericho sound like a kazoo?

      Could be.

      np: SCSI-9 - Together (Easy As Down)

      --

      "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

    51. Re:Predictions of the future by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Conditions effectively break the GPU SIMD (single instruction multiple data) model and bring the pipeline to a halt.

      They're getting better. Hell, IIRC I think that when shaders first came out you couldn't do conditionals at all.

    52. Re:Predictions of the future by Ost99 · · Score: 1

      The GTX260 and up are new chips.
      GTX250 is a die shrunk 9 series (9800gtx+)

      --
      ---- Sig. gone.
    53. Re:Predictions of the future by Schnoogs · · Score: 1, Troll

      I guess because you used big words and acted real confident in your dismissal people modded you informative. Next time read the article and don't spout of about GPU's performing branching as if that's even on the table and thus somehow dismisses this guys prediction.

    54. Re:Predictions of the future by denoir · · Score: 1
      Perhaps not all that unreasonable. The Geforce 3 was launched in 2001 and was the first real GPU that could do floating point operations.

      2001: Geforce 3, 2.6 MFLOPs
      2009: Geforce GX295: 1.78 GFLOPs

      That's a factor of 680 in six years. Ok, the 295 is a dual GPU solution, but Nvidia is set to release the nv300 series this year that will have twice the number of cores. So he's actually predicting that the increase in computing power will be smaller than in the previous seven year period.

    55. Re:Predictions of the future by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It assumes that CPU processors only get 20% faster per year (compounded). That would only be true if they did not add more cores to the CPU."

      "It is only good at performing a large number of repetitive single precision (32 bit) floating point calculations without branching."

      If we wanted a 64-bit GPU it would be easy enough to make. GPUs used to do weird mixes of integer and floating point math until the manufacturers made an effort to guarantee 32-bit precision throughout. That leaves the branching part of your statement, which is the same for CPUs with multiple cores. A modern general purpose GPU (that is, one that CAN branch) is pretty similar to a many-cores CPU in those terms.

      The two are converging. CPUs are getting more general purpose and CPUs are getting more parallel.

    56. Re:Predictions of the future by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      One presumes that predictions like these are "for a given cost", or at the least, on a single chip - just as is the case of Moore's law. No one claims that Moore's law was beaten when they started putting hundreds of CPUs together in a supercomputer.

      I don't see how it's cheating if you can do it on a single chip, or at the same price - modern day GPUs already have tens or hundreds of cores, and CPUs have multiple cores too. Do you disable all but one of them on your computer, because it's "cheating"?

    57. Re:Predictions of the future by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      No, you can't just magically have get both extra efficiency and doing smaller size, out of the same increase.

      Moore's law has meant you can get double the number of transisters per 18 months - and it's this which has given the extra efficiency we've been seeing. There isn't a second "increase of efficiency" trend! You may note that chips generally haven't actually been getting smaller, because people would generally prefer the increased performance. You either choose between same number of transisters in a smaller area, or twice as many transisters in the same area. You can't count it twice!

      In fact, it's only been in recent years that increasing transister counts as been used to add multiple cores, but that comes at the expense of increased efficiency of any given core. Don't think that just because we've been going to dual and quad cores, that somehow means we're increasing at a faster rate than before...

    58. Re:Predictions of the future by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, and given they're pushing GPUs for GPGPU, it seems rather misleading to claim it will outdo CPUs. If an algorithm is suitable for GPGPU, then it should also benefit from adding multiple CPU cores. If an algorithm is hard to parallelise on a CPU, I don't see how a GPU will help.

    59. Re:Predictions of the future by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Nope, I make that just under 24x improvement.

      As I said in my reply to this poster, you can't just arbitrarily claim there are two such trends!

      I mean, why stop there? "CPU/GPUs can get faster by either having more transisters, making them more efficient, or making the algorithms more efficient. I'm going to claim we have a 2x increase every 18 months, independently for all three of these, therefore in 6 years we'll have an increase of 4096 times!!!"

      It's nonsense - there's only a 2x increase for number of transisters, and it's that increase which is used for "more efficiency". And increase in efficiency of algorithms isn't anywhere near 2x every 18 months. But if you're allowed to make stuff up, I guess anything's possible!

      Which is close enough to their estimate that it could be how they arrived at this figure.

      I seriously hope not.

    60. Re:Predictions of the future by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'll look forward to my NVIDIA card with 6.7x performance in 6 years' time.

      For everyone else hoping for 570x improvement, they'll be needing more like 570^(1/6)-1 = 188% per year. Way ahead of the Moore's Law trend of about 59% per year.

    61. Re:Predictions of the future by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      That would only get you 256x improvement, surely (2^(6*12/9))? I make it more like just under 8 months.

      And that "slightly longer period" is more like 18 months, which only leads to 16x improvements in 6 years. If it turns out that the doubling time itself more than halves, then great, but it's quite a change...

    62. Re:Predictions of the future by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      About cost of the individual transistors.

      For cost of the fab plants, you may be thinking of Rock's law, although yes, you are right that this does may put an economic limit on Moore's law.

    63. Re:Predictions of the future by SocratesJedi · · Score: 1

      Sure you can! It's definitely possible to get efficiency increases unrelated miniaturization. There is significant research into identifying materials that can be cycled at higher frequencies which would give a speedup unrelated to simply putting more transistors in the same space. Alternatively, you could optimize the architecture of the microprocessors so as to require less clock cycles per opcode which would translate into an efficiency increase independent of either transistor size or clock frequency.

    64. Re:Predictions of the future by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Sure it's hypothetically possible, but you need to show evidence rather than assuming it.

      Have CPUs/GPUs been increasing in speed by 4x every 18 months rather than 2x? If not, what will change for it to happen in future? (In fact, for 570x in 6 years, you need a doubling of speed every less than 8 months...)

      Alternatively, you could optimize the architecture of the microprocessors so as to require less clock cycles per opcode which would translate into an efficiency increase independent of either transistor size or clock frequency.

      Less clock cycles per instruction has been a trend, but I believe that this has just been one way of using "extra" transisters. Indeed, as I say, using extra transisters for more cores is only a recent trend, AIUI because getting more speed from a single core using extra transisters is becoming harder. But no one's been able to magic greater than 2x performance in speed from 2x the number of transisters, at least not over any kind of period - do you have any counter-examples?

    65. Re:Predictions of the future by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      So this is why CPUs have been quadrupling in speed every 18 months, whilst the number of transisters double.

      Oh wait, they haven't.

      This is my point - you can make wild assumptions and claims about how you think it should be possible to gain extra kinds of performance, but unless you post actual evidence, there is no way you can assume you can get a 2x factor out of each one independently (as opposed to smaller speed ups which may add up to, at most, a 2x factor in total).

  3. In other news... by Hadlock · · Score: 5, Informative

    In other news, ATI is selling their 4870 series cards for $130 on newegg, which are twice as fast as an Nvidia 9800GTS which is the same price (at least on Left 4 Dead, Call of Duty, and any other game that matters). ATI is blowing Nvidia out of the water in terms of performance per dollar and will continue to do so through at least the middle of next year. See here:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-cards-charts-2009-high-quality/benchmarks,62.html

    Yeah, I'd be making outrageous statements too if I were Nvidia.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
    1. Re:In other news... by Hadlock · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's the L4D comparo, sorry for the wrong link:

      http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-cards-charts-2009-high-quality/Left4Dead,1455.html

      The 9800GT and 8800GT are both in the 40-60fps while the 4870 (single processor) is in the 106fps range. It's a pretty staggering difference.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    2. Re:In other news... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Yeah and the 280 is in the 120fps range. Whats your point?

    3. Re:In other news... by NervousNerd · · Score: 1

      The GTX 280 goes for $240 on NewEgg. Around a 15 FPS difference for $100.

    4. Re:In other news... by Spatial · · Score: 2, Informative

      Troll mod? No, this is mostly true.

      While his example is wrong (Nvidia's competitor to the HD4870 is the GTX 260 c216), AMD do have better value for money on their side. The HD4870 is evenly matched but a good bit cheaper.

      The situation is similar in the CPU domain. The Phenom IIs are slightly slower per-clock than the Core 2s they compete with, but are considerably cheaper.

    5. Re:In other news... by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

      Agreed. My primary use for the nvidia gpu is watching HD. Let's do some math.

      1080 * sqrt570 = 25784

      I like. Considering even the most basic of today's gpus, the ion and tegra, for example, are capable of 1080p, Mr Nvidia is predicting that my handheld 6 years hence will be able to smoothly decode mkvs and output them real-time to my new UltraMegaFullHD(TM) 25784p tv? Bring on the future!

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    6. Re:In other news... by TeXMaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In other news, ATI is selling their 4870 series cards for $130 on newegg, which are twice as fast as an Nvidia 9800GTS which is the same price (at least on Left 4 Dead, Call of Duty, and any other game that matters). ATI is blowing Nvidia out of the water in terms of performance per dollar and will continue to do so through at least the middle of next year. See here:

      http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-cards-charts-2009-high-quality/benchmarks,62.html

      Yeah, I'd be making outrageous statements too if I were Nvidia.

      Even when it comes to GPGPU (General Purpose computing on the GPU), ATI's hardware is much better than NVIDIA's. However, the programming interfaces for ATI suck big times, whereas NVIDIA's CUDA is much more comfortable to code for, and it has an extensive range of documentation and examples that provide developers with all they need to improve their NVIDIA GPGPU programming. It also has much more aggressive marketing.

      As a sad result, NVIDIA is often the platform of choice for GPU usage for HPC, despite it having inferior hardware. And I doubt OpenCL is going to fix this, since it basically standardizes the low-level API, keeping NVIDIA with its superior high-level API.

      --
      "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
    7. Re:In other news... by MrBandersnatch · · Score: 3, Informative

      Depending on vendor it is now possible to get a 275 less than a 4890 and a 260 for only slightly more than a 4870; at lower prices its very competitive too. My point is that both NV and ATI are on pretty level ground again and the ONLY reason I now choose NV over ATI is because of the superior NV drivers (both Linux and Windows side)...oh and the fact that ATI pulled a fast one on me with their AVIVO performance claims. Shame on you ATI!

    8. Re:In other news... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      In addition to VDPAU enabled mplayer, I can actually FIND CUDA enabled apps. There's CUDA enabled md5 crackers, cuda enabled BOINC, Matlab has a CUDA plugin. I'm considering buying CUDA compatible card so I can install it at work just to play with it in Matlab.

    9. Re:In other news... by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >> provides features you can only appreciate on a 120hz display

      well thats a new one. There's not even slight technical merit to that statement but its certainly demonstrates the amusing creativity of ATi fanbois.

      >> The 9800GT and 8800GT are the same price and the ATI card blows it out of the water

      I have no argument that you should go with Ati if you're windows only and looking at cheaper-end cards.

      Its totally irrelevant to me though as I go for best overall performance, decent drivers, and only consider cards that have drivers that work well with Linux. ATI suck on all counts in my areas of interest.

    10. Re:In other news... by 7-Vodka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And their linux drivers still SUCK.

      --

      Liberty.

    11. Re:In other news... by raftpeople · · Score: 2, Informative

      >> provides features you can only appreciate on a 120hz display

      I enjoy the following features of my GTX280 (used for calcs not games):
      CUDA (I compile C code, throw in a couple of lines of stuff for the GPU and it runs on the GPU, easy)
      Hardware optimizes my memory accesses and at times branchy code so the GPU is doing as much work as possible (makes it easy to get good results on the GPU)

    12. Re:In other news... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      The 120Hz display bit is here:

      http://www.nvidia.com/object/3D_Vision_Overview.html

      This requires an NVIDIA graphics card and a 120Hz display. Furthermore, it's damn cool!

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    13. Re:In other news... by fractoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      WTF Mods. He's just saying that at this price point you can get nearly double the performance from ATI than from nVidia. I love nVidia too, I run a 9800GT, but I'm not going to mod someone troll for pointing out that something else is now faster and cheaper.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    14. Re:In other news... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Exactly, ATI is the best to go if you never leave the windows world. However even there NVidia has made major inroads with PhysX and CUDA.
      I recently dropped my perfectly fine ATI 4850 and bought a inferior NVidia 9600 GT the reason the ATI Linux driver simply after 10 years still where shoddy no bsd drivers.
      The lesser speed I could mostly compensate buy buying a card with more ram, and additionally I got CUDA support. While badaboom is not as fast as Turbo 264 HD on my mac it is a welcome addition.
      Being able to encode h264 in dual speed is a really nice addition to the non working ATI me too solution ATI provides.

    15. Re:In other news... by TeXMaster · · Score: 1

      In addition to VDPAU enabled mplayer, I can actually FIND CUDA enabled apps. There's CUDA enabled md5 crackers, cuda enabled BOINC, Matlab has a CUDA plugin. I'm considering buying CUDA compatible card so I can install it at work just to play with it in Matlab.

      Precisely. At my current job we're developing with CUDA, too. I just think it's really sad thing ATI missed the 'developer friendly' train despite its superior hardware.

      As I said, OpenCL is not going to fill the gap. _Maybe_ an ATI CUDA compiler would, though.

      --
      "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
    16. Re:In other news... by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Toms Hardware says it's nearly identical

      http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-comparison,2007-7.html
       
      Biggest difference is that the $160 Nvidia card has 120mb less ram for nextgen games with lots of high res textures; whereas a 1GB 4870 is $20 cheaper, and runs at 250 watts, whereas the Nvidia card consumes 360 watts, which is a lot of heat to exhaust out of a midsize case.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    17. Re:In other news... by TeXMaster · · Score: 1

      "ATI's hardware is much better than NVIDIA's. " no. it's not.

      "Is too".

      Now that we've left the infantile trolling behind, a brief expsition of some of the reasons why ATI > NVIDIA hardware-wise:

      • hardware double support was introduced in ATI way before it was on NVIDIA (a couple of generations earlier)
      • ATI has actual vector operation support
      • ATI has more die dedicated to shading (the part which is used for GPGPU)
      • ATI has simpler scheduling (meaning less die dedicated to it, and thus more die dedicated to actual ALUs)
      • ATI runs at a lower frequency, and still managed to achieve _actual_ TFLOP performance before NVIDIA, and cheaper
      --
      "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
    18. Re:In other news... by FooBarWidget · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. I recently bought a laptop with an ATI card and the biggest reason why I did that is because I heard they went open source. I was disappointed by the fact that their latest Catalyst driver doesn't work well on Ubuntu 9.04. The one recommended by Ubuntu works but it's VERY slow when restoring a window in Compiz. All in all it feels like a downgrade compared to my Intel integrated graphics card. Sigh. :(

    19. Re:In other news... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Damn kids. We had to program in (different) assembly for ATI and NVIDIA and we thought we were lucky! ;)

  4. But how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I read the article, but I don't see any explanation of how exactly that performance increase will come about. Nor is there any explanation of why GPUs will see the increase but CPUs will not. Anyone have a better article on the matter?

    1. Re:But how? by Spatial · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's Nvidia. Aren't they always saying things like this?

      It'll come about because BUY NVIDIA GPUS THEY ARE THE FUTURE, CPU SUX

    2. Re:But how? by santiago · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you crazy? Why would I buy a GPU now if they're going to be 570 times faster in just a few years? I'd just be wasting my money!

    3. Re:But how? by risk+one · · Score: 1

      I expect the real intention is more like BUY NVIDIA STOCKS THEY ARE THE FUTURE, CPU STOCKS SUCK.

      Who needs profits from actual sales when you can manipulate the market?

  5. Weather by masmullin · · Score: 1

    Can he predict when I get my f'ing flying car!

  6. Re:haha yeah right by 4D6963 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Intel said 4 nm for 2022, that's in 13 years. What precisely allows you to doubt that claims, except maybe the fact that deadlines are often missed? Let me rephrase that, what allows you to think that it'll be reached much later than anything else?

    Also, queue a dozen+ posts explaining to the armchair pundits how 560x is possible.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  7. And you know what... by JustNiz · · Score: 1, Troll

    that will be minimum spec for Windows 2026, even though Windows 2026 won't have any more useful functionality than XP has.

    1. Re:And you know what... by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      It will at least have the same useful functionality over that Server 2008 has - non-admin users can schedule tasks, and Powershell.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    2. Re:And you know what... by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      But it will look soooo nice!

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
  8. Good to know! by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thanks for the heads up, Nvidia! I'll be sure to hold off for 6 years on buying anything with a GPU.

    1. Re:Good to know! by kramulous · · Score: 1

      That was my immediate thought as well.

      We're about to drop $250K on a GPU cluster and if performance increases to that amount in 6 years, why on earth would we buy now?

      Dammit, there's just no win when you fork out for clusters (of any kind).

      Should spend 50K now, stick the rest into stocks and buy 50K every year. Of course, the dudes up the tree don't like that kind of thinking.

      --
      .
  9. So... by XPeter · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have to wait six years to play Crysis?

    --
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:So... by Spatial · · Score: 1

      That Crysis joke is getting old. You can run it easily on a $100 GPU now.

      Now Arma 2...

    2. Re:So... by XPeter · · Score: 1

      That may be so. but I've yet to see a graphics setup that can run it on a 2560X1600 30" Monitor at Very High settings with 8X AA enabled.

      I looked up the Arma sys req, and it's not as intense as Crysis was for the time.

      Now Alan Wake...

      --
      "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    3. Re:So... by Spatial · · Score: 2

      Hah! You call that a resolution? This is a resolution.

    4. Re:So... by SBrach · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't anyone make a monitor that could support that resolution.

    5. Re:So... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Because you really can't see much difference? I'm running 1920x1080 on a 24" widescreen and that's "plenty" - I can still see individual pixels but they're not THAT far off my eyes' resolution if I'm sitting ~50cm away from the screen. Unless you're going to make a wraparound 'surround screen' (oh god please yes!) there's not much point in that much resolution. It's like encoding an MP3 at 512kbps - sure, there may be SOME perceptible difference but it's not enough to be worth the extra hassle.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    6. Re:So... by DMalic · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure you can see the diff on an HDTV sized screen. After all, 2560x1600 for a 30", and TV screens are 50+.. even granting the fact you sit further, I'm pretty sure the difference would be visible and useful for say desktop work.

    7. Re:So... by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All that resolution, and it still looks rendered. Instead of merely pushing more pixels, it would be nice if they did more to them, so it doesn't look so artificial.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  10. OK by Yurka · · Score: 1

    But they'd better hurry up with "Mr. Fusion" which will be needed to power that thing, and finally buy the license for that demon of Mr. Maxwell's to cool it.

    --
    I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
    1. Re:OK by ZonkerWilliam · · Score: 1

      What and become a major source of global warming? Great!

    2. Re:OK by Spatial · · Score: 1

      Well they did say "energy exploration" was one of its uses...

    3. Re:OK by fractoid · · Score: 1

      If Mr. Maxwell would just let me borrow his demon for a while, I wouldn't NEED Mr. Fusion.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  11. why so serious? by ZonkerWilliam · · Score: 1

    Seriously, it's so easy to give ambiguous figures then they can't be held to it.

  12. Jen-Hsun Huang is full of shit by Rix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He constantly runs his mouth without any real thought to what he's saying. It's just attention whoring.

    1. Re:Jen-Hsun Huang is full of shit by vivek7006 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Mod parent up.

      Jen-Hsun Huang is a certified clown who just a short while back was running around saying things like 'we will open a can of whoop-ass on Intel'.

      What a dumbass ...

    2. Re:Jen-Hsun Huang is full of shit by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      It's even more bullshity than normal since he's also evidently predicting the end of Moore's law. CPUs only improving by 3x in 6 years?!

      6 years/1.5 years = 4 Cycles of Moore's law.

      2^4 = 16x performance increase.

      So I guess Moore's law in the next year is going to go from a doubling every 18 months to a doubling every 4-5 years? When did that happen?

  13. Re:Arbitrary number? by eln · · Score: 5, Funny

    The marketing guys originally wanted to say 1000x, but when they ran it past the engineers, the engineers couldn't stop laughing at such a ridiculous assertion. The marketing guys kept lowering the number, but the engineers just couldn't stop laughing. 570x is how low they got before the engineers passed out from laughing so much, which the marketing guys interpreted as agreement.

  14. And one more? by mustafap · · Score: 1

    > 'Huang also discussed a number of "real-world" GPU applications, including energy exploration, interactive ray tracing and CGI simulations.'"

    Add to that 'MD5 collisions etc"

    GPU coding really is going to separate the men from the boys. I sense a return to the old days, where people had to think about coding, and where brilliant discoveries were made.
    ( like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAKMEM )

    Darn, pity I'm too old now. I'll have a play though...

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    1. Re:And one more? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Correction: GPU programming USED to separate the men from the boys. Now I hear you can practically program the things in C.

  15. The math by StreetStealth · · Score: 1

    6 years = 72 months

    Moore's Law states a doubling in transistors (but we'll call it performance) at every 18 month interval, so:

    72/18 = 4 Moore cycles

    2^4 = 32

    So in six years, Gordon Moore says we should have 32x the performance we have now.

    But it's indeed interesting... Silicon was a much easier-to-predict medium in the 20th Century. And yet here we have these two mature, opposing approaches to silicon-based computing, represented by the CPU and the GPU, with some predicting unprecedented growth for one and stagnation for the other. What will happen? How will hard material and process limitations affect the development of these? Will something exotic like artifical diamond-based ICs disrupt the market? An exciting time is in store for the sector, no doubt.

    --
    Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
    1. Re:The math by McNihil · · Score: 1

      Or what he is actually saying is that they (nVidia) will have more than 9 generations (~9.15) within 6 years... 1.5 generations/year... which I believe is fairly doable and actually slightly slower than the 6 month release cycle we have been accustomed to since 1998.

      In other words "business as usual"

    2. Re:The math by BikeHelmet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So in six years, Gordon Moore says we should have 32x the performance we have now.

      No - 32x the transistors.

      You fail to predict how using those transistors in a more optimized way(more suitable to modern rendering algorithms) will affect performance.

      Just think about it - a plain old FPU and SSE4 might use the same number of transistors, but when the code needs to do a lot of fancy stuff at once, one is definitely faster.

      (inaccurate example, but you get the idea)

    3. Re:The math by JJJK · · Score: 1

      You're right, nothing about performance in that law. But with GPUs, things are a bit different... if you can squeeze twice as many shader units onto the die, you'll probably get almost twice the performance if you stick to the special class of "GPU-compatible" programs (those that need massive parallelism with little synchronization etc).

      Though I would have expected the GPU people to use some of those extra transistors to implement double precision and generally make the GPU cores look more like CPU cores (more pipelining, branch prediction) to make them better suited for more complex problems like raytracing.

    4. Re:The math by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No - 32x the transistors. at the same cost, in the same space.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  16. GPUs need more RAM for us by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I do high-performance lattice QCD calculations as a grad student. At the moment I'm running code on 2048 Opteron cores, which is about typical for us -- I think the big jobs use 4096 sometimes. We soak up a *lot* of CPU time on some large machines -- hundreds of millions of core-hours -- so making this stuff run faster is something People Care About.

    This sort of problem is very well suited to being put on GPU's, since the simulations are done on a four-dimensional lattice (say 40x40x40x96 -- for technical reasons the time direction is elongated) and since "do this to the whole lattice" is something that can be parallelized easily. The trouble is that the GPU's don't have enough RAM to fit everything into memory (which is understandable, they're huge) and communications between multiple GPU's are slow (since we have to go GPU -> PCI Express -> Infiniband).

    If Nvidia were to make GPU's with extra RAM (could you stuff 16GB on a card?) or a way to connect them to each other by some faster method, they'd make a lot of scientists happy.

    1. Re:GPUs need more RAM for us by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you know my brother? He has been doing a lot of this stuff.

      http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=vandesande+qcd&btnG=Google+Search

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:GPUs need more RAM for us by Chirs · · Score: 1

      Could you grab some motherboards with multiple expansion slots and load them up with dual-gpu boards?

    3. Re:GPUs need more RAM for us by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      If Nvidia were to make GPU's with extra RAM (could you stuff 16GB on a card?) or a way to connect them to each other by some faster method, they'd make a lot of scientists happy.

      Do you really need to ask them to do this for you? I'd think if you are a grad student you might be able to get together with some Electrical Engineering students and rig up something and turn a profit! The only thing you really need to know is how much memory the GPU can address, if you can get a hold of the source for the drivers, etc..

      A video card isn't much more than a GPU with memory soldered on to it...

    4. Re:GPUs need more RAM for us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I do a number of molecular dynamics simulations myself, and while computational science on GPUs has been intriguing, for my purposes, it's been hampered by the lack of double precision. That may not happen, as it's not necessary for actual graphics, but if nVidia wants to market to a big cadre of computational scientists, that's what this community would need.

    5. Re:GPUs need more RAM for us by Entropius · · Score: 1

      That product was actually specifically mentioned in the plenary talk at the 2009 Lattice Gauge Theory conference as the most likely contender for doing QCD on GPU's. It's still got the problem I mentioned, though -- not enough RAM to store everything, and not enough bandwidth to talk to the other units that are storing it.

    6. Re:GPUs need more RAM for us by Entropius · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You can -- that's what people are trying now. The issue is that in order for the GPU's to communicate, they've got to go over the PCI Express bus to the motherboard, and then via whatever interconnect you use from one motherboard to another.

      I don't know all the details, but the people who have studied this say that PCI Express (or, more specifically, the PCI Express to Infiniband connection) is a serious bottleneck.

    7. Re:GPUs need more RAM for us by Entropius · · Score: 1

      That too.

      It turns out single precision is enough for lattice QCD. The step that requires the most CPU time doesn't need to generate an exact result; it only needs to get close. If the result is too far off then you wind up wasting time, but the result will still be valid.

      (This is the Metropolis procedure, if you're familiar with it: the accept/reject step takes care of any computational errors that occur)

    8. Re:GPUs need more RAM for us by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      A bio botanical hair stylist?

    9. Re:GPUs need more RAM for us by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      (oops. forgot qcd bit.)

    10. Re:GPUs need more RAM for us by TeXMaster · · Score: 3, Informative

      You mean like the Tesla?

      No, that won't do. The NVIDIA architecture (which is shared between Tesla and graphic cards) is 32-bit, meaning that it can only flat-address 4GB of RAM tops. The more sophisticated Tesla solutions are essentially built from clusters of Tesla cards, each with its own 4GB of RAM tops. Separate memory spaces means expensive memory transfers to share data between the cards, which is not an issue if you can get good domain decomposition, but is a BIG issue if you cannot.

      The revolution for HPC on GPUs would be a 64-bit GPU architecture.

      Proper support for doubles and possibly even long doubles would be a plus, for applications that need it.

      --
      "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
    11. Re:GPUs need more RAM for us by NP-Incomplete · · Score: 1

      Sound like you could use one of these http://www.dinigroup.com/index.php?product=DNBFC_S12_PCIe

    12. Re:GPUs need more RAM for us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Have you considered breaking the workload up into single time-slices? In other words, the first batch is all lattice points of the form (x,y,z,0), the second is (x,y,z,1), etc. I may be misremembering what little I know about lattice QCD -- I worked on an MPI lattice QCD simulation briefly as a grad student about a million years ago -- but I believe in doing so you can effectively "double buffer" it. In short, you allocate two time-slices worth of memory on the GPU, and alternate which one is the active time-slice and which one is the previous time-slice. And since GPUHost memory transactions can be done asynchronously, you can hide them with the kernel execution time.

      Apologies if this seems too obvious - but I've been working with CUDA practically since day one and I've seen quite a few people make the mistake of assuming that a 3D problem should be broken into 3D, rather than 2D, sub-problems.

    13. Re:GPUs need more RAM for us by Elbows · · Score: 1

      The newest Nvidia cards (compute capability 1.3) have double support. Memory is still a problem, though. The cards have a 32-bit address space with no paging/virtual memory, so I don't think they can go over 4GB, and in practice they aren't even up to that limit yet.

      They are very fast if you can deal with the limitations, though. At my company we're seeing 2-3x speedup on various image processing tasks with a modest amount of optimization. And that's compared to highly-tuned code running on quad-core CPUs.

    14. Re:GPUs need more RAM for us by tiks · · Score: 1

      if you are memory bandwidth limited or do too much of interleaved parallel & serial processing then you might find these folks ( http://www.drccomputer.com/ ) interesting. they do a opteron socket based co-processor. In many applications i have seen being able to model the right type of operation while hiding access latency works out best. Now only if somebody will does the same co-processor with nvidia gpus that would be superb.

      --
      We are always correct.. even when we realize we were wrong.
    15. Re:GPUs need more RAM for us by Pulzar · · Score: 1

      I have a couple of questions... First, if your task is easily parallelized, then why do you need the full data stored on every card? Can't each GPU handle a piece of the full computation using a piece of the lattice?

      Second, a 16x PCIe gen 2 slot is not much slower than the top-speed infiniband connection (8 vs 12GB/s) that you're using to interconnect your CPUs, so I can't see why PCIe would be such a bottleneck. Are you sure that that's the problem? Are you using a chipset that supports full 16x GPU slots?

      Finally, is each calculation in this process so simple that an 8GB/s stream of data can't fully saturate a GPU? Isn't there more computation that can be done per one "chunk" of data?

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    16. Re:GPUs need more RAM for us by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      GPUs are also both cache bandwidth and device memory bandwith limited. If you're working on a problem where your computational complexity is very high compared to your memory bandwidth requirements, then that doesn't matter. Otherwise, your performance will be more similar to an Intel multi-core CPU. Also, scientific problems that don't have high memory bandwidth requirements often require better than 32 bits of numerical precision, which is impractical on current GPUs.

    17. Re:GPUs need more RAM for us by Chirs · · Score: 1

      I was actually thinking about loading up as many video cards as possible on one motherboard, avoiding the inter-motherboard connection. There are motherboards with four slots that physically take x16 cards, though most of them don't give full bandwidth to all four slots.

    18. Re:GPUs need more RAM for us by Tolkien · · Score: 1

      They already have (see also here). Also, check out OpenCL. OpenCL is the future, we've begun testing/working with it at my office for calculation engine. It's still in its' infancy, but it can only get better!

      --
      how is babby formed?
  17. Re:haha yeah right by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Informative

    The IEEE figures that semiconductor tech will be at the 11nm level around 2022. Intel and Nvidia both claim that they'll be significantly further along the path than the IEEE's roadmap. Maybe they're right, and I hope they are, but there are some very significant problems that appear as the process shrinks to that level.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  18. Re:haha yeah right by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

    Undoubtedly, however this is too early to call, for all we know they might just make it.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  19. Re:Arbitrary number? by Twinbee · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering how you came up with 565 and 593x instead of say 564.8 or 593.82745109200174822x

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  20. The big question is. by Dyinobal · · Score: 3, Funny

    Will I need a separate power supply or two to run these new video cards? or will they include their own fission reactors?

  21. Re:haha yeah right by PIBM · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Stupid I know, but I would have had more confidence in a 500x increase, just because there's less significant digits and a wider error margin.

  22. Take it from the guy selling the GPU...... by Carbaholic · · Score: 1

    that CPUs will only improve by a factor of 3.

  23. 570x is not that far by gravos · · Score: 2, Funny

    Keep in mind that is only ~3x per year because 3^6 = 729. If Moore's law holds with a 2x every 18 months that would be 16x in 6 years 570/16 = 35.652. The sixth root of 35 is 1.8. So they only have to improve the architecture by ~2x every year and ride Moore's law.

    --
    This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
    1. Re:570x is not that far by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Nice repost (it's a comment FTFA)

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:570x is not that far by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      You mean increase an additional 100% (2x) every year on top of the normal 100% (2x) every 18 months. Quite frankly, almost every time I read interviews with Jen-Hsun Huang it sounds like he is talking completely out of his ass.

    3. Re:570x is not that far by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Almost any time I hear mention of Moore's Law, the speaker is engaging in posterior communications...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  24. Re:haha yeah right by vertinox · · Score: 1

    Intel said 4 nm for 2022, that's in 13 years. What precisely allows you to doubt that claims, except maybe the fact that deadlines are often missed? Let me rephrase that, what allows you to think that it'll be reached much later than anything else?

    I'm dunno. Most CEOs don't make claims unless their business plan includes said claims else they look like a fool at the next shareholder meeting. That doesn't stop them from making claims that don't come through.

    Remember Steve Jobs saying they would break the 3.0ghz with the IBM by the next WWDC... And then they didn't... Coincidentally they dropped IBM shortly after and went with Intel.

    Anyways... Intel seriously uses Moore's Law as their road map so its a self predicting prophecy.

    Also, queue a dozen+ posts explaining to the armchair pundits how 560x is possible.

    Simple. Move the goal posts.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  25. Think about that for a minute... by dbet · · Score: 1

    I currently run many shooter games at around 60-80 FPS at 1280x1024, and my GPU is hardly at the top end. So in 6 years, I can run a 12,800x10,240 resolution screen (if such a thing exists) at over 300 FPS. Um, sure.

  26. Re:haha yeah right by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and Intel's kind of new in the field so I doubt they know what they're talking about.

  27. Nvidia's Boss: Kill Your Company a Bit Every Day by Louis+Savain · · Score: 1

    In other news, Nvidia's Boss: Kill Your Company a Bit Every Day

  28. Re:haha yeah right by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    Anyways... Intel seriously uses Moore's Law as their road map so its a self predicting prophecy.

    No, they don't. It's descriptive, not something that ties your hands or, conversely, guarantees anything.

  29. Brilliant sales pitch by Minwee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Did I mention that our next model is going to be SO amazing that you'll think that our current product is crap? The new model will make EVERYTHING obsolete and the entire world will need to upgrade to it when it comes out. People won't even be able to give away any older products. Sooooo... how many of this year's model will you be buying today?

    "Hello? Are you still there?

    "Hello?"

    1. Re:Brilliant sales pitch by Zen-Mind · · Score: 1

      "Did I mention that our next model is going to be SO amazing that you'll think that our current product is crap?

      Hey, I have good faith in NVidia, they already fulfilled half of that promise ... I think their current product is crap.

  30. Thanks a lot by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    My netbook tried to load that image and broke down in tears.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  31. Nope! by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Then we can use our GPUs as our CPUs!

    No No. GPU's only become CPU's when they are 570.34567 times faster. You will note that he precisely said only 570 times faster. That is he did not say an even 600 or 1000 or 500, but precisely 570, so we can assume he knew it was not 570.34567.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  32. Re:Arbitrary number? by gmermnstinsmermwords · · Score: 1

    the perfect amount of coffee and donuts keeps an angineers laught pass out point at just ||...

  33. % VS Times by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm sure this is just another case of some moron seeing 570% increase and going, WoW! my next GPU will be 570 TIMES faster!!

    For the rest of us of course 570% increase is 5.7X faster.

    So, CPUs increasing 3X in the next 6 years and GPUs increasing 5.7X I can maybe believe.

    1. Re:% VS Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      So a 100% increase would be 1.0X faster?

    2. Re:% VS Times by glwtta · · Score: 5, Informative

      For the rest of us of course 570% increase is 5.7X faster.

      It seems the rest of us don't understand what a "percent increase" means, either.

      (hint: 570% increase == 6.7X)

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    3. Re:% VS Times by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 1

      Well, it runs at 5.7X the original speed right?

      So a 1X CD-ROM runs at 100% speed.

      A 2X CD-Rom runs at 200% the speed of an original 1x drive, no?



      A 3X CD-Rom runs at 300% the speed of an original 1x drive, no?

      So 5.7X CD-Rom drive runs at 570% the speed of the original drive.


      So, again my point is the dumb CEO sees 570% the speed of the current chips and says, WoW! 570 "times" faster. Wrong it will run at 570% the originalor 5.7 times faster.

      Where is my math wrong?

    4. Re:% VS Times by WaZiX · · Score: 1

      Well, it runs at 5.7X the original speed right?

      So 5.7X CD-Rom drive runs at 570% the speed of the original drive.
        Where is my math wrong?

      Indeed, 50% of the original performance means that performance was multiplied by 5.7. But it's a 470% increase....

      In your original post you spoke of a 570% increase, which would give a multiplier of 6.7.

      To make it a bit clearer, in your first post, had you used a 5% increase... you would have DIVIDED performance by 20 using your method!

      Get it?

    5. Re:% VS Times by Wildclaw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Where is my math wrong?

      This isn't about math (well maybe a little) as much as it is about wording. Basically, the difference between "as fast/increasing/the speed" and "faster/increase". The first is a multiplicative action, while the second is an additive. So if you say, 100% as fast, you are basically saying a * 100% = a. While if you are saying 100% faster you are saying a + a*100% = 2*a. Now looking at the posts. You started by this assertion.

      seeing 570% increase and going

      OK. A 570% Increase. That would be a+a*570% = 6.7*a.

      570% increase is 5.7X faster.

      increase/faster. Good.

      GPUs increasing 5.7X

      Ouch. Here is the mistake. Using increasing. Suddenly you have downgraded the new anticipated speed from 6.7*a to a*5.7=5.7*a.

      Now, in your second post you used the multiplicative action straight through. But that is pretty much the opposite of the first post that used the additive action except for a single time at the end.

      Also, as a general advice, use X (times) only to represent a multiplicative action. That is what the general meaning of the word is, so it can be confusing when you here it describing an additive action. Not really wrong, but confusing.

  34. about 2.88x better each year for 6 years by ZiggyM · · Score: 1

    is another way to say it.

  35. Bitchin' fast! 3D by Mursk · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hope it looks like this:

    http://www.russdraper.com/images/fullsize/bitchin_fast_3d.jpg

    --
    "This thing does science so hard, you say, 'I've never seen that much science.'" -Sam
    1. Re:Bitchin' fast! 3D by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Nice.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Bitchin' fast! 3D by jamesshuang · · Score: 1

      I am VERY entertained by how they used 256mb of ram as a "ridiculous" amount.... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814187054 hehehe

  36. 285 Trillion floating point operations per second? by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 1

    Current Nvidia GPUs have 500 gigaflops of performance in single precision. 20 teraflops would be 40 times faster. 570 times faster in 2016 would be 285 teraflops.

  37. They are shitting bricks by Latinhypercube · · Score: 1

    They are shitting bricks because fast multicore (8 core) cpu's are around the corner. We are all going the multi-cpu route. Hence we have an extra cpu or two to do gpu calculations. So Nvidia needs to reassure everyone the gpu's are the way forward. Not multi -purpose multi-core cpu's.

    1. Re:They are shitting bricks by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      And wasn't it only two years ago the NVIDIA repeatedly stated that RTRT was stupid?

      ..and then a year ago that they began saying that they could do it just as well as Intel?

      Don't get me wrong. I love nVidia cards. I just don't believe anything they say.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  38. Re:Arbitrary number? by Poorcku · · Score: 1

    This is just about the funniest thing I've read in a month. the last sentence is gold. thx.

    --
    I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
  39. Comparison by Lord+Lode · · Score: 1

    Yeah, they also always say that batteries are 10 times better. But can I use my phone 50 days instead of 5 days without recharging? No, it's always the same amount of days as 10 years ago.

    1. Re:Comparison by geekoid · · Score: 1

      because they are a lit smaller. Use the current batterys and make them the size of batteries 15 years ago and you will get 50 days...hell, probably 5 months.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  40. Re:Arbitrary number? by Zen-Mind · · Score: 2, Funny

    Everybody knows that 73% of people will believe anything you say when you state numbers in your claims and it rises to 91.7% when you add decimals... :P

  41. Overestimating the short-term... by marciot · · Score: 1

    Someone once said that tech visionaries often overestimate what can be accomplished in the short-term, but underestimate what can be accomplished in the long-term, I believe this is what will happen here. Not in five years, but in ten years to twenty years, we might see improvements exceeding this estimate.

    1. Re:Overestimating the short-term... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "tech visionaries" and "futurists" are just people that don't really do anything, but want the attention anyways. Usually accredited to someone who did something kind of neat 20 years past.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  42. Re:haha yeah right by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

    Agreed with the other poster, you're wrong, they've been actively pursuing the goal of fulfilling the prophecy. They make it a primary goal to increase the number of transistors by all means. If it wasn't for the law they wouldn't have done things like they have. The law itself won't fulfil itself that simply, you need to throw billions at it to keep up.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  43. I can finally run DNF! by galanom · · Score: 1

    I can finally run DNF!

  44. Re:haha yeah right by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not shorting Intel's capabilities, but the IEEE has some solid people in it, too -- many of whom work at Intel -- and they're very capable of recognizing the potential problems with process shrinks. The issues that come about at the sizes they're discussing involve quantum tunneling effects that would (as I understand it) interfere in accurate computing. There is also doubt that transistors can be made to work at all at sizes below 16nm because the mechanisms that might deal with quantum tunneling may bring about other deleterious effects that may be even more difficult to solve.

    I'm not saying that it's impossible, or that Intel is too optimistic. They know a lot more about it than I do. But these kinds of things do slip, and it's hard to predict advances of this sort so many years down the road.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  45. GPU Designer by dunc78 · · Score: 1

    Look, the GP has probably been designing GPUs for at least 7 minutes. Why would you not think he has all the bases covered?

  46. Easy to compare to CPU's by cbreaker · · Score: 1

    Once the GPU can do general purpose computing (read: Everything) then we can talk about a paltry 3x improvement. The GPU is a specialized processor and therefore can do that one thing very efficiently.

    They could make cars extremely fuel efficient if they they only didn't have to turn, accelerate and brake, and carry passengers. But they do, and the CPU also has to be able to process all kinds of math.

    Just like how some Oil exec last year said we'd see $1 gas at the pump this year, we don't see a nearly six hundred fold increase in GPU peformance in the next six.

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  47. Re:haha yeah right by fractoid · · Score: 1

    Intel said 4 nm for 2022, that's in 13 years. What precisely allows you to doubt that claims, except maybe the fact that deadlines are often missed? Let me rephrase that, what allows you to think that it'll be reached much later than anything else?

    Don't you start getting funky quantum effects happening around that size? Not saying it's not possible to build a CPU, but I thought there was a lot of talk about CPUs basically stagnating in clock speed and component density due to quantum tunneling or somesuch. The reason GPUs are outstripping CPUs these days is that everything they do is inherently massively, massively parallelizable. I think in the future, (and this is a fairly safe bet because it's already happening) computers will have the CPU basically as a coordinator and the grunt work will be done by massively parallel programmable vector processing units.

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  48. Mod that one up. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Desktop CPUs are now "fast enough" for most people (and have been for a few years now). The main bottleneck in desktops is normally lack of RAM (caused by all the crap people install) and hard disks.

    The interesting PC developments in the next few years will be SSDs and low-consumption CPUs.

    Most people don't want mega-GPUs either - remember that Intel has more GPU market share than ATI and NVIDIA combined.

    --
    No sig today...
  49. Re:Sick by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    How can a graphics card be ill?

    --
    No sig today...
  50. Re:Arbitrary number? by fractoid · · Score: 1

    I want to buy your ??underpants??

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  51. Re:haha yeah right by w0mprat · · Score: 1

    I can't think how many press releases i've seen about advancements paving the way towards single-molecule switches. Is there really any grounds for anyone doubting moores law just not stopping for at least the next 15 years?

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  52. nVidia already provide for HPC by gnuman99 · · Score: 1

    Look at nVidia's website. They already provide HPC solutions,

    http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla_computing_solutions.html
    http://www.nvidia.com/object/preconfigured_clusters.html

    http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_tesla_s1070_us.html


    # of Tesla GPUs 4
    # of Streaming Processor Cores 960 (240 per processor)
    Frequency of processor cores 1.296 to 1.44 GHz
    Single Precision floating point performance (peak) 3.73 to 4.14 TFlops
    Double Precision floating point performance (peak) 311 to 345 GFlops
    Floating Point Precision IEEE 754 single & double
    Total Dedicated Memory 16 GB
    Memory Interface 512-bit
    Memory Bandwidth 408 GB/sec
    Max Power Consumption 800 W
    System Interface PCIe x16 or x8
    Software Development Tools C-based CUDA Toolkit

    Maybe point your quantum mechanics simulations people to HPC specific nVidia solutions, not commodity hardware not designed for HPC (ie. no RAM, limited cores, etc.)

  53. My question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    how much will my electric bill go up?

    A GeForce GTX 260 that I just recently bought requires bare minimum of 650w power supply. With all the talk about going green lately, I'm wondering when or if we'll hit a ceiling for energy consumption in the home computing market.

    1. Re:My question is... by DMalic · · Score: 1

      looks like it has a 236 watt TDP. so it needs a very hefty PSU, but nowhere near 650 watt, even with a fast quadcore.

  54. Re:Arbitrary number? by dkf · · Score: 1

    CPU-Alone: 1.2^6 = 3X
    CPU+GPU: 50 * 1.????underpants??? = 570X

    At a guess, it's this:
    50 * 1.5^6

    Looks to me like the actual numbers aren't exactly short on underpants. Why the arbitrary x50 fudge factor? Why do they believe they'll get 50% better each year? (Why do they believe that everyone will have power supplies to support such heinous monsters?)

    --
    "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  55. Re:haha yeah right by svirre · · Score: 1

    We are already seeing unreliability issues appearing. As trasistors get down to sizes so small they actually only hold a handful of electrons on their gate this problem will magnify significantly. This does not however mean these device can't be used, just that you have to compensate.

    We are allready now seeing self correcting or error tolerant circuits that either do their calculations with some redundancy and correct, or detect errors and replay the calculation.

  56. NVidia is panicking in the face of Larrabee! by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    The coming Larrabee extensions to the X64-86 architecture will cream nvidia and they are frightened of this so they are panicking with silly predictions soothsaying the future bright for GPUs while pretending to portent a bleak future for CPUs.

    I'll take a Larrabee style CPU capable Predicate+SIMD+4Tread Multicore processor over NVidia or ATI any day BECAUSE it is a general purpose cpu with TONS of software that can work on it already. Basically Larrabee is an open spec architecture extension while NVidia keeps it's assembly language secret. Give me access so my code can run free! Thanks Intel! Now share Larrabee with AMD please! Oh, and bring the Larrabee instruction enhancements to ALL Intel and AMD CPUs please! Thanks again.

  57. Re:haha yeah right by exploder · · Score: 1

    Are you suggesting there are other, better, possibly cheaper ways to exponentially increase processing power over time, and that Intel has chosen to stick with increasing the transistor number solely to avoid falling under Moore's curve?

    That sounds stupid. So I'm probably misunderstanding what you're saying.

    --
    Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
  58. Re:haha yeah right by HiThere · · Score: 1

    I have a feeling that there are people at Intell and Nvidia that know more about those problems than the IEEE prognosticators. This doesn't mean they won't hit unexpected roadblocks, of course.

    OTOH, when a company makes a public announcement, one must always wonder whether the tech people even had any input into what marketing wanted to say.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  59. Re:haha yeah right by HiThere · · Score: 1

    He didn't say that there were other, better methods. He said they used the law to set their goals...and they spent lots of extra money to meet their goals on target.

    It does sound silly. Also bureaucratic. Also like an ad campaign. So it's probably true.

    N.B.: How much worse off would Intel have been if it had increased it's speed at half the pace? It's hard to be sure. They might not be ANY worse off. They'd have more competition from AMD, though, and IBM might not have decided to drop out of the race, so they might be significantly worse off. But they would have saved a LOT of money. So they might be better off.

    Just consider. By pushing the pace now they may keep China from expanding their fab plants. They might keep Japan in specialized markets. That could be worth more than the cost of an extra generation of fab plants.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  60. Re:haha yeah right by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    Intel is usually fairly optimistic about long term predictions. They bet on EUV being available early and isn't for example.

  61. Re:haha yeah right by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    You guys are...special. Intel spends all that money because it reduces the cost, to them, of producing chips. AMD is reasonably close to Intel, are they spending all that money too? If Intel slacked off their pace AMD would pull even or ahead like they did in the P4 days.

    Intel moves as fast as they can based on business decisions about the cost/benefit of spending money on R&D and fabs. Not based on Moore's "law".

    If Intel could move faster and it would make them more money, they would speed ahead of Moore's. If they determined they didn't need to, they would fall behind it.

    More importantly, Moore's law isn't accurate for shit. Do the math. It's a good high level description and if you pick specific periods of time. It has also been changed to suit people's needs...12 months, 24 months, 18 months. It's a load of shit as anything other than a very rough estimate.

  62. Re: Not using free drivers, are you? by xiando · · Score: 1

    Yes, NVIDiAs propietary nvidia driver really is better than ATIs propietary fglrx driver - which sucks. However, it must be mentioned that both the free xorg radeon and radeonhd drivers perform better than ATIs propietary driver in 2D (while the 3D support is poor) and that the obfuscated xorg nv driver for nvidia is redicilous. If you are using GNU/Linux and you are fine with propietary drivers the nvidia is probably the best choice. Intel and ATI are way better choices if you are not.

    --
    9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
  63. What he actually means... by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 1

    What he actually means is that your 570 dollar graphics card will be worth 1 dollar. That's a 570x better performance/price ratio!

  64. 2003 CPU/Graphics Card list from pricewatch.com by DotDotSlasher · · Score: 1

    From the historical-perspective dept.
    I keep track of CPU and graphics card prices from pricewatch.com, for no-good-reason.
    slashdot does not like my long lists (too few characters per line) so here are the abbreviated lists which keep the most expensive options.
    Here are my scrapes from ~6 years ago:

    Sep 16, 2003 List of Graphics Cards
    $384 - Fire GL Z1 128mb
    $696 - Fire GL X1 256mb
    $529 - Fire GL X1 128mb
    $469 RADEON 9800 Pro Ultimate
    $373 - RADEON 9800 Pro Ultimate 128
    $417 - RADEON 9800 Pro 256MB
    $294 - RADEON 9800 Pro 128MB
    $368 - RADEON 9800 All-In-Wonder Pro
    $192 - RADEON 9800 128MB
    $299 - RADEON 9700 Pro Ultimate
    $266 - RADEON 9700 Pro
    $389 - GeForce FX 5900 256MB
    $235 - GeForce FX 5900 128MB
    $251 - GeForce FX 5800 128MB


    6/16/2003 List of CPUs:
    $467 - Xeon 2.8GHz 533FSB
    $315 - Xeon 2.66GHz 533FSB
    $235 - Xeon 2.4GHz 533FSB
    $236 - Xeon 2.0GHz 533FSB
    $839 - Opteron 244
    $708 - Opteron 242
    $280 - Opteron 240
    $451 - Athlon XP 3200
    $440 - Athlon XP 3200 400
    $249 - Athlon XP 3000
    $294 - Athlon XP 3000 400
    $282 - Athlon MP 2800
    $205 - Athlon MP 2600
    $158 - Athlon MP 2400
    $127 - Athlon MP 2200
    $199 - Athlon MP 2100
    $122 - Athlon MP 2000
    $147 - Athlon MP 1900
    $149 - Athlon MP 1800
    $115 - Athlon MP 1600
    $108 - Athlon MP 1500

  65. This has all happened before... by hazydave · · Score: 1

    When DEC unveiled the first Alpha CPUs, way back when, they called for a 1000x increase over their projected 25 year life cycle. 10x of this was coming from architectural improvements, 10x from clock speed improvements, and 10x from parallelism. The cycle's much shorter these days, also shorter with today's GPUs vs. CPUs, so I don't see the problem. Plus, there are quite a few advantages to being a GPU, far as benchmarking and software goes -- they aren't subject to the same kind of legacy issues that CPUs are.

    A couple of years ago, you got around 128 stream processors on a high-end card -- the top of the line stuff today has what, 800 (Radeon 48xx series). This trend show no end it sight... and they might actually be getting more useful, as chips are designed with numbers of stream processors in tight clusters, and at the same time they're getting more general purpose. So much work is done internally on these types of operations, memory bandwidth may need only grow by 10% to match a 100% increase in overall performance.

    In a way, it's kind of a cheat, though, compared to CPU performance. GPUs are complex enough, and right now still fairly specific purpose, the only benchmarks you get are actual graphics benchmarks, and some estimate of peak performance. So that's your 570x factor here: it's based on a peak measure of everything going as well as can be expected. In real life, that may not be something you get to see often, if ever.

    Also, GPU performance is and will for some time be measured by things the GPUs do well. If the GPU doesn't help, you use the CPU(s) in the system. This seems normal, but what it really means is that GPU performance well largely only be judged by what GPUs do well.. they don't get bad marks for code that's not designed to run on 2400 processors simultaneously. CPUs, on the other hand, will be judged as part of that default expectation... if that great new Athium Coreathon x16 only speeds up Photoshop by a factor of three, that's what people will care about ... not whether it's really peaking at several times that level. CPUs will still have to run non or poorly threaded code, and only get the credit in the public mind for where regular things get faster.

    With that said, it's also the case that the CPU companies have been at it longer, and have had access to state-of-the-art chip process for much longer, too. Because of this, CPUs are a more mature technology than GPUs, so one naturally expects their growth to be slower. It's fairly recent than GPU companies have had access to the same kind of process magic that folks like Intel and IBM have had for decades.

    --
    -Dave Haynie
  66. Re: Not using free drivers, are you? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Yeah I really dont care that my drivers are just binary blobs. I have no desire to mess with my graphics driver anyway.

  67. Re:haha yeah right by renoX · · Score: 1

    >What precisely allows you to doubt that claims, except maybe the fact that deadlines are often missed?

    I remember seing Intel's roadmap with P4 at frequency which were never produced..