• JuanElMineroB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Am I reading those Cuda core projections right?

    GA102 to AD102 increased by about 80%, but the jump from Ad102 to GB202 is only slightly above 30%, aside from no large gains going to 3nm?

    Might not turn out that impressive after all.

    • ResponsibleJudge3172B
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Its expected to be like Ampere, Ampere was 17% increase in SMs (rtx 3090ti vs rtx Titan) but the SM itself was improved such that they yielded about 33% improvement per SM in ‘raster’ and massive improvements in occupency for RT workloads. So 3090ti ended up 46% faster in ‘raster’ vs rtx Titan.

      The TPC and GPC of Blackwell are rumored to be overhauled with a more hesitant rumor about the SM also being improved.

    • capn_hectorB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      GA102 to AD102 increased by about 80%, but the jump from Ad102 to GB202 is only slightly above 30%,

      Maybe GB202 is not the top chip, and the top chip is named GB200.

      I mean, you’d expect this die to be called GB102 based on the recent numbering scheme, right? Why jump to 202 right out of the gate? They haven’t done that in the past, AD100 is the compute die and AD102, 103, 104… are the gaming dies. In fact this has been extremely consistent all the way back to Pascal, even when there is a compute uarch variant that is different (and, GP100 is quite different from GP102 etc) it’s still called the 100.

      But if there is another die above it, you’d call it GB100 (like Maxwell GM200, or Fermi GF100). Which is obviously already taken, GB100 is the compute die. So you bump the whole numbering series to 200, meaning the top gaming die is GB200.

      There is also precedent for calling the biggest gaming die the x110, like GK110 or the Fermi GF110 (in the 500 series). But they haven’t done that in a long time, since Kepler. Probably because it ruins the “bigger number = smaller die” rule of thumb.

      Of course it’s possible the 512b rumor was bullshit, or this one is bullshit. But it’s certainly an odd flavor of bullshit - if you were making something up, wouldn’t you make up something that made sense? Odd details like that potentially lend it credibility, because you’d call it GB102 if you were making it up. It will also be easy to corroborate across future rumors, if nobody ever mentions GB200-series chips again, then this was probably just bullshit, and vice versa. Just like Angstronomics and the RDNA3 leak, once he’d nailed the first product the N32/N33 information was highly credible.