• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How will GPUs perform post-14 nm?

M

Mondozei

Golden Member
So if I am using Nvidia's roadmap as an example, this year we'll get 20 nm Maxwell unless something drastic happens. Then we'll get refresh next year and 14 nm Volta in 2016. Considering that 10 nm and further are at this point no longer on Moore's law, which we are already seeing on CPUs, how will GPUs perform beyond 2016?

Can we still count on ~30% performance increases per year as we've been spoiled for several years now or are we going to see ~10% increases like we've seen for CPUs?
 
Mondozei said:
So if I am using Nvidia's roadmap as an example, this year we'll get 20 nm Maxwell unless something drastic happens. Then we'll get refresh next year and 14 nm Volta in 2016. Considering that 10 nm and further are at this point no longer on Moore's law, which we are already seeing on CPUs, how will GPUs perform beyond 2016?

Can we still count on ~30% performance increases per year as we've been spoiled for several years now or are we going to see ~10% increases like we've seen for CPUs?
Click to expand...

First I would not count on 16nm by 2016 , If we are lucky your only getting 20nm by 2015 area and each time going smaller it gets harder, costly .

Since GPU is mostly parallel processing the core count can go up with similar die size and slightly better voltages (hopefully) . So for sure once things get to point they can't go smaller it is going to be harder to increase core count w/o increasing die to a point of thermal limits and power limit .

I think its way to early to try and speculate as to performance .
 
We are still to see 20nm GPUs. Then we get 20nm with finfets called 16nm later on. Then after that we may see a real 16nm. But that may be in 2018 or so.

In terms of scaling. GPUs scale fine with a process shrink due to the way they work. However as the process nodes from the foundries are more and more low power focused. It may be more performance/watt related, rather than pure performance. So wait and see.

Moores law work fine for CPUs. Remember, Moores law is not about performance.
 
Hopefully they will all benefit nicely from unified address space, what with being integrated into the CPU. 😉
 
Precisely between 0 and 5000% better. I'm sure by now you see there are no accurate ways of doing anything more than guessing.
 
wand3r3r said:
Precisely between 0 and 5000% better. I'm sure by now you see there are no accurate ways of doing anything more than guessing.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that it won't exceed 20x the performance of upcoming R9 295X2 for a single GPU & even if it does it'd be only marginally higher than 20x, if at all, unless of course something like HSA takes off :awe:
 
GPUs are redonkulously parallel in nature. With CPUs we've hit a wall because we're kind of stuck at a certain clock rate (ie ~5GHz) and its not easy to just increase IPC. The one thing we could be doing is cranking out a ton of more cores, but that's not exactly practical either as its difficult to leverage the extra cores in the many every day tasks that aren't inherently parallel like with what GPUs do.

So yeah, with GPUs we can expect performance scaling like we've been used to for a while longer now because we can just keep adding more "cores" as well as clock rate, as we've certainly not come close to any sort of clock rate wall for GPUs.
 
bunnyfubbles said:
GPUs are redonkulously parallel in nature. With CPUs we've hit a wall because we're kind of stuck at a certain clock rate (ie ~5GHz) and its not easy to just increase IPC. The one thing we could be doing is cranking out a ton of more cores, but that's not exactly practical either as its difficult to leverage the extra cores in the many every day tasks that aren't inherently parallel like with what GPUs do.

So yeah, with GPUs we can expect performance scaling like we've been used to for a while longer now because we can just keep adding more "cores" as well as clock rate, as we've certainly not come close to any sort of clock rate wall for GPUs.
Click to expand...

Thanks for a great comment, even if we don't know for certain we can make some educated guesses and set up a framework for thinking about the issue, like you have done, compared to some people in this thread who have little knowledge and post troll replies.


ShintaiDK said:
We are still to see 20nm GPUs. Then we get 20nm with finfets called 16nm later on. Then after that we may see a real 16nm.
Click to expand...

Could you expand on that?
 
I think Nvidia & AMD will kind of slow down with die processes, I won't be surprised if Nvidia's Volta & AMD's equivalent will be on 16nm FF but use efficiency improvements and stacked DRAM to increase performance per watt as the "next generation jump". We'll probably go from TSMC 16nm FF > TSMC 10nm for the next architectural leap after Nvidia's Volta & AMD's equivalent as it'll be more cost-efficient to do so by say 2018.
 
Stuka87 said:
So you are saying there is no possible way they will be slower? Hmm...
Click to expand...


Way to be ridiculously pedantic.

Ok...

The slowest new part will be slower than the fastest old part. That should satisfy your comment.

The speed will be the speed. The performance will be the performance. Its percentage improvement (or decline) will be whatever it ends up being, which is all speculative at best until it's not vaporware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top