NVIDIA TU116 GPU Pictured Up Close: Noticeably Smaller than TU106

[ezodagrom]

It is off topic but was wondering will Nvdia follow up a Gtx 1050Ti successor with same 75w power usage ?

No idea about power usage, but there are rumors about a $180 GTX 1650 for late March and a price cut for the 1050 Ti.
https://www.hardocp.com/news/2019/01/23/nvidia_1660_ti_will_launch_on_february_15_at_279/
Though, this rumor was wrong about the February 15th date for the 1660 Ti (it's apparently coming out on the 22nd instead).

Not if they price it too high as everything below high end for nvidia.
If priced the same RX590 beating commence, power effeciency isn't That important, it's not 20$ worth for people.
But nvidia sells anyways

RX 590 is something like 10% better than the RX 580, performance wise I can see the non-TI GTX 1660 being competitive with the RX 590, while the 1660 Ti is likely to be considerably better (likely to be GTX 980 Ti/GTX 1070 tier).

 

[sam_86314]

You are right, we don't. 2048 is unlikely though - GP104 has 2560 and Turing CUDA cores are far larger than Pascal's.
When trying to do high-level theorycrafting on SM sizes it seems that Volta SM is ~47% larger than Pascal's. Turing's SM is ~9% bigger than Volta's and ~60% bigger than Pascal.

Looks like Turing SM’s are smaller than Pascal. Pascal has 128 shaders per SM while Turing has 64.

 

[londiste]

Looks like Turing SM’s are smaller than Pascal. Pascal has 128 shaders per SM while Turing has 64.

Oh, sorry. I meant at the same CUDA core count. Pascal SM has 64, Turing SM has 32.
Two Turing SMs with the same CUDA core count as one Pascal SM is ~60% bigger than Pascal.

 

[efikkan]

I wonder when Nvidia will phase out the term "cores" for GPUs. It used to refer to the combined FPU/ALU units, but in Turing these are now separated, which is one of the reasons why Turing have more performance per "core".

 

[Deleted member 158293]

I can't imagine nvidia wanting to voluntarily compete on price with the 590, maybe same price but probably higher, cause they can.

 

[jabbadap]

Looks like Turing SM’s are smaller than Pascal. Pascal has 128 shaders per SM while Turing has 64.

Well there's one Pascal gpu that have 64 shader SM: GP100 is with same 64 fp32 units per SM as Turing. For what is worth, RT cores are one per SM, the more SMs the more gpu have RT cores, thus Turing till now have had that 64 shaders per SM. Does that mean TU116 have to had 64 fp32 core SM, I would say no it may go back to 128 shader SM structure. Afaik not even tu102, tu104 and tu106 have same structure: tu102 have six 12 SMs GPC, tu106 has three 12 SMs GPC and tu104 has six 8 SMs GPC. Just realized that tu116 will be half of tu104, thus 3*8*64 = 1536 cuda cores, or if it have 128 cc per SM 3*4*128.

Oh, sorry. I meant at the same CUDA core count. Pascal SM has 64, Turing SM has 32.
Two Turing SMs with the same CUDA core count as one Pascal SM is ~60% bigger than Pascal.

Uhm no that is not correct. From pascal family gp100 has 64 cuda cores per SM rest have 128 cudas per SM. All turings now have 64 cudas per SM.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I wonder when Nvidia will phase out the term "cores" for GPUs. It used to refer to the combined FPU/ALU units, but in Turing these are now separated, which is one of the reasons why Turing have more performance per "core".

And they might get sued like AMD for claiming something that special-snowflakes don't agree with..

 

[Ruru]

Hm, I was sure that it's just a TU106 with different name and the RT shaders disabled.

 

[Hardcore Games]

Given the TU1116 is so new, to be fair game engines will need time to be able to leverage it better.

My GTX 1060 is last year's technology but it is not dead yet.

Maybe later this year I will get a new card but I am in no rush.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Hm, I was sure that it's just a TU106 with different name and the RT shaders disabled.

Anandtech has TU116 at 284mm2, making it 40% smaller than TU106. It has the architectural improvements of Turing, but none of the RT hardware.

 

[Ruru]

Anandtech has TU116 at 284mm2, making it 40% smaller than TU106. It has the architectural improvements of Turing, but none of the RT hardware.

I know, that was just my guess when we didn't know much about the card.