NVIDIA Announces Turing-based Quadro RTX 8000, Quadro RTX 6000 and Quadro RTX 5000

[cucker tarlson]

For your information RTX 5000 has 3702 cuda cores wich is 118 more cuda cores than 1080Ti !

No, it's 3072.
His calculations are pure guessing tho, we have no idea how big 2080 is, it may be 500mm2, it may be 400mm2. You can't just cust RTX 8000 by 1/3 and have the size of GeForce 2080 The CUDA cores themselves are revamped and more effiicient so moot point, 980 with 2048 cores and 256-bit bus strolled over 780Ti with 40% more cores and 384-bit bus.

 

[ppn]

Is there one post on TPU where you don't mention how expensive your gpu was, rejzor The last one has it mentioned twice,oh God,he's mad....

If 2080 is really 500mm2 due to tensor and RT cores, we are not getting GT102 on 2080Ti, Titan RTX only. How did you get that 500mm2 number anyway ppn ?

GTX 1080 being 314mm2 and 1080ti - 471mm2. exactly +50%.

so the 256 bit RTX card is very likely 503mm2. Unbeliavable but RTX 2080 will shrink to 256 mm2 on 7nm as 2085 perhaps and remain 256 bit. nvidia will make this transition seamlessly.

For your information RTX 5000 has 3702 cuda cores wich is 118 more cuda cores than 1080Ti !

Yes I saw this typo on their website too.

 

[cucker tarlson]

What ? 503mm2 ? How did you calculate that ? Do we know the size of tensor cores and RT cores ?

 

[T4C Fantasy]

We are primarily talking about RTX 2080 here ( or whatever they name it ) and i believe it's safe to assume that GT/RT 104 is going to be nowhere near 754mm2 hence why those clocks are achievable. This being said yes obviously , Turing Titan and 2080Ti will clock lower if that's what you mean. Just for a reminder we don't know yet if that 754mm2 die is a GT/RT 102 , more likely than not it's an GT/RT 100 .

754 is 102 since the RTX9000 will be 100
Plus they compared 102 to gp102 and not gp100 or gv100

Also they slipped and told the real transistor count og gp102, orinigally 12b now its 11.8 xD

 

[ppn]

remember how TPU thought big RTX was 676mm2. well it is 754, or not 26x26mm but 27,5x27,5, 1,5mm bigger than the PCB footprint below the substrate.

same thing applies for the small RTX that we also have seen the bare PCB of, not 20x20 but 22x22.

 

[cucker tarlson]

754 is 102 since the RTX9000 will be 100
Plus they compared 102 to gp102 and not gp100 or gv100

Also they slipped and told the real transistor count og gp102, orinigally 12b now its 11.8 xD

you sure it was tu102 not tu100? are they really going to produce a 754mm chip and a bigger one ?

 

[RH92]

No, it's 3072.

.
Yes I saw this typo on their website too.

What typo are you talking about ? Nvidia website has RTX 5000 with 3702 cuda cores . I mean unless you guys know better than NVIDIA what's inside their GPU's ......

754 is 102 since the RTX9000 will be 100

Dude 754mm2 is as big as it gets for Turing , it will only go down from there. Do you think they are going to release another bigger chip just for one card ? Yeah makes 0 sense!

 

[nemesis.ie]

Problem with cores is, majority of users only have quad cores at best with 8 total threads thanks to SMT. Which places them to a "not applicable" list. We might see that in 5 years time when around 10-12 cores becomes a standard, but for now, just not enough players have them.

Although that's no different to a few years ago with people only having 1 or two cores. Or indeed new features coming to graphicds cards. There is always a period of time needed to build momentum and user base. The good thing is that we are now seeing more than 4 cores and extra threads appearing at the lower (higher volume) price points.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Divide 3702 by 64/128, I dare you.

 

[efikkan]

All this tech fluff is all nice and fancy, but what new releases of cards really turn me on are the new features available NOW and in ANY game.

As Bug said, the chicken and the egg…
I thought you were paying enough attention to know this problem applies to most new achievements, including new API versions, more CPU cores, etc. The sooner it gets out there, the sooner software will utilize it, but that doesn't mean you have to rush and buy it. I believe that the "launch hardware" of all of the last three Direct3D versions have been "outdated" before we've seen decent games using them, especially the last version which we are still waiting for good games.

Raytracing, at least in some form, is the future of computer graphics. And the sooner it gets out there, the sooner game developers and artists starts using it, and the sooner AMD will also add support. I honestly think it will take at least two more generations before it becomes powerful enough to be useful in a good selection of games.

Yeah, gotta love idiots who salivate over features on new cards that they won't be able to use anyway until they'll buy a new high end card in 2 years time with same feature set that will actually be used. But what do I know after observing the same thing for basically 2 decades year after year...

Like all of those investing in those "future-proof" GCN-based cards, I bet that investment is going to pay off any day now!

 

[Midland Dog]

For your information RTX 5000 has 3702 cuda cores wich is 118 more cuda cores than 1080Ti !

*3072, and as for how did you get 500mm squared is that its a rough approximation based on the gigarays and tensor cores as well as the SMs

 

[RH92]

*3072, and as for how did you get 500mm squared is that its a rough approximation based on the gigarays and tensor cores as well as the SMs

First of all that message was adressed to "ppn" and i never asked how did you get 500mm2 but i guess you got confused juggling between your two accounts . On the side note considering Midland Dog and ppl are both your accounts it's hilarious to see you asking questions to yourself . WTF is wrong with peoples nowadays

Anyway dare to explain where you are pulling 3072 cuda cores from ?

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/design-visualization/quadro-desktop-gpus/
QUADRO RTX 5000 QUICK SPECS CUDA Parallel-Processing Cores3,702NVIDIA Tensor Cores384GPU Memory16 GB GDDR6RT CoresYesGraphics BusPCI Express 3.0 x 16NVLinkYesDisplay ConnectorsDP 1.4 (4), VirtualLink (1)Form Factor4.4" (H) x 10.5" (L) Dual Slot

 

[jabbadap]

First of all that message was adressed to "ppn" and i never asked how did you get 500mm2 but i guess you got confused juggling between your two accounts .

Anyway dare to explain where you are pulling 3072 cuda cores from ?

It can't be 3702, so that is obviously typo on the nvidia site. Nvidia SM have 64 "cores" 4608 can be divided by it(72), 3072 can be divided by it(48) but 3702 can't be divided by it(57.84375)

 

[cucker tarlson]

First of all that message was adressed to "ppn" and i never asked how did you get 500mm2 but i guess you got confused juggling between your two accounts .

Anyway dare to explain where you are pulling 3072 cuda cores from ?

Mathematics. It says 3702 which is obviously a typo.

 

[jabbadap]

Mathematics. It says 3702 which is obviously a typo.

Yup, their release news have this table:

 

[RH92]

It can't be 3702, so that is obviously typo on the nvidia site. Nvidia SM have 64 "cores" 4608 can be divided by it(72), 3072 can be divided by it(48) but 3702 can't be divided by it(57.84375)

Mathematics. It says 3702 which is obviously a typo.

How do we know they didn't changed the amount of cores per SM ?

Yup, their release news have this table:
View attachment 105328

Ok now it makes more sense.

 

[T4C Fantasy]

What typo are you talking about ? Nvidia website has RTX 5000 with 3702 cuda cores . I mean unless you guys know better than NVIDIA what's inside their GPU's ......



Dude 754mm2 is as big as it gets for Turing , it will only go down from there. Do you think they are going to release another bigger chip just for one card ? Yeah makes 0 sense!

trust me its 3072, and yes they will make a bigger core, it will be the same core count just with HBM2/3
max core counts are
RT104 - 3072
RT102 - 4608
RT100 - 4608

 

[cucker tarlson]

How do we know they didn't changed the amount of cores per SM ?



Ok now it makes more sense.

Cause 4608 suggests 64/128, and why the hell would they do that.

If 3072 is the full tu104, then 2944 on 2080 (supposedly) is the biggest one we get on tu104 geforce card, 2080Ti will be tu102. People said that if tu104 on 280 is cut down, then 2080Ti will be tu104 full.

 

[jabbadap]

Yeah it's typo and all are clear, but let's do the mathematics anyway. That SM count should be the same for all the chips configs. So 3702 while is not the prime it can't be divided that much: 3702/2 = 1851(still not the prime) -> 1851/3 = 617(prime number) -> So possible "new" SM is 2*3=6 or 617. 4608/6 = 768 possible, 4608/617 = 7.468.... impossible. But then SM should have Tensor core/s too 576/768 = 0.75 tensor cores per SM -> not possible.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Yeah it's typo and all are clear, but let's do the mathematics anyway. That SM count should be the same for all the chips configs. So 3702 while is not the prime it can't be divided that much: 3702/2 = 1851(still not the prime) -> 1851/3 = 617(prime number) -> So possible "new" SM is 2*3=6 or 617. 4608/6 = 768 possible, 4608/617 = 7.468.... impossible. But then SM should have Tensor core/s too 576/768 = 0.75 tensor cores per SM -> not that'd ruin perfromance

no way, 617 cuda per sm

each sm has warp schedulers,registers,you wanna keep it small in order for it to be efficient.you wanna simplify scheduling for better perf and efficiency,not complicate it. and they are arranged in pairs, a 128 cuda unit on pascal cards consists of two 64 cuda units.

 

[jabbadap]

Are you crazy, 617 cuda per sm ? that'd ruin perfromance

Well look again. That was not even theoretically possible, 6 cuda cores per SM was without tensors.

 

[cucker tarlson]

It's 3072,end of story. And how would they segment their lower tier cards with such huge SMs ?

 

[diatribe]

GTX 1080 being 314mm2 and 1080ti - 471mm2. exactly +50%.

It's actually a 125% increase moving from 314mm2 to 471mm2. Remember, area is calculated by multiplying both sides of the chip.

314 squared is 98,569 and 471 is 221,841; a 125% increase.

 

[cucker tarlson]

It's actually a 125% increase moving from 314mm2 to 471mm2. Remember, area is calculated by multiplying both sides of the chip.

314 squared is 98,569 and 471 is 221,841; a 125% increase.

why would you square 314 ? it's 314 "mm square" already.

 

[jabbadap]

It's 3072,end of story. And how would they segment their lower tier cards with such huge SMs ?

Again it was very silly debate, and you still get them wrong way a round. Without tensors it could have been 617 x 6 cuda core SMs on 3072cc card and 768 x 6 cuda core SMs on 4608cc card(was not possible other way around). So it's not huge it's very tiny SMs.