NVIDIA's Fermi: Architected for Tesla, 3 Billion Transistors in 2010
by Anand Lal Shimpi on September 30, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Architecting Fermi: More Than 2x GT200
NVIDIA keeps referring to Fermi as a brand new architecture, while calling GT200 (and RV870) bigger versions of their predecessors with a few added features. Marginalizing the efforts required to build any multi-billion transistor chip is just silly, to an extent all of these GPUs have been significantly redesigned.
At a high level, Fermi doesn't look much different than a bigger GT200. NVIDIA is committed to its scalar architecture for the foreseeable future. In fact, its one op per clock per core philosophy comes from a basic desire to execute single threaded programs as quickly as possible. Remember, these are compute and graphics chips. NVIDIA sees no benefit in building a 16-wide or 5-wide core as the basis of its architectures, although we may see a bit more flexibility at the core level in the future.
Despite the similarities, large parts of the architecture have evolved. The redesign happened at low as the core level. NVIDIA used to call these SPs (Streaming Processors), now they call them CUDA Cores, I’m going to call them cores.
All of the processing done at the core level is now to IEEE spec. That’s IEEE-754 2008 for floating point math (same as RV870/5870) and full 32-bit for integers. In the past 32-bit integer multiplies had to be emulated, the hardware could only do 24-bit integer muls. That silliness is now gone. Fused Multiply Add is also included. The goal was to avoid doing any cheesy tricks to implement math. Everything should be industry standards compliant and give you the results that you’d expect.
Double precision floating point (FP64) performance is improved tremendously. Peak 64-bit FP execution rate is now 1/2 of 32-bit FP, it used to be 1/8 (AMD's is 1/5). Wow.
NVIDIA isn’t disclosing clock speeds yet, so we don’t know exactly what that rate is yet.
In G80 and GT200 NVIDIA grouped eight cores into what it called an SM. With Fermi, you get 32 cores per SM.
The high end single-GPU Fermi configuration will have 16 SMs. That’s fewer SMs than GT200, but more cores. 512 to be exact. Fermi has more than twice the core count of the GeForce GTX 285.
Fermi | GT200 | G80 | |
Cores | 512 | 240 | 128 |
Memory Interface | 384-bit GDDR5 | 512-bit GDDR3 | 384-bit GDDR3 |
In addition to the cores, each SM has a Special Function Unit (SFU) used for transcendental math and interpolation. In GT200 this SFU had two pipelines, in Fermi it has four. While NVIDIA increased general math horsepower by 4x per SM, SFU resources only doubled.
The infamous missing MUL has been pulled out of the SFU, we shouldn’t have to quote peak single and dual-issue arithmetic rates any longer for NVIDIA GPUs.
NVIDIA organizes these SMs into TPCs, but the exact hierarchy isn’t being disclosed today. With the launch's Tesla focus we also don't know specific on ROPs, texture filtering or anything else related to 3D graphics. Boo.
A Real Cache Hierarchy
Each SM in GT200 had 16KB of shared memory that could be used by all of the cores. This wasn’t a cache, but rather software managed memory. The application would have to knowingly move data in and out of it. The benefit here is predictability, you always know if something is in shared memory because you put it there. The downside is it doesn’t work so well if the application isn’t very predictable.
Branch heavy applications and many of the general purpose compute applications that NVIDIA is going after need a real cache. So with Fermi at 40nm, NVIDIA gave them a real cache.
Attached to each SM is 64KB of configurable memory. It can be partitioned as 16KB/48KB or 48KB/16KB; one partition is shared memory, the other partition is an L1 cache. The 16KB minimum partition means that applications written for GT200 that require 16KB of shared memory will still work just fine on Fermi. If your app prefers shared memory, it gets 3x the space in Fermi. If your application could really benefit from a cache, Fermi now delivers that as well. GT200 did have an L1 texture cache (one per TPC), but the cache was mostly useless when the GPU ran in compute mode.
The entire chip shares a 768KB L2 cache. The result is a reduced penalty for doing an atomic memory op, Fermi is 5 - 20x faster here than GT200.
415 Comments
View All Comments
SiliconDoc - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
I'm sure Anand brought it out of him with his bias.Already on page one, we see the UNFAIR comparison to RV870, and after wailing Fermi "not double the bandwidth" - we get ZERO comparison, because of course, ATI loses BADLY.
Let me help:
NVIDIA : 240 G bandwidth
ati : 153 G bandwidth
------------------------nvidia
---------------ati
There's the bandwidth comparison, that the biased author couldn't bring himself to state. When ati LOSES, the red fans ALWAYS make NO CROSS COMPANY comparison.
Instead it's "nvidia relates to it's former core as ati relates to it's former core - so then "amount of improvement" "within in each company" can be said to "be similar" while the ACTUAL STAT is "OMITTED !
---
Congratulations once again for the immediate massive bias. Just wonderful.
omitted bandwith chart below, the secret knowledge the article cannot state ! LOL a review and it cannot state the BANDWITH of NVIDIA's new card! roflmao !
------------------------nvidia
---------------ati
NVIDIA WINS BY A VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE.
konjiki7 - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
http://www.hardocp.com/news/2009/10/02/nvidia_fake...">http://www.hardocp.com/news/2009/10/02/..._fakes_f...
Samus - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Thats great and all nVidia has more available bandwidth but....they're not anywhere close to using it (much like ATi) so exactly what is your point?SiliconDoc - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
Wow, another doofus. Overclock the 5870's memory only, and watch your framerates rise. Overclocking the memory increases the bandwith, hence the use of it. If frames don't rise, it's not using it, doesn't need it, and extra is present.THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN for 5870.
-
Now, since FERMI has 40% more T in core, and an enourmous amount of astounding optimizations, you declare it won't use the bandwith, but your excuse was your falsehood about ati not using it's bandwith, which is 100% incorrect.
Let's pretend you meant GT200, same deal there, higher mem oc= more band and frames rise well.
Better luck next time, since you were 100% wrong.
mm2587 - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
you do realize the entire point of mentioning bandwidth was to show that both Nvidia and AMD feel that they are not currently bandwidth limited. They have each doubled their number of cores but only increased bandwidth by ~%50. Theres no mention of overall bandwidth because thats not the point that was being made. Just an off hand observation that says "hey looks like everyone feels memory bandwidth wasn't the limitation last time around"Zingam - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
ATI has it here and has it now! NVIDIA does not win because on paper I have 50 billion transistors GPU on 1 nm process! I win! ;)You are a retarded fanboy! And I am not. I'd buy what's best for my money.
SiliconDoc - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Behold the FERMI GPU unbeliever !http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15762/1/">http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15762/1/
That's called, COMPLETED CARD, RUNNING SILICON.
Better luck next time incorrect ignorant whining looner.
siyabongazulu - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
Do you see any captions on that site? I don't think so. Nowhere does it mention that it's a complete card. So please stop lying because that goes to show how ignorant you are. Any person with a sound mind can and will tell you that it's not a finished product. So come up with something more valid to show and rant about. Sorry that your big daddy Heung hasn't given you your green slime if you like it that way. Just wait on the corner and when he says, GT300 is a go and tests confirm that it trumps 5870 then you can stop crying and suck on that.silverblue - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
When's it coming out?I mean, you have all the answers.
SiliconDoc - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Well thanks for the vote of confidence, but yesterday on the launch, according to the author, right ?LOL
Ha, golly, what a pile.