First Volta product shown at GTC Europe 2016

[Shintai]

Not a graphics card yet

GTC Europe 2016: NVIDIA Keynote Live Blog with CEO Jen-Hsun Huang

Sampling Xavier in Q4 2017. Xavier does 20 TOPS DL, 160 SPECINT in 20W

 

[limitedaccess]

As a comparison point Tegra X1 is 10w (256 core Maxwell) and is 1.024 TFLOPs FP16.

If 20 DL TOPs is referring to INT8 without anything else being involved, it'd indicate a ~5x perf per watt over Tegra X1 in raw throughput. But keep in mind 20nm->16nmFF gains as well, so won't be all uarch.

 

[Ieldra]

NVIDIA Teases Xavier, a High-Performance ARM SoC for Drive PX & AI

With 512 SPs (either 4 or 8 SMs depending on configuration) this means it achieves HALF the throughput of a GTX 1080 (40 TOP/s) with an EIGHTH the power draw.

This likely means there will be a new 8-wide 8bit integer dot product accumulate instruction (on a 64bit ALU), the alternative is double the clockrate compared to gtx 1080.

However, even if there's an 8-way DPA instruction introduced, the clockrate is still around 2ghz which is very impressive for a 20W Soc (I'm guessing around 15w for the GPU)

Assuming new octo INT8 instruction that's still double perf/w compared to Pascal.

 

[razor1]

Well this pretty much confirms nV has sped up their time line for Volta.

 

[Armenius]

Blog notes say 16nm FF+, but slide says 16nm FF. Which is it?

 

[Shintai]

Blog notes say 16nm FF+, but slide says 16nm FF. Which is it?

16FF+.

 

[jwcalla]

Well this pretty much confirms nV has sped up their time line for Volta.

Nvidia has a crapton of potential customers outside of gamers and there are some markets where they want to get themselves established as the go-to guys early on.

It's why the idea that if AMD fell off the planet we'll all end up with no more innovation is a myth.

 

[jwcalla]

And then you have the people who love to shit all over Tegra.

Tegra is the exact reason why nvidia's consumer GPUs have such great perf / watt and getting better.

 

[razor1]

Nvidia has a crapton of potential customers outside of gamers and there are some markets where they want to get themselves established as the go-to guys early on.

It's why the idea that if AMD fell off the planet we'll all end up with no more innovation is a myth.

Interesting enough, in a monopoly innovation never stops, or the company that has the monopoly dies. So yeah I agree with ya.

Nvidia has just been more active and more capable at growing into new markets.

 

[Terpfen]

Nvidia has just been more active and more capable at growing into new markets.

Because AMD has locked them out of the console market (possible NX design win excepted, but [H] tells me Nintendo doesn’t count anyway), and PC growth is uninspiring at best. Nvidia has diversified as a business necessity.

 

[razor1]

Not really as a necessity, their potential growth is much higher in the segments that they have went into and have locked everyone out of them for now. Automation, HPC, etc. HPC is something AMD started off with but once CUDA with the g80 came out, they couldn't stop nV. AMD knew these markets were huge but didn't for what ever reason foresee how they could get so far behind so quickly.

nV didn't need to do everything they did and still could have gotten the marketshare they did on the gaming side. Definitely wasn't a necessity. They saw opportunities and changed their business model to secure them.

Consoles are giving how much money to AMD? yeah all that they have invested into them, they should have done the other markets too, the consoles can't even get them into the black so they have to be less than their operating expenses per quarter, and it should be significantly less. Total operating expenses for AMD is 1.5 billion for the last year, that is 350 million per quarter, consoles aren't even making that, which is 1/3 of what nV makes for a quarter.

Consoles aren't giving AMD much at all.

What was a better route? And was it truly necessary for nV to expand into other segments?

 

[limitedaccess]

I'd like to present a different a view regarding the console market share with some context.

If Nvidia is in the Nintendo NX then in actuality the console graphics split is basically the same as since Nvidia first had any console presence at all with the original Xbox. Since the Xbox, Nvidia has only been used by one of MS, Nintendo, Sony with the other two using ATI/AMD for graphics. Coincidentally in all three "generations" (depending on how you count this) Nvidia would also have been the last one in, the Xbox was the late entry in it's Gen, the PS3 the same and originally was not even going to incorporate a GPU (had that happened then Nvidia wouldn't have been in consoles last gen either).

So from a graphics perspective it is either status quo or AMD has gained 1 additional design win for consoles depending on where Nintendo actually goes. This of course doesn't sound as good as AMD having all consoles design wins.

AMD is the one with the actual strong console market history through ATI (in turn through ArtX, in turn though SGI). It would've actually been a shock compared to history had AMD not gotten console graphics design wins.

 

[Algrim]

AMD's capability of making an APU based on x86 is why they were picked. It reduces component costs which, spread over millions of units, is real money saved. (Anyone else have fond memories of nVidia's motherboard chipsets? I sure don't.)

 

[Ieldra]

AMD's capability of making an APU based on x86 is why they were picked. It reduces component costs which, spread over millions of units, is real money saved. (Anyone else have fond memories of nVidia's motherboard chipsets? I sure don't.)

Overclocking on that thing was torture

 

[razor1]

I'd like to present a different a view regarding the console market share with some context.

If Nvidia is in the Nintendo NX then in actuality the console graphics split is basically the same as since Nvidia first had any console presence at all with the original Xbox. Since the Xbox, Nvidia has only been used by one of MS, Nintendo, Sony with the other two using ATI/AMD for graphics. Coincidentally in all three "generations" (depending on how you count this) Nvidia would also have been the last one in, the Xbox was the late entry in it's Gen, the PS3 the same and originally was not even going to incorporate a GPU (had that happened then Nvidia wouldn't have been in consoles last gen either).

So from a graphics perspective it is either status quo or AMD has gained 1 additional design win for consoles depending on where Nintendo actually goes. This of course doesn't sound as good as AMD having all consoles design wins.

AMD is the one with the actual strong console market history through ATI (in turn through ArtX, in turn though SGI). It would've actually been a shock compared to history had AMD not gotten console graphics design wins.

Well getting the two main consoles is what has helped AMD stay afloat to some degree, but its not going to be the defining point for the graphics market like AMD likes to show it is.

AMD's capability of making an APU based on x86 is why they were picked. It reduces component costs which, spread over millions of units, is real money saved. (Anyone else have fond memories of nVidia's motherboard chipsets? I sure don't.)

the x86 APU , it wasn't purely the x86 part that matters. It was the APU part that mattered more. Cost savings is very important in console hardware, because the console market thrives on the games being sold not the actual hardware, so any where they can cut costs, the better. Having an integrated higher performance graphics product with a high performance CPU product is what matters. Now nV didn't have a 64 bit capable CPU (high performance) prior to Xavier. That is about to change when Xavier is released. We can see CPU needs have been diminishing in the past few years. So as long as nV retains its lead in the graphics side perf/watt, and over all performance, I think you will see MS and Sony start looking at them more seriously, and not just from a bottom of the barrel pricing either. Lets say right now Xavier was released, and it is just as capable as AMD's SOC in PS4 but uses 50% less power, the entire cooling system PS4 can now be cut down in price, lets say they save oh 3 bucks or so, that 3 bucks can now go to the extra cost of the Xavier chip. They end up with better graphics, lower power usage, less heat production, smaller form factors and Nvidia gets their increased margins. Backward compatibility might get shot to hell, but hell new generations consoles these companies try to force you to buy new games, that is where the money is for them.

This is all hypothetical of course, but seems plausible.

 

[Palladium@SG]

Because AMD has locked them out of the console market (possible NX design win excepted, but [H] tells me Nintendo doesn’t count anyway), and PC growth is uninspiring at best. Nvidia has diversified as a business necessity.

Meh, being a subcontractor for console chips isn't exactly a high-margin business. The HPC/professional/industrial segments are where the real money lies, which is why NV is chasing those so aggressively.

 

[limitedaccess]

Well getting the two main consoles is what has helped AMD stay afloat to some degree, but its not going to be the defining point for the graphics market like AMD likes to show it is.

I'm referring to the perception and spin. AMD had 2 graphics design wins for last generation as well. They have 2 wins for this generation or 3 depending on NX. That of course does not sound as good as "all consoles."

This information won't be available but I'd actually be more interested in what AMD's net (not revenue) from console wins this cycle compared to last cycle. Especially given the higher sensitivity towards costs this time around due to what happened last generation for both MS and Sony.

the x86 APU , it wasn't purely the x86 part that matters. It was the APU part that mattered more. Cost savings is very important in console hardware, because the console market thrives on the games being sold not the actual hardware, so any where they can cut costs, the better. Having an integrated higher performance graphics product with a high performance CPU product is what matters. Now nV didn't have a 64 bit capable CPU (high performance) prior to Xavier. That is about to change when Xavier is released. We can see CPU needs have been diminishing in the past few years. So as long as nV retains its lead in the graphics side perf/watt, and over all performance, I think you will see MS and Sony start looking at them more seriously, and not just from a bottom of the barrel pricing either. Lets say right now Xavier was released, and it is just as capable as AMD's SOC in PS4 but uses 50% less power, the entire cooling system PS4 can now be cut down in price, lets say they save oh 3 bucks or so, that 3 bucks can now go to the extra cost of the Xavier chip. They end up with better graphics, lower power usage, less heat production, smaller form factors and Nvidia gets their increased margins. Backward compatibility might get shot to hell, but hell new generations consoles these companies try to force you to buy new games, that is where the money is for them.

This is all hypothetical of course, but seems plausible.

Honestly to me the x86 talk especially is more of an after the fact justification and spin. Same with the APU angle (although this isn't really promoted).

At the end I feel it was both a timing issue combined with a straight forward bid win in the sense that there was "special" advantage as it seems to have been presented (eg. just costs, availability, capability). In terms of timing I think had ARMv8 timeline had a large impact in available options.

Also for the "APU" angle in terms of cost and simplicity you don't need a single provider to achieve that. The Xbox 360's processors were essentially combined into an "APU."

 

[Terpfen]

Meh, being a subcontractor for console chips isn't exactly a high-margin business. The HPC/professional/industrial segments are where the real money lies, which is why NV is chasing those so aggressively.

Let’s put it this way: do you think AMD regrets having all three console design wins? Do you think Nvidia regrets being locked out of the console market this generation?

 

[razor1]

I'm referring to the perception and spin. AMD had 2 graphics design wins for last generation as well. They have 2 wins for this generation or 3 depending on NX. That of course does not sound as good as "all consoles."

Ah ok I hear ya.

Honestly to me the x86 talk especially is more of an after the fact justification and spin. Same with the APU angle (although this isn't really promoted).

At the end I feel it was both a timing issue combined with a straight forward bid win in the sense that there was "special" advantage as it seems to have been presented (eg. just costs, availability, capability). In terms of timing I think had ARMv8 timeline had a large impact in available options.

Also for the "APU" angle in terms of cost and simplicity you don't need a single provider to achieve that. The Xbox 360's processors were essentially combined into an "APU."

Well those APU's do still suck lol, come on really Polaris is coming end of 2017 to consoles and we will be getting Vega midrange replacements for Polaris and Volta coming out soon after..... As always mid range of last gen.

It would be nice if they actually have Mid Range of current generation at least to start off with ya know.

 

[Hornet]

Let’s put it this way: do you think AMD regrets having all three console design wins? Do you think Nvidia regrets being locked out of the console market this generation?

I doubt either of them regret this current arrangement.
AMD needs any business they can get. Profit margin is probably very low, but at least it's still something.
As for nVidia, they have the flexibility to venture into enterprise and automotive segment, which is a more lucrative market, and they are focusing on that.

 

[Terpfen]

I doubt either of them regret this current arrangement.
AMD needs any business they can get. Profit margin is probably very low, but at least it's still something.
As for nVidia, they have the flexibility to venture into enterprise and automotive segment, which is a more lucrative market, and they are focusing on that.

I disagree. Nvidia absolutely wants those console design wins. That's guaranteed business for five years.

 

[Ieldra]

I disagree. Nvidia absolutely wants those console design wins. That's guaranteed business for five years.

Its not guaranteed business because they don't have a soc powerful enough, not to mention x86...

Plus its very low margin, and nvidia has a huge market share on desktop.

It basically has a monopoly as far as graphics and design oriented pro gpus go.

Currently unrivaled in HPC, unrivaled for GPU accelerated ML...

I honestly don't think they care about console market, even if Xavier ends up on console, that's not what they're designing it for, I think x86 is the way to go for consoles, and they can shift into a much more reasonable two year upgrade cycle with guaranteed back compatibility for an upgrade cycle or two (for games). It's good for everyone

 

[Terpfen]

Its not guaranteed business because they don’t have a soc powerful enough, not to mention x86…

You’re putting effect before cause.

 

[Ieldra]

You’re putting effect before cause.

No I'm not, nvidia can never have x86 license lol

 

[Terpfen]

No I'm not, nvidia can never have x86 license lol

"They don't have a soc powerful enough" is putting effect before cause. You know why they don't have a SOC powerful enough? Because they didn't win the OEM contract, thus meaning they didn't need to spend resources developing a product they had no customers for.

They then went on to demonstrate improved prowess in the category by working on Nvidia Shield. And, if the NX rumors are true, it seems to have worked.

 

[Ieldra]

"They don't have a soc powerful enough" is putting effect before cause. You know why they don't have a SOC powerful enough? Because they didn't win the OEM contract, thus meaning they didn't need to spend resources developing a product they had no customers for.

They then went on to demonstrate improved prowess in the category by working on Nvidia Shield. And, if the NX rumors are true, it seems to have worked.

Mobile isn't the same as console.... If you weren't already aware, AMD is a cpu company that bought ATI a few years back. This allows them to produce apus which are far more cost effective than multiple discrete chips.

Moreover amd has a license to produce hardware based on the x86 isa, nvidia does not have this and likely never will

 

[thesmokingman]

Wait, no wood screws?

 

[razor1]

Mobile isn't the same as console.... If you weren't already aware, AMD is a cpu company that bought ATI a few years back. This allows them to produce apus which are far more cost effective than multiple discrete chips.

Moreover amd has a license to produce hardware based on the x86 isa, nvidia does not have this and likely never will

Mobile isn't the same that is true, but the base implementation of technologies are the same. So if nV is capable of making a decent CPU on arm which they have shown they can but with it being 64 bit stopped them initially since programs (OS's)/games now all tend to use more then 4gb when pushed. Another hurdle was no Windows for arm, which is now lifted. Software still has to be remade for arm Windows but that will be a slow process and only will happen if arm cpu's start taking ground from x86. But in the console side of things, this won't matter it will come down to cost of the entire system.

Also mobile SOC's have more components then the SOC's AMD is creating if I'm not mistaken, things that can help with consoles in the long run by integration into the console SOC's as well as cost saving measures.

 

[Ieldra]

Mobile isn't the same that is true, but the base implementation of technologies are the same. So if nV is capable of making a decent CPU on arm which they have shown they can but with it being 64 bit stopped them initially since programs (OS's)/games now all tend to use more then 4gb when pushed. Another hurdle was no Windows for arm, which is now lifted. Software still has to be remade for arm Windows but that will be a slow process and only will happen if arm cpu's start taking ground from x86. But in the console side of things, this won't matter it will come down to cost of the entire system.

Also mobile SOC's have more components then the SOC's AMD is creating if I'm not mistaken, things that can help with consoles in the long run by integration into the console SOC's as well as cost saving measures.

Yeah but I think Sony and MS gave decided on x86, I see it as advantageous for everyone so continuing on that path precludes any nvidia socs

 

[razor1]

MS possibly, Sony doesn't care, they prefer Linux anyways, and their OS is always been on Linux for PS

 

[jwcalla]

MS possibly, Sony doesn't care, they prefer Linux anyways, and their OS is always been on Linux for PS

PS isn't Linux-based. PS4 is based on FreeBSD I believe and PS3 was a custom job. But yeah your main point still stands; Sony can work with any hardware ISA.

Microsoft of course is a trainwreck.

 

[razor1]

Yeah Unix based, not linux sorry bout that.

 

[Shintai]

x86 was only picked because AA64 wasn't ready and PPC was dead.

Ask yourself how much fun you think its is that MS and Sony relies on AMD for the production, that against mostly relies on Glofo. I wouldn't be surprised if the true nextgen consoles dropped x86 again and moved to ARM. Simply so MS and Sony freely can pick the foundry and control the chain. Its a bad deal otherwise.

 

[Factum]

x86 was only picked because AA64 wasn't ready and PPC was dead.

Ask yourself how much fun you think its is that MS and Sony relies on AMD for the production, that against mostly relies on Glofo. I wouldn't be surprised if the true nextgen consoles dropped x86 again and moved to ARM. Simply so MS and Sony freely can pick the foundry and control the chain. Its a bad deal otherwise.

The legacy crap in X86-64 is taking up die-space...so people are paying (litterally) to keep using x86.
I will always have a bone with AMD for prolonging x86 beyond what it should have been.

 

[razor1]

x86 was only picked because AA64 wasn't ready and PPC was dead.

Ask yourself how much fun you think its is that MS and Sony relies on AMD for the production, that against mostly relies on Glofo. I wouldn't be surprised if the true nextgen consoles dropped x86 again and moved to ARM. Simply so MS and Sony freely can pick the foundry and control the chain. Its a bad deal otherwise.

Yeah the only reason x86 worked in the desktop space was because of software, consoles they don't need any software outside of the games which are custom to each new gen, so x86 shouldn't be a priority.