4 ms·

Do you think we're in the mid-2000s?

by zeroer 10y ago

314 10y ago
Do you think this is any different from the trend in the past five generations from Nvidia?
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Yes, gen to gen was 15-20% overall improvement (which is also questionable because when a new gen arrives all of a sudden the previous gen starts losing performance in games, it was really bad between Kepler and Maxwell where the 780/780ti all of a sudden lost 5-15% performance in certain games with initial "Maxwell Drivers").
  - 314 10y ago
    Depends on which figures you look at. http://www.techspot.com/article/928-five-generations-nvidia-geforce-graphics-compared/ http://www.techspot.com/article/928-five-generations-nvidia-... has a reasonable comparison. Varies between 20-50% over the range of that sample. The increase in performance between the 980/1080 or the titans does not seem out of the "ordinary".
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      Look at the final trend chart 780ti > 980 = ~15% increase 780 > 780ti = ~12% increase 680 (potentially should've used the 690 as a reference even tho it was a dGPU card but it was the) > 780 = ~27 increase. For the most part in generation that there wasn't a near ~2 year gap, and in generations where there wasn't a huge change in GPU memory type or a major architecture change (like dropping the hardware scheduler in Fermi for Kepler in order to save silicon space for things that actually matter(ed) for game at the time) there isn't a 50% increase gen to gen. 15-20% increase gen to gen with comparable price point cards (nvidia has been making it harder now by charging 150-200$ more per card and effectively bumping a price point lately) is what you should be expecting.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  Does that make the engineering work automatic? If you believe so, how much of that belief stems from the fact that you don't do it?
  - 314 10y ago
    I have not said the engineering work is automatic. It is not too far from the area that I work in, and I am up to date in the subject. The performance gains for this generation of cards are in line with the existing trend, they are not particularly exciting in that they rise above that trend. This is unrelated to the issue of whether or not the architectural work is hard, and it is somewhat sad that the difference between these two points has to be explicitly stated. The inline results of this generation do diverge from the over the top marketing from Nvidia in the past year about the 10x increase in performance that would be delivered, largely due to the upgrade to HBM. It is certainly probably that had they delivered on HBM we would be seeing a rare jump in performance above the trend, but clearly this has not happened. It seems unlike to arrive on the 1080-ti after not making an appearance on the Titan and so we will need to wait another generation to see what difference that actually makes.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      If it's not too far from the area you work in you should be more understanding of the engineering challenges here. We can't clock these things faster like we used to in the days of 6Mhz CPUs. We can't shrink feature size since 10nm is proving to be a difficult node to crack. We can't jam more features onto the die since we're already producing some of the largest possible dies. The easy gains are gone. Now we're stuck dealing with the hard stuff. Gains will be slower.
      - 314 10y ago
        As I said above: there are two separate issues. Whether or not it is hard to deliver the same (relative) improvement in each generation. Whether or not Nvidia have delivered an improvement in line with their normal trend, or whether they have exceeded it. These are not the same thing. As I said: I am well aware of the engineering challenges at this scale. You are trying to argue that it is hard: so what? Should Nvidia get a badge for "trying hard". It still doesn't change the fact that what they have achieved in this generation is the same (relative) improvement as previous generations. This is not what they were selling in the run-up to the 1080 launch when they were still claiming 10x improvements due to the new memory subsystem. They did not do what they said that they would. This is quite a simple fact - why do you try to argue that what they have done is hard. The difficulty is irrelevant. Do you think that an evaluation of the performance that they achieved should include how hard they worked on it?

Do you think we're in the mid-2000s?

by zeroer 10y ago

Do you think we're in the mid-2000s?

314 10y ago

Do you think this is any different from the trend in the past five generations from Nvidia?

dogma1138 10y ago
Yes, gen to gen was 15-20% overall improvement (which is also questionable because when a new gen arrives all of a sudden the previous gen starts losing performance in games, it was really bad between Kepler and Maxwell where the 780/780ti all of a sudden lost 5-15% performance in certain games with initial "Maxwell Drivers").
- 314 10y ago
  Depends on which figures you look at. http://www.techspot.com/article/928-five-generations-nvidia-geforce-graphics-compared/ http://www.techspot.com/article/928-five-generations-nvidia-... has a reasonable comparison. Varies between 20-50% over the range of that sample. The increase in performance between the 980/1080 or the titans does not seem out of the "ordinary".
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Look at the final trend chart 780ti > 980 = ~15% increase 780 > 780ti = ~12% increase 680 (potentially should've used the 690 as a reference even tho it was a dGPU card but it was the) > 780 = ~27 increase. For the most part in generation that there wasn't a near ~2 year gap, and in generations where there wasn't a huge change in GPU memory type or a major architecture change (like dropping the hardware scheduler in Fermi for Kepler in order to save silicon space for things that actually matter(ed) for game at the time) there isn't a 50% increase gen to gen. 15-20% increase gen to gen with comparable price point cards (nvidia has been making it harder now by charging 150-200$ more per card and effectively bumping a price point lately) is what you should be expecting.
oldmanjay 10y ago
Does that make the engineering work automatic? If you believe so, how much of that belief stems from the fact that you don't do it?
- 314 10y ago
  I have not said the engineering work is automatic. It is not too far from the area that I work in, and I am up to date in the subject. The performance gains for this generation of cards are in line with the existing trend, they are not particularly exciting in that they rise above that trend. This is unrelated to the issue of whether or not the architectural work is hard, and it is somewhat sad that the difference between these two points has to be explicitly stated. The inline results of this generation do diverge from the over the top marketing from Nvidia in the past year about the 10x increase in performance that would be delivered, largely due to the upgrade to HBM. It is certainly probably that had they delivered on HBM we would be seeing a rare jump in performance above the trend, but clearly this has not happened. It seems unlike to arrive on the 1080-ti after not making an appearance on the Titan and so we will need to wait another generation to see what difference that actually makes.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    If it's not too far from the area you work in you should be more understanding of the engineering challenges here. We can't clock these things faster like we used to in the days of 6Mhz CPUs. We can't shrink feature size since 10nm is proving to be a difficult node to crack. We can't jam more features onto the die since we're already producing some of the largest possible dies. The easy gains are gone. Now we're stuck dealing with the hard stuff. Gains will be slower.
    - 314 10y ago
      As I said above: there are two separate issues. Whether or not it is hard to deliver the same (relative) improvement in each generation. Whether or not Nvidia have delivered an improvement in line with their normal trend, or whether they have exceeded it. These are not the same thing. As I said: I am well aware of the engineering challenges at this scale. You are trying to argue that it is hard: so what? Should Nvidia get a badge for "trying hard". It still doesn't change the fact that what they have achieved in this generation is the same (relative) improvement as previous generations. This is not what they were selling in the run-up to the 1080 launch when they were still claiming 10x improvements due to the new memory subsystem. They did not do what they said that they would. This is quite a simple fact - why do you try to argue that what they have done is hard. The difficulty is irrelevant. Do you think that an evaluation of the performance that they achieved should include how hard they worked on it?