3 ms·
> 3,584 CUDA cores at 1.53GHz (versus 3,072 cores at 1.08GHz in previous TITAN X) Isn't this chip made on 14nm FinFET compared to 28nm for the previous one? Wh
by mtgx 10y ago
> 3,584 CUDA cores at 1.53GHz (versus 3,072 cores at 1.08GHz in previous TITAN X)
Isn't this chip made on 14nm FinFET compared to 28nm for the previous one? Why only 20% more cores? Is the chip smaller this time?
- creshal 10y agoThe chip is 50% bigger (12bn transistors vs. 8bn), I assume (there's no details on the card yet) the additional budget went into things like caches to give the cores an additional performance boost.
- ethbro 10y agoBigger in transistor count != bigger in physical size given a process shrink at the same time, which might be what the parent comment was asking.
- mpg33 10y ago> Isn't this chip made on 14nm FinFET 16nm FinFET. AMD's current gen of cards are on 14nm FinFET.
- jsheard 10y agoI'm guessing that GP102 is actually a 3840 core part (50% bigger than GP104), but this initial release is being cut down to improve yields on the immature 16nm process. They did something similar with the original GK110 Titans - the first Titan had 2688 cores enabled, and a fully unlocked 2880 core Titan Black came later.
- paulmd 10y agoNo confirmed technical details yet AFAIK, but it's rumored to be 450-475 mm^2 versus the old 600mm^2. It's also very probably a die-harvest (cores disabled).
- dogma1138 10y agoBoth my (Maxwell) Titan X's boost to 1480mhz in SLI (the one with the slightly better ASIC 94% "asic quality" boosts to 1515 if i manually overclock it in unlinked mode). If the new Titan X is anything like the 1080 and can boost to around 2ghz it would be a monster of a card, if it's really held back to only ~1500mhz because of either power limit or that the GP102 ASIC simply cannot be clocked as high as the GP104 and 106 parts it would be a pretty small improvement over the existing Titan X (probably around 15%).