3 ms·
Due to the lower amount of INT32 in game loads as you stated, I don't think that separating INT32 and FP32 hardware makes a lot of sense, because you can share
by _kbh_ 6y ago
Due to the lower amount of INT32 in game loads as you stated, I don't think that separating INT32 and FP32 hardware makes a lot of sense, because you can share a substantial amount of the hardware between the two overall leading to space savings.
- peterhj 6y agoOn the contrary, "dark silicon" instead suggests that separating fp32 and int32 (now in GA102/104, fp32 and int32/fp32) data paths at the cost of more die space usage currently makes excellent sense. (See also: tensor cores, ray tracing cores.) Jensen Huang very briefly alluded to this when during the GA102/104 announcement he mentioned the end of Dennard scaling.
- _kbh_ 6y agoBut the GA102/GA104 doesn’t have seperate execution units for INT and FP32 because the INT also does FP32. So I don’t see how that shows that separating FP32 and INT hardware makes sense.