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
Final Words
Today's launch is strange. I tried to convince NVIDIA to release more information about Fermi but was met with staunch resistance from the company. NVIDIA claims that by pre-announcing Fermi's performance levels it would seriously hurt its existing business. It's up to you whether or not you want to believe that.
Last quarter the Tesla business unit made $10M. That's not a whole lot of money for a company that, at its peak, grossed $1B in a single quarter. NVIDIA believes that Fermi is when that will all change. To borrow a horrendously overused phrase, Fermi is the inflection point for NVIDIA's Tesla sales.
By adding support for ECC, enabling C++ and easier Visual Studio integration, NVIDIA believes that Fermi will open its Tesla business up to a group of clients that would previously not so much as speak to NVIDIA. ECC is the killer feature there.
While the bulk of NVIDIA's revenue today comes from 3D graphics, NVIDIA believes that Tegra (mobile) and Tesla are the future growth segments for the company. This hints at a very troubling future for GPU makers - are we soon approaching the Atom-ization of graphics cards?
Will 2010 be the beginning of good enough performance in PC games? Display resolutions have pretty much stagnated, PC games are first developed on consoles which have inferior hardware and thus don't have as high the GPU requirements. The fact that NVIDIA is looking to Tegra and Tesla to grow the company is very telling. Then again, perhaps a brand new approach to graphics is what we'll need for the re-invigoration of PC game development. Larrabee.
If the TAM for GPUs in HPC is so big, why did NVIDIA only make $10M last quarter? If you ask NVIDIA it has to do with focus and sales.
According to NVIDIA, over the past couple of years NVIDIA's Tesla sales efforts have been scattered. The focus was on selling to any customers that could potentially see a speedup, trying to gain some traction for the Tesla business.
Jen-Hsun did some yelling and now NVIDIA is a bit more focused in that department. If Tesla revenues increase linearly from this point, that's simply not going to be enough. I asked NVIDIA if exponential growth for Tesla was in the cards and if so, when would it happen. The answer was yes and with Fermi.
We'll see how that plays out, but if Fermi doesn't significantly increase Tesla revenues then we know that NVIDIA is in serious trouble.
The architecture looks good, Fermi just needs to be priced right. Oh and the chip needs to hurry up and come out.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
415 Comments
View All Comments
Inkie - Saturday, October 3, 2009 - link
Not that I really want to support SD here, but there was working silicon there. It's kind of weird that many sites fail to mention this. Instead, they focus on the mockup.SiliconDoc - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Go read a few articles on how a card is developed, and you'll have the timeline, you red rooster retard.I mean really, I'm talking to ignoramussed spitting cockled mooks.
Please, the articles are right here on your red fan website, so go have a read since it's so important to you how people act when your idiotic speculation is easily and absolutely 100% incorrect, and it's PROVEABLE, the facts are already IN.
gx80050 - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
You're a fucking friendless loser who should have died on 9/11. Fucking cuntmonomer - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link
In reply to your original link, here's a retraction, of sorts:http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15798/1/">http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15798/1/
The card Nvidia showed everyone, and said was Fermi is in fact a mock-up. Oh well.
silverblue - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
What facts? What framerates can it manage in Crysis? What scores in 3DMark? How good it is at F@H?Link us, so we can all be shown the errors of our ways. It's obvious that GT300 has been benchmarked, or at least, it's only obvious to you simply because the rest of us are on a different planet.
You call people idiots, and then when they reply in a sensible manner, you conveniently forget all that and call them biased (along with multiple variations on the red rooster theme). You're like a scratched vinyl record and it's about time you got off this site if you hate its oh-so-anti-nVidia stance that doesn't actually exist except in your head.
Prove us wrong! Please! I want to see those GT300 benchmarks! Evidence that Anandtech are so far up AMD's rear end that nothing else is worth reporting on fairly!
Zool - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
GTX285 had 32 ROPs and 80 TMUs for aorund the same bandwith like 5870 with same 32 ROPs and 80 TMUs. Dont be stupid. GTX will surely need more ROPs and TMUs if they want to keep up with graphic even with the GPGPU bloat.Totally - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
it's 225GB/s not 230.4/s230400/1024 = 225
I'm afraid your bad at math.
Lightnix - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Nope, just really bad at remembering that those prefixes mean 1024 at like 1 in the morning.Lonyo - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
You assume that they will use GDDR5 clocked at the same speed as ATI.They could use higher clocked GDDR5 (meaning even more bandwidth), or lower clocked GDDR5 (meaning less bandwidth).
There's no bandwidth comparison because 1) it's meaningless and 2) it's impossible to make an absolute comparison.
NV will have 50% more bandwidth if the speed of the RAM is the same, but it doesn't have to be the same, it could be higher, or lower, so you can't say what absolute numbers NV will have.
I could make a graph showing equal bandwidth between the two cards even though NV has a bigger bus, or I could make one showing NV having two times the bandwidth despite only a 50% bigger bus.
Both could be valid, but both would be speculative.
Calin - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link
Also, there could be a chance that the Fermi chip doesn't need/use much more bandwidth than the GT200. Available bandwidth does not performance make