Intel Core i5 11400F processor review
Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro SL 3600 MHz 32GB review
ASRock Z590 Extreme review
Gigabyte Radeon RX 6700 XT Gaming OC review
Corsair K70 RGB TKL keyboard review
Corsair RM650x (2021) power supply review
be quiet! Silent Loop 2 280mm review
Corsair K55 RGB PRO XT keyboard review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - March 2021
Intel Core i9-11900K processor review
Nvidia might be moving to Multi-Chip-Module GPU design
With Moore's law becoming more difficult each year technology is bound to change. At one point it will be impossible to shrink transistors even further, hence companies like Nvidia already are thinking about new methodologies and technologies to adapt to that. Meet the Multi-Chip-Module GPU design.
Nvidia published a paper that shows how they can connect multiple parts (GPU modules) with an interconnect. According to the research, this will allow for bigger GPUs with more processing power. Not only will is help tackling the common problems, it would also be cheaper to achieve as fabbing four dies that you connect is cheaper to do than to make one huge monolithic design.
Thinking about it, AMD is doing exactly this with Threadripper and EPYC processors where they basically connect two to four Summit Ridge (ZEN) dies with that wide PCIe lane link (they use 64 PCie lanes per link with 128 available), Infinity Fabric.
According to the researchers, as an example a GPU with four GPU modules they recommend three architecture optimizations that will allow for minimal loss off data-communication in-between the different modules. According to the paper the loss in performance compared to a monolithic single die chip would be merely 10%
Of course when you think about it, in essence SLI is already a similar methodology (not technology), however as you guys know it can be rather inefficient and challenging in scaling and compatibility. The paper states this MCM design would be performing 26.8% better compared to any multi-GPU solution. If and when Nvidia is going to fab MCM multi GPU module based chips is not known, for now this is just a paper on the topic. The fact that they publish it indicates it is bound to happen at one point in time though.
Sorry, I could not resist ... ;)
Rumor: Nvidia Mobile Pascal-GPUs during Computex 2016 - not Desktop - 02/26/2016 01:31 PM
It's been topic for discussion for a while now. Personally I think we'll see some soft of announcement in April during the GTC, and later on a broad announcement in the Computex timeframe. Likely, a...
Nvidia might release GTX 980MX and 970MX for laptops - 01/19/2016 10:26 AM
Nvidia is likely planning the successors to the 970M and 980M in the 2nd half of 2016. The successors will be the 980MX and 970MX and are based on GM204....
Nvidia might be working on their own VR headset - 06/07/2015 01:03 PM
Nvidia might release their own VR headset, this is now speculated as information surfaced showing that Nvidia holds a patent for a headset with six camera and two displays, each for one eye....
Microsoft Confirms DirectX 12 MIX AMD and Nvidia Multi-GPUs - 03/13/2015 08:38 AM
It's not exactly new news, but Microsoft actually confirms it at this stage. Microsoft technical support states that DirectX 12 will support “multi-GPU configurations between Nvidia and AM...
Nvidia Maxwell GM200 Flagship GPU caught on photo - 01/16/2015 04:10 PM
NVIDIA’s flagship Maxwell GPU (to be released) GM200 GPU core has been spotted and somebody took a photo. The product will end up in Quadro and hopefully GeForce graphics cards. The card tha...
Exascale
Senior Member
Posts: 390
Joined: 2017-06-09
Senior Member
Posts: 390
Joined: 2017-06-09
#5450003 Posted on: 07/06/2017 02:48 PM
He didnt put it very elegantly but it makes perfect sense that the data locality and latency needs to be handled on as low a level as possible, so that software developers dont need to specially code their software to scale properly across all GPM partitions. Its actually discussed in the PDF if anyone actually read it. It would be something like automatic vectorization.
That makes no sense at all.
He didnt put it very elegantly but it makes perfect sense that the data locality and latency needs to be handled on as low a level as possible, so that software developers dont need to specially code their software to scale properly across all GPM partitions. Its actually discussed in the PDF if anyone actually read it. It would be something like automatic vectorization.
TieSKey
Senior Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 2015-09-26
Senior Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 2015-09-26
#5450044 Posted on: 07/06/2017 05:00 PM
I like agree. But I just can't.
Alot people complain these days. About bad PC ports.. Broken game day one. Patches brings more bugs.
Complains about series getting very bored, coz they very schematic.
Using same effects, same engines, same procedures etc..
Also funny is, when developer say that "multi-gpu support is impossible".. Then some days latter, we can find sli-bits in net working good.
I still remember times when titles in day one was fully functional v1.0 meant something.
Today!? its a huge joke (in consumer face) devs relasing expensive DLC's, when game is bad condotion /unpleyable/bugged/unoptimized etc.
Why so many small studios open when, Crytek, Microsoft, and some other cut jobs..?
I not even expect they will speak the whole truth.
We living in times when, small studios can bring more fresh on the table, than huge devs. Its really shame.
Its shame programmers work under pressure or streess.
Its have very negative effect on evrything. Especially product quality.
I remember older times (10-20 yrs bck) when alot games use OpenGL. They look and perform really amazing, that times.
Sorry for abit long post, and greetings
I think it all comes down to the global tendency for quicker ROI.
Why risk innovating in a good and polished game when u can just release same crap with a different hat (Simpson pun) and get a lot of $$ anyway...
Small studios open cuz they have passion for games or whatever they do, they are willing to risk work hours and the few "cents" they have, while big companies only care about maximizing earning margins in the shorter term possible.
Add to that a huge portion of the customers don't give a s... and only care about the graphics, so AAA game studios (AAA in graphics and C in everything else) invest too much on artists and too few in technical/story stuff.
Back on topic. Since rendering is inherently positional, there's a lot of space in driver/engine land to mess up with data locality. For instance, divide screen in 4 pieces, keep mesh+texture data of object in 1st quadrant in chip A, move it to chip B once it moves (in game) to 2nd quadrant, etc.
I like agree. But I just can't.
Alot people complain these days. About bad PC ports.. Broken game day one. Patches brings more bugs.
Complains about series getting very bored, coz they very schematic.
Using same effects, same engines, same procedures etc..
Also funny is, when developer say that "multi-gpu support is impossible".. Then some days latter, we can find sli-bits in net working good.
I still remember times when titles in day one was fully functional v1.0 meant something.
Today!? its a huge joke (in consumer face) devs relasing expensive DLC's, when game is bad condotion /unpleyable/bugged/unoptimized etc.
Why so many small studios open when, Crytek, Microsoft, and some other cut jobs..?
I not even expect they will speak the whole truth.
We living in times when, small studios can bring more fresh on the table, than huge devs. Its really shame.
Its shame programmers work under pressure or streess.
Its have very negative effect on evrything. Especially product quality.
I remember older times (10-20 yrs bck) when alot games use OpenGL. They look and perform really amazing, that times.
Sorry for abit long post, and greetings
I think it all comes down to the global tendency for quicker ROI.
Why risk innovating in a good and polished game when u can just release same crap with a different hat (Simpson pun) and get a lot of $$ anyway...
Small studios open cuz they have passion for games or whatever they do, they are willing to risk work hours and the few "cents" they have, while big companies only care about maximizing earning margins in the shorter term possible.
Add to that a huge portion of the customers don't give a s... and only care about the graphics, so AAA game studios (AAA in graphics and C in everything else) invest too much on artists and too few in technical/story stuff.
Back on topic. Since rendering is inherently positional, there's a lot of space in driver/engine land to mess up with data locality. For instance, divide screen in 4 pieces, keep mesh+texture data of object in 1st quadrant in chip A, move it to chip B once it moves (in game) to 2nd quadrant, etc.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 5549
Joined: 2005-07-19
both companies need to mask the amount of gpus from the OS driver level so the system only sees 1 and the onboard bios of the gpu decides out how the gpu dishes out the utilization otherwise we will be stuck waiting and hoping the developers figure it out
Same goes for CPU i really want to find the documents on this it was discussed way back in mid 2000's how its possible but no one wants to do it..
and from what I can find it has been done back in the earlier days aka voodoo and someother company forget which one where os and drivers only seen it as 1
That makes no sense at all.