Hacker News Reader

Comment by bcaulfield | Hacker News Reader

More details from the event: https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2016/07/21/titan-x-deep-learni...

“This is insane, I’m actually speechless, I didn’t expect something like that,” one of the event’s organizers stammered after the TITAN X was unveiled. “This is one of the craziest product launches ever in the history of technology.”

View on HN

Old account that only posts NVIDIA links, who's only comment is this one. No one was "actually speechless" about your sales pitch for a GPU slightly better than the last one.

What is so crazy about it? (this is a genuine question)

> 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?

I'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.

Both 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%).

No 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).

> Isn't this chip made on 14nm FinFET

16nm FinFET. AMD's current gen of cards are on 14nm FinFET.

The 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.

Bigger in transistor count != bigger in physical size given a process shrink at the same time, which might be what the parent comment was asking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com