Apparently, NVIDIA still plans on making big chips for consumers… just not with 64-bit performance. Again, it looked as if NVIDIA was going to fragment their market and leave consumers behind.Īnd then Turing was announced. Again, there is no consumer version in sight. You are at the limit of what TSMC (and other fabs) can focus onto your silicon.

And it was massive (815mm 2).Īt this point, you really cannot manufacture a larger integrated circuit. There was no reason to either make a cheap 6XXmm 2 card available to the public, and a 471mm 2 part could take the performance crown, so why not reap extra dies from your wafer (and be able to clock them higher because of better binning)?Īnd then Volta came out. GP100 was 610mm 2, but GP102 was just 471mm 2.Īt this point, I’m thinking that NVIDIA is pulling scientific computing chips away from the common user to increase the value of their Tesla parts. Shortly thereafter, NVIDIA releases GP102, which had the same number of FP32 cores (3840) as GP100 but with much-reduced 64-bit performance… and much reduced die area. This is great for the compute community, such as scientific researchers, but games are focused on FP32. Instead, GP100 supported 1:2:4 FP64:FP32:FP16 performance ratios. Kepler used quite a bit of that die space for FP64 calculations, but that did not happen with consumer versions of Pascal. The mainstream enthusiast (GTX -70/-80) chip of each generation is typically 300mm 2, and the high-end enthusiast (Titan / -80 Ti) chip is often around 600mm 2. All SKUs would be one of those chips, with varying amounts of it disabled or re-clocked to hit multiple price points. In the past, when NVIDIA launched a new GPU architecture, they would make a few designs for each of their market segments.

Turing fp64