![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Did you know you can install quadro drivers on geforce cards by modifying a few files ?
Overclocking won't help them overcome this hurdle, its ridiculous for them to pretend this competes with Titan XP and then have them post these benchmark results... I guess AMD treats its supposed "scientist and innovator" customers like complete idiots
Come on, AMD did not even disappoint this time. 375W single GPU card before any overclocks? Now that's [H]ot.
Did you know you can install quadro drivers on geforce cards by modifying a few files ?
Overclocking won't help them overcome this hurdle, its ridiculous for them to pretend this competes with Titan XP and then have them post these benchmark results... I guess AMD treats its supposed "scientist and innovator" customers like complete idiots
So embarrassingly parallel code that has a very limited need to share data won't map well to NUMA architectures? Architectures that are generally weak at sharing data. Because it's not embarrassingly parallel and has to share data I take it? So GPUs don't make use of large numbers of threads. ANY sort of tiling is a NUMA optimized code path. A warp or wave by definition is a tile. Hell, the caches are private because most code doesn't even attempt to share data.
Still better performance/watt than Titan and that's probably without the FP16 advantage showing up.
Anarchist4000 said:
How is it more efficient than Titan X ?
This is the 1080Ti FE, even if we are to assume the full GP102 clocks lower (which I highly doubt) you end up with 13.2 tflop/s at 1720mhz.... That's 250W. Not 375W. Its more than 50% more efficient than Vega. The FP16 rates they advertised are misleading as well as that only affects vec2 packed fp16 for which SM6.1 only has one unit per SM. You can still promote FP16 to FP32
What happened to taking all figures on that page as fact? Given the data, Vega has better efficiency than Titan. Can't fault AMD that Nvidia's drivers suck under that condition.
Well ~34% higher performance with a 20% higher power draw would be more efficient. That seems extremely straightforward.
Do you have any evidence to suggest the figures presented were fraudulent? Or just invalid because they don't reflect well on Nvidia. So a bunch of goalposts need moved to be more accurate in your view? Because those figures aren't representative of Titan with certain drivers.
(26+28+69+39+8)/5
My god. You really are completely delusional...
The Quadro equivalent of a GTX 1070, costing 25% less than a Titan X, is outperforming the Vega FE you are so adamant about defending. I am honestly at a loss for words after seeing your last few responses, you are simply lying to yourself.
Jesus christ
"Do you have any evidence to suggest the figures presented were fraudulent?"
That's a good one. No the figures presented are not fraudulent, they are simply chosen to fool those too ignorant to know that even a low-end quadro outlcasses a Titan X. I take it you are among those ignorant people who are easily fooled.
I guess I didn't even realize NUMA required an API to be programmed, being a hardware scheduling model and all. Graphics pipelines make use of NUMA scheduling principles. Even SIMD used the model to share instructions as opposed to just data with some wave level operations. Without a NUMA model thread groups wouldn't exist.
You presented figures as fact. Those exact figures showed the efficiency I claimed. How does that in any way make me delusional if that claim is irrefutably what was presented?
So the figures make clear precisely what I stated? Yet I'm ignorant because the proper goal posts in your view weren't used? How was my claim in any way inaccurate given the provided data?
It is a data point though. Not saying it's representative, but we don't have accurate power figures either. Nor what clocks were actually being used. Vega may very well be terrible at that benchmark, just like Titan.