Subject: Graphics Cards | August 23, 2016 - 04:18 PM | Tim Verry
Tagged: water cooling, pascal, hybrid cooler, GTX 1080, evga
EVGA recently launched a water cooled graphics card that pairs the GTX 1080 processor with the company's FTW PCB and a closed loop (AIO) water cooler to deliver a heavily overclockable card that will set you back $730.
The GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid is interesting because the company has opted to use the same custom PCB design as its FTW cards rather than a reference board. This FTW board features improved power delivery with a 10+2 power phase, two 8-pin PCI-E power connectors, Dual BIOS, and adjustable RGB LEDs. The cooler is shrouded with backlit EVGA logos and has a fan to air cool the memory and VRMs that is reportedly quiet and uses a reverse swept blade design (like their ACX air coolers) rather than a traditional blower style fan. The graphics processor is cooled by a water loop.
The water block and pump sit on top of the GPU with tubes running out to the 120mm radiator. Luckily the fan on the radiator can be easily disconnected, allowing users to use their own fan if they wish. According to Youtuber Jayztwocents, the Precision XOC software controls the fan speed of the fan on the card itself but users can not adjust the radiator fan speed themselves. You can connect your own fan to your motherboard and control it that way, however.
Display outputs include one DVI-D, one HDMI, and three DisplayPort outputs (any four of the five can be used simultaneously).
Out of the box this 215W TDP graphics card has a factory overclock of 1721 MHz base and 1860 MHz boost. Thanks to the water cooler, the GPU stays at a frosty 42°C under load. When switched to the slave BIOS (which has a higher power limit and more aggressive fan curve), the card GPU Boosted to 2025 and hit 51°C (he managed to keep that to 44°C by swapping his own EK-Vardar fan onto the radiator). Not bad, especially considering the Founder's Edition hit 85°C on air in our testing! Unfortunately, EVGA did not touch the memory and left the 8GB of GDDR5X at the stock 10 GHz.
|GTX 1080||GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid||GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid Slave BIOS|
|Rated Clock||1607 MHz||1721 MHz||1721 MHz|
|Boost Clock||1733 MHz||1860 MHz||2025 MHz|
|Memory Clock||10000 MHz||10000 MHz||10000 MHz|
|TDP||180 watts||215 watts||? watts|
|MSRP (current)||$599 ($699 FE)||$730||$730|
The water cooler should help users hit even higher overclocks and/or maintain a consistent GPU Boost clock at much lower temperatures than on air. The GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid graphics card does come at a bit of a premium at $730 (versus $699 for Founders or ~$650+ for custom models), but if you have the room in your case for the radiator this might be a nice option! (Of course custom water cooling is more fun, but it's also more expensive, time consuming, and addictive. hehe)
What do you think about these "hybrid" graphics cards?
Subject: Graphics Cards | August 23, 2016 - 01:43 PM | Jeremy Hellstrom
Tagged: amd, nvidia, Tilt Brush, VR
[H]ard|OCP continues their foray into testing VR applications, this time moving away from games to try out the rather impressive Tilt Brush VR drawing application from Google. If you have yet to see this software in action it is rather incredible, although you do still require an artist's talent and practical skills to create true 3D masterpieces.
Artisic merit may not be [H]'s strong suite but testing how well a GPU can power VR applications certainly lies within their bailiwick. Once again they tested five NVIDIA GPUs and a pair of AMD's for dropped frames and reprojection caused by a drop in FPS.
"We are changing gears a bit with our VR Performance coverage and looking at an application that is not as GPU-intensive as those we have looked at in the recent past. Google's Tilt Brush is a virtual reality application that makes use of the HTC Vive head mounted display and its motion controllers to allow you to paint in 3D space."
Here are some more Graphics Card articles from around the web:
- PowerColor Red Devil RX 470 Overclocking @ [H]ard|OCP
- MSI GeForce GTX 1060 OC 6 GB @ techPowerUp
- ASUS STRIX GAMING GTX 1070 OC @ eTeknix
- EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW GAMING ACX 3.0 @ Bjorn3d
Why Two 4GB GPUs Isn't Necessarily 8GB
We're trying something new here at PC Perspective. Some topics are fairly difficult to explain cleanly without accompanying images. We also like to go fairly deep into specific topics, so we're hoping that we can provide educational cartoons that explain these issues.
This pilot episode is about load-balancing and memory management in multi-GPU configurations. There seems to be a lot of confusion around what was (and was not) possible with DirectX 11 and OpenGL, and even more confusion about what DirectX 12, Mantle, and Vulkan allow developers to do. It highlights three different load-balancing algorithms, and even briefly mentions what LucidLogix was attempting to accomplish almost ten years ago.
If you like it, and want to see more, please share and support us on Patreon. We're putting this out not knowing if it's popular enough to be sustainable. The best way to see more of this is to share!
Subject: Graphics Cards | August 18, 2016 - 07:58 PM | Scott Michaud
Tagged: amd, TrueAudio, trueaudio next
Using a GPU for audio makes a lot of sense. That said, the original TrueAudio was not really about that, and it didn't really take off. The API was only implemented in a handful of titles, and it required dedicated hardware that they have since removed from their latest architectures. It was not about using the extra horsepower of the GPU to simulate sound, although they did have ideas for “sound shaders” in the original TrueAudio.
TrueAudio Next, on the other hand, is an SDK that is part of AMD's LiquidVR package. It is based around OpenCL; specifically, it uses AMD's open-source FireRays library to trace the ways that audio can move from source to receiver, including reflections. For high-frequency audio, this is a good assumption, and that range of frequencies are more useful for positional awareness in VR, anyway.
Basically, TrueAudio Next has very little to do with the original.
Interestingly, AMD is providing an interface for TrueAudio Next to reserve compute units, but optionally (and under NDA). This allows audio processing to be unhooked from the video frame rate, provided that the CPU can keep both fed with actual game data. Since audio is typically a secondary thread, it could be ready to send sound calls at any moment. Various existing portions of asynchronous compute could help with this, but allowing developers to wholly reserve a fraction of the GPU should remove the issue entirely. That said, when I was working on a similar project in WebCL, I was looking to the integrated GPU, because it's there and it's idle, so why not? I would assume that, in actual usage, CU reservation would only be enabled if an AMD GPU is the only device installed.
Anywho, if you're interested, then be sure to check out AMD's other post on it, too.
Subject: Graphics Cards | August 18, 2016 - 02:28 PM | Sebastian Peak
Tagged: nvidia, gtx 1060 3gb, gtx 1060, graphics card, gpu, geforce, 1152 CUDA Cores
NVIDIA has officially announced the 3GB version of the GTX 1060 graphics card, and it indeed contains fewer CUDA cores than the 6GB version.
The GTX 1060 Founders Edition
The product page on NVIDIA.com now reflects the 3GB model, and board partners have begun announcing their versions. The MSRP on this 3GB version is set at $199, and availablity of partner cards is expected in the next couple of weeks. The two versions will be designated only by their memory size, and no other capacities of either card are forthcoming.
|GeForce GTX 1060 3GB||GeForce GTX 1060 6GB|
|Base Clock||1506 MHz||1506 MHz|
|Boost Clock||1708 MHz||1708 MHz|
|Memory Speed||8 Gbps||8 Gbps|
As you can see from the above table, the only specification that has changed is the CUDA core count, with base/boost clocks, memory speed and interface, and TDP identical. As to performance, NVIDIA says the 6GB version holds a 5% performance advantage over this lower-cost version, which at $199 is 20% less expensive than the previous GTX 1060 6GB.
Is Enterprise Ascending Outside of Consumer Viability?
So a couple of weeks have gone by since the Quadro P6000 (update: was announced) and the new Titan X launched. With them, we received a new chip: GP102. Since Fermi, NVIDIA has labeled their GPU designs with a G, followed by a single letter for the architecture (F, K, M, or P for Fermi, Kepler, Maxwell, and Pascal, respectively), which is then followed by a three digit number. The last digit is the most relevant one, however, as it separates designs by their intended size.
Typically, 0 corresponds to a ~550-600mm2 design, which is about as larger of a design that fabrication labs can create without error-prone techniques, like
multiple exposures (update for clarity: trying to precisely overlap multiple designs to form a larger integrated circuit). 4 corresponds to ~300mm2, although GM204 was pretty large at 398mm2, which was likely to increase the core count while remaining on a 28nm process. Higher numbers, like 6 or 7, fill back the lower-end SKUs until NVIDIA essentially stops caring for that generation. So when we moved to Pascal, jumping two whole process nodes, NVIDIA looked at their wristwatches and said “about time to make another 300mm2 part, I guess?”
The GTX 1080 and the GTX 1070 (GP104, 314mm2) were born.
NVIDIA already announced a 600mm2 part, though. The GP100 had 3840 CUDA cores, HBM2 memory, and an ideal ratio of 1:2:4 between FP64:FP32:FP16 performance. (A 64-bit chunk of memory can store one 64-bit value, two 32-bit values, or four 16-bit values, unless the register is attached to logic circuits that, while smaller, don't know how to operate on the data.) This increased ratio, even over Kepler's 1:6 FP64:FP32, is great for GPU compute, but wasted die area for today's (and tomorrow's) games. I'm predicting that it takes the wind out of Intel's sales, as Xeon Phi's 1:2 FP64:FP32 performance ratio is one of its major selling points, leading to its inclusion in many supercomputers.
Despite the HBM2 memory controller supposedly being actually smaller than GDDR5(X), NVIDIA could still save die space while still providing 3840 CUDA cores (despite disabling a few on Titan X). The trade-off is that FP64 and FP16 performance had to decrease dramatically, from 1:2 and 2:1 relative to FP32, all the way down to 1:32 and 1:64. This new design comes in at 471mm2, although it's $200 more expensive than what the 600mm2 products, GK110 and GM200, launched at. Smaller dies provide more products per wafer, and, better, the number of defective chips should be relatively constant.
Anyway, that aside, it puts NVIDIA in an interesting position. Splitting the xx0-class chip into xx0 and xx2 designs allows NVIDIA to lower the cost of their high-end gaming parts, although it cuts out hobbyists who buy a Titan for double-precision compute. More interestingly, it leaves around 150mm2 for AMD to sneak in a design that's FP32-centric, leaving them a potential performance crown.
Image Credit: ExtremeTech
On the other hand, as fabrication node changes are becoming less frequent, it's possible that NVIDIA could be leaving itself room for Volta, too. Last month, it was rumored that NVIDIA would release two architectures at 16nm, in the same way that Maxwell shared 28nm with Kepler. In this case, Volta, on top of whatever other architectural advancements NVIDIA rolls into that design, can also grow a little in size. At that time, TSMC would have better yields, making a 600mm2 design less costly in terms of waste and recovery.
If this is the case, we could see the GPGPU folks receiving a new architecture once every second gaming (and professional graphics) architecture. That is, unless you are a hobbyist. If you are? I would need to be wrong, or NVIDIA would need to somehow bring their enterprise SKU into an affordable price point. The xx0 class seems to have been pushed up and out of viability for consumers.
Or, again, I could just be wrong.
Subject: Graphics Cards, Processors | August 17, 2016 - 01:38 PM | Scott Michaud
Tagged: Xeon Phi, larrabee, Intel
Tom Forsyth, who is currently at Oculus, was once on the core Larrabee team at Intel. Just prior to Intel's IDF conference in San Francisco, which Ryan is at and covering as I type this, Tom wrote a blog post that outlined the project and its design goals, including why it didn't hit market as a graphics device. He even goes into the details of the graphics architecture, which was almost entirely in software apart from texture units and video out. For instance, Larrabee was running FreeBSD with a program, called DirectXGfx, that gave it the DirectX 11 feature set -- and it worked on hundreds of titles, too.
Also, if you found the discussion interesting, then there is plenty of content from back in the day to browse. A good example is an Intel Developer Zone post from Michael Abrash that discussed software rasterization, doing so with several really interesting stories.
Take your Pascal on the go
Easily the strongest growth segment in PC hardware today is in the adoption of gaming notebooks. Ask companies like MSI and ASUS, even Gigabyte, as they now make more models and sell more units of notebooks with a dedicated GPU than ever before. Both AMD and NVIDIA agree on this point and it’s something that AMD was adamant in discussing during the launch of the Polaris architecture.
Both AMD and NVIDIA predict massive annual growth in this market – somewhere on the order of 25-30%. For an overall culture that continues to believe the PC is dying, seeing projected growth this strong in any segment is not only amazing, but welcome to those of us that depend on it. AMD and NVIDIA have different goals here: GeForce products already have 90-95% market share in discrete gaming notebooks. In order for NVIDIA to see growth in sales, the total market needs to grow. For AMD, simply taking back a portion of those users and design wins would help its bottom line.
But despite AMD’s early talk about getting Polaris 10 and 11 in mobile platforms, it’s NVIDIA again striking first. Gaming notebooks with Pascal GPUs in them will be available today, from nearly every system vendor you would consider buying from: ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte, Alienware, Razer, etc. NVIDIA claims to have quicker adoption of this product family in notebooks than in any previous generation. That’s great news for NVIDIA, but might leave AMD looking in from the outside yet again.
Technologically speaking though, this makes sense. Despite the improvement that Polaris made on the GCN architecture, Pascal is still more powerful and more power efficient than anything AMD has been able to product. Looking solely at performance per watt, which is really the defining trait of mobile designs, Pascal is as dominant over Polaris as Maxwell was to Fiji. And this time around NVIDIA isn’t messing with cut back parts that have brand changes – GeForce is diving directly into gaming notebooks in a way we have only seen with one release.
The ASUS G752VS OC Edition with GTX 1070
Do you remember our initial look at the mobile variant of the GeForce GTX 980? Not the GTX 980M mind you, the full GM204 operating in notebooks. That was basically a dry run for what we see today: NVIDIA will be releasing the GeForce GTX 1080, GTX 1070 and GTX 1060 to notebooks.
Subject: Graphics Cards | August 12, 2016 - 06:33 PM | Sebastian Peak
Tagged: report, nvidia, gtx 1060 3gb, gtx 1060, GeForce GTX 1060, geforce, cuda cores
NVIDIA will offer a 3GB version of the GTX 1060, and there's more to the story than the obvious fact that is has half the frame buffer of the 6GB version available now. It appears that this is an entirely different product, with 128 fewer CUDA cores (1152) than the 6GB version's 1280.
Image credit: VideoCardz.com
Boost clocks are the same at 1.7 GHz, and the 3GB version will still operate with a 120W TDP and require a 6-pin power connector. So why not simply name this product differently? It's always possible that this will be an OEM version of the GTX 1060, but in any case expect slightly lower performance than the existing version even if you don't run at high enough resolutions to require the larger 6GB frame buffer.
Subject: Graphics Cards | August 12, 2016 - 05:44 PM | Jeremy Hellstrom
Tagged: rx 470, LatencyMon, dpc, amd
When The Tech Report first conducted their review of the RX 470 they saw benchmark behaviour very different from any other GPU in that family but could not figure out what it was and resolve it before the mob arrived with pitchforks and torches demanding they publish or die.
As it turns out there was indeed something rotten in benchmark; incredibly high DPC on the test machine. Investigation determined the culprit to be the beta BIOS on their ASRock Z170 Extreme7+, specifically the BIOS which allowed you to overclock locked Intel CPUs. They have just released their new findings along with a look at LatencyMon and DPC in general. Take a look at the new benchmarks and information about DPC, but also absorb the consequences of demanding articles arrive picoseconds after the NDA expires; if there is a delay in publishing there might just be a damn good reason why.
"We retested our RX 470 to account for this issue, and we also updated our review with DirectX 12 benchmarks for Rise of the Tomb Raider and Hitman, plus full OpenGL and Vulkan benchmarks for Doom."
Here are some more Graphics Card articles from around the web:
- AMD & NVIDIA GPU VR Performance in Trials on Tatooine @ [H]ard|OCP
- AMD's Radeon RX 460 @ The Tech Report
- 18-Way GPU Linux Benchmarks, Including The Radeon RX 460 & RX 470 On Open-Source @ Phoronix
- ASUS Radeon RX 460 STRIX OC 4 GB @ techPowerUp
- MSI RX 470 Gaming X 8G @ Kiguru
- MSI GTX 1060 6GB Gaming X @ Kitguru
- MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Gaming Z @ Modders-Inc
- Nvidia Titan X (Pascal) Extended Overclock Guide @ Guru of 3D
- Nvidia Titan X @ Kitguru
- MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Gaming Z 8G Review @HiTech Legion
- Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Edition 8 GB @ techPowerUp