multi-GPU race...is it just me who isn't impressed?

[SpinachEater]

So 2008 is starting off with a big multi-GPU race between red and green. Word…I am all for better performing video cards but I am a little disappointed and here is why.

First, I fail to recognize this back peddling strategy of slapping GPU die shrinks into old cards as innovative technology. Granted, it IS yielding better performance…this version 2.0, new and improved sort of thing seems more and more like a marketing gimmick than a new technology. These are like pseudo-advances in technology. A little new, a little old. If they significantly upped the clocks and shaders AND had a die shrink…now that is something worth calling a new generation or advanced GPU technology…but that isn’t the case.

Second, the main point I am getting to is the multi-GPU solution. I get the feeling that multi-core GPU advances are being impeded and could be up and running by now if these companies weren’t making marketing pit stop at the multi-GPU idea. (well, in the R&D labs they are probably up and running) Granted, yet again, they do yield performance gains…I am just not impressed with this “new and improved” marketing strategy. You thought 1 GPU was sweet…now 2!! Ok, cool, so why not make all graphic cards with two GPUs now? They revert back to selling single GPU cards…then the next “breakthrough” is a dual GPU version. Is that impressive? Honestly, I don’t see it. I know that they want to market low and mid range cards too but “low” and “mid” are all relative terms to what is on the shelf at the moment.

It all reminds me of the Mach razors…now…3 blades!!! WOW. New and improved…4 blades for closer smoother shaves… HOLY HECK BATMAN. You thought 4 blades was amazing…now 5!! Ah…ok I see where this is headed. On a business standpoint…I see why they are doing this but is this really the best technology they have to offer or are they holding out just to increase profits? Do you feel nVIDIA and ATI are in a marketing race and not a technology race? Don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy the performance gains with each version 2.0 that comes along but I hesitate to buy into the technology because it seems like a trail a bread crumbs being thrown out to us that is leading to something great that is already in existence.

 

[gamebro]

I personally think 3 blades is better then 2 But 5 is just too much.

Multi GPU is the future, as it becomes harder to increase clock speeds perhaps. Driver support for things like SLI and Xfire have a long ways to go though from what it sounds. I don't think it's a question of "is it a good idea" rather "can they get the drivers right?".
Look at what multi CPU's has done for computers! Very nice improvement IMO, as Intel and AMD reached a barrier is clock speeds. The future thus most likely belongs to Multi GPU solutions as well, but at this point it is still in it's infancy. =\

Of course it'd be nice if they could make up their minds already.... Even the GX2 doesn't sound like a very good entry into the multi GPU arena. Bah well, the G100 and Rv700 should prove a more worthy addition to the multi GPU concept, should they both indeed launch as 2xGPU solutions.

 

[mactronix]

It all wont matter a jot when they get the fusion/nehalem type CPU's working properly.
Sure its gona be a while but when they get to a point when 8/16/32 cores are on the dies and they are all seperatly programable then you wont need the ultra crushing cards which we are all wondering where they have got to.
Mactronix

 

[randomizer]

Multi-core GPUs are the future, not multi-GPU.

 

[Annisman]

That is very true randomizer, the multi pcb idea will go nowhere. ATI has the right idea.

 

[Evilonigiri]

I thought GPU was the core?

 

[enewmen]

Multi-core GPUs are the future, not multi-GPU.

I agree. Perhaps even multi-(small-seperate)core single die will work for a while.
We will see if the r700/g100 can add 100% more performance with each new core. Rather than a 30% gain with each core using an internal PCIe bridge.
GPUs are already parallel. The problem was making them modular so the high-end GPUs don't have 1 super-sized chip.
The high-end can have 8 cores, mainstream can have 4 cores, low-end having 2 cores, integrated will have 1 core. Something like this.

 

[grieve]

I personally think 3 blades is better then 2 But 5 is just too much.

OMG... I thought it was over kill, but 5 blades really is better ! for real...

But yah marketing is the name of the game, in the end they don’t care to push technology, they wanna make money and what ever will make them more is what they will do.

 

[hcforde]

Didn't the same thing happen with CPU's? Nothing different really!!! Technology has limits. A company also has to maintain an income stream so they do what they can within the limits that constraiin them. One of the things I have noticed is that with the stagnation of performance they "revert" to advances in being able to do the same with less power. Then the next step is to have better performance with less power.

People who went out and bought a 1200 Watt Power Supply expecting they would need it with the projected path of power requirements now may find that with the new equipment they can use a 750 Watt PSU with new equipment and have power to spare.

The ANTEC P190 Case comes with 2 PSU's a 650 for the MB/CPU etc and a 500 for fans etc. If you piurchased that box you could get away with using just the 650 with a Q6600 and the new AMD/ATI 3870x2. That is progress.

 

[Evilonigiri]

Multi-core GPUs are the future, not multi-GPU.

I just looked GPU up in wiki:

A GPU can sit on top of a video card, or it can be integrated directly into the motherboard.

This indicates that GPU is the core of the video card. So wouldn't multi-Gpu be correct?

 

[Shadow703793]

Is it me or is it a trend??? Quad core CPUs and dual GPUs?

Let the Multi Core Wars Begin!

 

[enewmen]

Is it me or is it a trend??? Quad core CPUs and dual GPUs?

Let the Multi Core Wars Begin!

I actually think it will scale from 1-2-4-8-or 16 adding cores faster than on CPUs.

Also find combo Chips (Fusion) that may have 2 CPU cores and 4 GPU cores on 1 die.

 

[nhobo]

Massively parallel processing is the fastest way to go, but not the cheapest. Mutiple GPUs (Crossfire/SLI) have been put to work in extremely demanding applications (other than gaming) which much success.

As for the market race to sell a new generation of incremental improvements every 6-12 months, it's all BS.

 

[chaosgs]

Well to counter your point, if your disappointed in multi GPUs than i guess your still using single core CPUs? More GPU's and cpu's are the future no doubt as stated above. we wont be going back to single core untill a whole new cpu is designed.

 

[jaguarskx]

Unless I'm playing at 2560 x 1600, I'll take a single powerful card.

 

[weskurtz81]

jaguarskx,

generally I would agree, but if that single GPU card is say $100 or so more than a multi.... and performs on par or slower.... the obvious choice would be the multi core IMO.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I'm unimpressed in the same sense as with this multicore cpu crap. Just give us BDT processors and be done with it. 5000 fold performance increase without this complicated multicore programming.

 

[frozenlead]

multi-core is the future, yes.
multi-core, multi-die/pcb is the now because it's easier and cheaper.

and cheap will always trump everything in any market.

once multi-gpu (pcb or die) cards become mainstream, you'll really see the top end take off for multi-core graphics processing.

 

[Can Not]

So wouldn't multi-Gpu be correct?

No. Multi GPU inplies 2 GPU chips. Multi-core GPU implies one chip with more than one core.

The difference is that there will still be x amount of logical processors either way, but we think it's not truly high-tech until there is only one physical processor with x logical processors.

 

[chaosgs]

If we ever make a 3 dimensional cpu or gpu than we will be making true innovation. God knows what kind of processing power we will have available. We are suppose to reach our limit come either 2012 or 2015 i cant remember according to some theory. Its on wikipiedia.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Multi-core GPUs are the future, not multi-GPU.

Yeah but the step to multi-core/die is traditional multi-GPU.

Right now it's not practical to go with multi-core without laying some groundwork for parallelism it would be hard to jump to multi-core, even if it were on a single package/socket.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

No. Multi GPU inplies 2 GPU chips. Multi-core GPU implies one chip with more than one core.

The difference is that there will still be x amount of logical processors either way, but we think it's not truly high-tech until there is only one physical processor with x logical processors.

But they were already like that in the past, and the future isn't 1 physical processor with multiple logical processors because that doesn't offer an improvement or solution to the die size & yield issues that are driving the move towards a more modular future.

The future is multi-dies (which may have more than one inner group of units) that allows you to offer solutions like 1 die for one class and 2+ dies for a power class above it.

With the current rumours/theories about the R700/RV770, if it was a single die dual core solution then easily produced products would be achieveable as follows (fictional #s) with only one part;

HD4800 = 2+ dual core RV770s either on one package or one PCB
HD4600 = 1 dual core RV770
HD4300 = 1 crippled RV770 with only 1 functional core achieved through bin'ed parts unable to meet HD4600 levels.

However in order for that future to work both AMD and nV need to improve their ability to scale and omptimize code for setups that do not share schedulers/dispatchers and other components that make their current multi-processor single die solutions work now.

IMO the future will also involve a return to a solution like the NV-IO because that way you can create a single back end for any solution you chose and not have to duplicate that hardware internally for each chip.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

OMG... I thought it was over kill, but 5 blades really is better ! for real...

Is there even a 5 blade razor?

The Shick has 4 and my Fusion has 6, but I love it. [:thegreatgrapeape:6]
Now 7 THAT would be crazy !!

 

[ZOldDude]

Unless I'm playing at 2560 x 1600, I'll take a single powerful card.

Yeah....my two year old 7900GT still runs everything just fine for me and the res I use.

 

[spoonboy]

I agree. Perhaps even multi-(small-seperate)core single die will work for a while.
We will see if the r700/g100 can add 100% more performance with each new core. Rather than a 30% gain with each core using an internal PCIe bridge.
GPUs are already parallel. The problem was making them modular so the high-end GPUs don't have 1 super-sized chip.
The high-end can have 8 cores, mainstream can have 4 cores, low-end having 2 cores, integrated will have 1 core. Something like this.

If you had like hyper transport between cores on a multi-core gpu, and the cores were explicitly designed to work with others then theres hope in it, not our present system of crossfire or sli "right well if you do that, i'll get on with this and well meet again in one frames time" bumbling and time wasting all the way. Your right gpus are parallel, and i think the present system of getting them to work together is a bit of a 'round the houses' type way of doing it. It seems they are melded together rather than being intended from the very outset of their design to work closely together.