Architecting Fermi: More Than 2x GT200

NVIDIA keeps referring to Fermi as a brand new architecture, while calling GT200 (and RV870) bigger versions of their predecessors with a few added features. Marginalizing the efforts required to build any multi-billion transistor chip is just silly, to an extent all of these GPUs have been significantly redesigned.

At a high level, Fermi doesn't look much different than a bigger GT200. NVIDIA is committed to its scalar architecture for the foreseeable future. In fact, its one op per clock per core philosophy comes from a basic desire to execute single threaded programs as quickly as possible. Remember, these are compute and graphics chips. NVIDIA sees no benefit in building a 16-wide or 5-wide core as the basis of its architectures, although we may see a bit more flexibility at the core level in the future.

Despite the similarities, large parts of the architecture have evolved. The redesign happened at low as the core level. NVIDIA used to call these SPs (Streaming Processors), now they call them CUDA Cores, I’m going to call them cores.

All of the processing done at the core level is now to IEEE spec. That’s IEEE-754 2008 for floating point math (same as RV870/5870) and full 32-bit for integers. In the past 32-bit integer multiplies had to be emulated, the hardware could only do 24-bit integer muls. That silliness is now gone. Fused Multiply Add is also included. The goal was to avoid doing any cheesy tricks to implement math. Everything should be industry standards compliant and give you the results that you’d expect.

Double precision floating point (FP64) performance is improved tremendously. Peak 64-bit FP execution rate is now 1/2 of 32-bit FP, it used to be 1/8 (AMD's is 1/5). Wow.

NVIDIA isn’t disclosing clock speeds yet, so we don’t know exactly what that rate is yet.

In G80 and GT200 NVIDIA grouped eight cores into what it called an SM. With Fermi, you get 32 cores per SM.

The high end single-GPU Fermi configuration will have 16 SMs. That’s fewer SMs than GT200, but more cores. 512 to be exact. Fermi has more than twice the core count of the GeForce GTX 285.

  Fermi GT200 G80
Cores 512 240 128
Memory Interface 384-bit GDDR5 512-bit GDDR3 384-bit GDDR3

 

In addition to the cores, each SM has a Special Function Unit (SFU) used for transcendental math and interpolation. In GT200 this SFU had two pipelines, in Fermi it has four. While NVIDIA increased general math horsepower by 4x per SM, SFU resources only doubled.

The infamous missing MUL has been pulled out of the SFU, we shouldn’t have to quote peak single and dual-issue arithmetic rates any longer for NVIDIA GPUs.

NVIDIA organizes these SMs into TPCs, but the exact hierarchy isn’t being disclosed today. With the launch's Tesla focus we also don't know specific on ROPs, texture filtering or anything else related to 3D graphics. Boo.

A Real Cache Hierarchy

Each SM in GT200 had 16KB of shared memory that could be used by all of the cores. This wasn’t a cache, but rather software managed memory. The application would have to knowingly move data in and out of it. The benefit here is predictability, you always know if something is in shared memory because you put it there. The downside is it doesn’t work so well if the application isn’t very predictable.

Branch heavy applications and many of the general purpose compute applications that NVIDIA is going after need a real cache. So with Fermi at 40nm, NVIDIA gave them a real cache.

Attached to each SM is 64KB of configurable memory. It can be partitioned as 16KB/48KB or 48KB/16KB; one partition is shared memory, the other partition is an L1 cache. The 16KB minimum partition means that applications written for GT200 that require 16KB of shared memory will still work just fine on Fermi. If your app prefers shared memory, it gets 3x the space in Fermi. If your application could really benefit from a cache, Fermi now delivers that as well. GT200 did have an L1 texture cache (one per TPC), but the cache was mostly useless when the GPU ran in compute mode.

The entire chip shares a 768KB L2 cache. The result is a reduced penalty for doing an atomic memory op, Fermi is 5 - 20x faster here than GT200.

A Different Sort of Launch A More Efficient Architecture
Comments Locked

415 Comments

View All Comments

  • shotage - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link

    lol

    *shakes head*
  • palladium - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link

    Ahh, he said a 9800 GTX + GDDR5 = 4870 !
  • blindbox - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link

    Ooops, I think I need to speak something on topic at least. Anyone could tell me if OpenCL SDK is out yet? Or DirectCompute too? It has been over a year since GPU computing was announced and nothing useful for the consumers (I don't call folding for consumers).
  • habibo - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link

    Yes, both OpenCL and DirectCompute are available for development. It will take time for developers to release applications that use these APIs.

    There are already consumer applications that use CUDA, although these are mostly video encoding, Folding@Home/SETI@home, and PhysX-based games. Possibly not too exciting to you, but hopefully more will be coming as GPU computing gains traction.
  • PorscheRacer - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link

    Does anyone know if the 5000 series support hardware virtualisation? I think this will be the killer feature once AMD's 800 series chipsets debut here shortly. Being able to virtualise the GPU and other hardware with your virtual machines is the last stop to pure bliss.
  • dgz - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link

    I am also curious. Right now only nVidia's Quadro cards support this.

    The thing is, though, that your CPU and chipset also have to support what Intel calls VT-d.

    Being able to play 3D games in virtual OS with little to no performance would be great and useful.

    Not going to happen soon, though. It's also funny that virtually no one Lynnfield mentioned the lack of VT-d in 750 in his "deep" review. Huge disappointment.
  • wifiwolf - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link

    If there's any technology that seams to scratch that virtualization, i think this new gt300 is the one. When reading about nvidia making the card compute oriented it just drove my mind to that thought. Hope i'm right. To be fair with amd, i think their doubled stream processors could be a step forward in that direction too, coupled with dx11 direct compute. Virtual machines just need to acknowledge the cards and capabilities.
  • dgz - Friday, October 2, 2009 - link

    They already do. vmware and vbox have such capabilities. Not everything is possible atm, though.
  • dgz - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link

    oops, I meant "little to no performance penalty" :)
  • sigmatau - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - link

    According to the super troll who keeps screeching about bandwidth, then the GT300 must be a lesser card since it doesn't have 512 bit connection like the GT200.

    LOL @ Trolls.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now