• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

EVGA Releases Optional BIOS Update for RTX 3080 FTW3 ULTRA - XOC 450 W

Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,978 (1.76/day)
Location
Thessaloniki, Greece
System Name PC on since Aug 2019, 1st CPU R5 3600 + ASUS ROG RX580 8GB >> MSI Gaming X RX5700XT (Jan 2020)
Processor Ryzen 9 5900X (July 2022), 150W PPT limit, 79C temp limit, CO -9~14
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Pro (Rev1.0), BIOS F37h, AGESA V2 1.2.0.B
Cooling Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420mm Rev7 with off center mount for Ryzen, TIM: Kryonaut
Memory 2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo GTZN (July 2022) 3600MHz 1.42V CL16-16-16-16-32-48 1T, tRFC:288, B-die
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro+ RX 7900XTX (Dec 2023) 314~465W (387W current) PowerLimit, 1060mV, Adrenalin v24.3.1
Storage Samsung NVMe: 980Pro 1TB(OS 2022), 970Pro 512GB(2019) / SATA-III: 850Pro 1TB(2015) 860Evo 1TB(2020)
Display(s) Dell Alienware AW3423DW 34" QD-OLED curved (1800R), 3440x1440 144Hz (max 175Hz) HDR1000, VRR on
Case None... naked on desk
Audio Device(s) Astro A50 headset
Power Supply Corsair HX750i, 80+ Platinum, 93% (250~700W), modular, single/dual rail (switch)
Mouse Logitech MX Master (Gen1)
Keyboard Logitech G15 (Gen2) w/ LCDSirReal applet
Software Windows 11 Home 64bit (v23H2, OSB 22631.3155)
Exactly. The thing is that the raw performance uplift comes with a TDP uplift of ~equal measure, so I can't really see any perf/W increase at all.

When they announced the prices and everybody started panic selling their 2080 Ti's, I had a feeling that there was a reason behind it. Nvidia has never been famous for bringing good value propositions in the higher market segments - don't get me wrong, people, they're good cards, just not as good as Jensen claimed in the announcement. It also puzzles me how they managed to achieve a 30% performance uplift with ~double the cuda cores.
Not every cuda core is created equal. Its like trying to compare different cores from different CPUs.

-------------------------------------------------

Its easy if you know the specifics. According to Jensen a process unit to be called cuda core must be able to execute FP32 instructions.

Pre-Turing architectures every cuda core was capable of 1 Int or 1 FP instruction, and cannot execute both.

This has changed in Turing. In Turing every cuda core was performing exclusively FP instructions and the number was 4352. For Int instructions Turing had another 4352 units that was not counted for cuda cores (see Jensen)

Ampere 3080 now has (4352x2) 8704 cuda cores and the 4352 of them are executing exclusively FP instruction and the other 4352 are executing Int or FP instructions, but not both.

See?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
9,823 (5.11/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon-B Mk. 4
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x 24 GB Corsair Vengeance EXPO DDR5-6000
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 7800 XT
Storage 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2, 4 + 8 TB Seagate Barracuda 3.5"
Display(s) Dell S3422DWG, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Logitech MX Master 2S
Keyboard Logitech G413 SE
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R23 single-core: 1,800, multi-core: 18,000. Superposition 1080p Extreme: 9,900.
Not every cuda core is created equal. Its like trying to compare different cores from different CPUs.

-------------------------------------------------

Its easy if you know the specifics. According to Jensen a process unit to be called cuda core must be able to execute FP32 instructions.

Pre-Turing architectures every cuda core was capable of 1 Int or 1 FP instruction, and cannot execute both.

This has changed in Turing. In Turing every cuda core was performing exclusively FP instructions and the number was 4352. For Int instructions Turing had another 4352 units that was not counted for cuda cores (see Jensen)

Ampere 3080 now has (4352x2) 8704 cuda cores and the 4352 of them are executing exclusively FP instruction and the other 4352 are executing Int or FP instructions, but not both.

See?
So basically Int cores count as a cuda core now, while in Turing, they were just an extra unnamed component next to the FP cores? Interesting.
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,978 (1.76/day)
Location
Thessaloniki, Greece
System Name PC on since Aug 2019, 1st CPU R5 3600 + ASUS ROG RX580 8GB >> MSI Gaming X RX5700XT (Jan 2020)
Processor Ryzen 9 5900X (July 2022), 150W PPT limit, 79C temp limit, CO -9~14
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Pro (Rev1.0), BIOS F37h, AGESA V2 1.2.0.B
Cooling Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420mm Rev7 with off center mount for Ryzen, TIM: Kryonaut
Memory 2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo GTZN (July 2022) 3600MHz 1.42V CL16-16-16-16-32-48 1T, tRFC:288, B-die
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro+ RX 7900XTX (Dec 2023) 314~465W (387W current) PowerLimit, 1060mV, Adrenalin v24.3.1
Storage Samsung NVMe: 980Pro 1TB(OS 2022), 970Pro 512GB(2019) / SATA-III: 850Pro 1TB(2015) 860Evo 1TB(2020)
Display(s) Dell Alienware AW3423DW 34" QD-OLED curved (1800R), 3440x1440 144Hz (max 175Hz) HDR1000, VRR on
Case None... naked on desk
Audio Device(s) Astro A50 headset
Power Supply Corsair HX750i, 80+ Platinum, 93% (250~700W), modular, single/dual rail (switch)
Mouse Logitech MX Master (Gen1)
Keyboard Logitech G15 (Gen2) w/ LCDSirReal applet
Software Windows 11 Home 64bit (v23H2, OSB 22631.3155)
So basically Int cores count as a cuda core now, while in Turing, they were just an extra unnamed component next to the FP cores? Interesting.
Process units are called cuda cores, always was, as long as they can execute FP instructions, despite the Integer capability.

In Ampere all units can process FP but half of them can process Int. Turing had cuda cores only capable of FP, and other units (same amount) only capable of Int that are called... Int processing units, but not cuda cores.
Its the FP capability (do or dont) that defines a unit to be (called) cuda core or not.
Its Jensen on the work!
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
9,823 (5.11/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon-B Mk. 4
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x 24 GB Corsair Vengeance EXPO DDR5-6000
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 7800 XT
Storage 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2, 4 + 8 TB Seagate Barracuda 3.5"
Display(s) Dell S3422DWG, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Logitech MX Master 2S
Keyboard Logitech G413 SE
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R23 single-core: 1,800, multi-core: 18,000. Superposition 1080p Extreme: 9,900.
Process units are called cuda cores, always was, as long as they can execute FP instructions, despite the Integer capability.

In Ampere all units can process FP but half of them can process Int. Turing had cuda cores only capable of FP, and other units (same amount) only capable of Int that are called... Int processing units, but not cuda cores.
Its the FP capability (do or dont) that defines a unit to be (called) cuda core or not.
Its Jensen on the work!
Ah, I see. The cynic in me starts to think that the term 'cuda core' is just another marketing BS (8000 is better than 4000, right?) However, it doesn't change the fact that Ampere offers minimal (if any) efficiency gains over Turing, which is sad.
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,978 (1.76/day)
Location
Thessaloniki, Greece
System Name PC on since Aug 2019, 1st CPU R5 3600 + ASUS ROG RX580 8GB >> MSI Gaming X RX5700XT (Jan 2020)
Processor Ryzen 9 5900X (July 2022), 150W PPT limit, 79C temp limit, CO -9~14
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Pro (Rev1.0), BIOS F37h, AGESA V2 1.2.0.B
Cooling Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420mm Rev7 with off center mount for Ryzen, TIM: Kryonaut
Memory 2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo GTZN (July 2022) 3600MHz 1.42V CL16-16-16-16-32-48 1T, tRFC:288, B-die
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro+ RX 7900XTX (Dec 2023) 314~465W (387W current) PowerLimit, 1060mV, Adrenalin v24.3.1
Storage Samsung NVMe: 980Pro 1TB(OS 2022), 970Pro 512GB(2019) / SATA-III: 850Pro 1TB(2015) 860Evo 1TB(2020)
Display(s) Dell Alienware AW3423DW 34" QD-OLED curved (1800R), 3440x1440 144Hz (max 175Hz) HDR1000, VRR on
Case None... naked on desk
Audio Device(s) Astro A50 headset
Power Supply Corsair HX750i, 80+ Platinum, 93% (250~700W), modular, single/dual rail (switch)
Mouse Logitech MX Master (Gen1)
Keyboard Logitech G15 (Gen2) w/ LCDSirReal applet
Software Windows 11 Home 64bit (v23H2, OSB 22631.3155)
Ah, I see. The cynic in me starts to think that the term 'cuda core' is just another marketing BS (8000 is better than 4000, right?) However, it doesn't change the fact that Ampere offers minimal (if any) efficiency gains over Turing, which is sad.
Precisely! Numbers of one aspect alone mean absolutely and utterly nothing. Core counts, speeds, IPCs, cuda cores, stream processors, even bus width and almost everything. Its the combination of all that counts and still you cant tell the actual performance even if you know everything.

Only real life apps/games.
Marketing is marketing and their job is to throw out some numbers to impress. And its working, because the majority of people (maybe 90%) do not spend their time to be informed about the details or the actual performance.
 
Last edited:
Top