- Joined
- Feb 20, 2019
- Messages
- 7,295 (3.87/day)
| System Name | Bragging Rights |
|---|---|
| Processor | Atom Z3735F 1.33GHz |
| Motherboard | It has no markings but it's green |
| Cooling | No, it's a 2.2W processor |
| Memory | 2GB DDR3L-1333 |
| Video Card(s) | Gen7 Intel HD (4EU @ 311MHz) |
| Storage | 32GB eMMC and 128GB Sandisk Extreme U3 |
| Display(s) | 10" IPS 1280x800 60Hz |
| Case | Veddha T2 |
| Audio Device(s) | Apparently, yes |
| Power Supply | Samsung 18W 5V fast-charger |
| Mouse | MX Anywhere 2 |
| Keyboard | Logitech MX Keys (not Cherry MX at all) |
| VR HMD | Samsung Oddyssey, not that I'd plug it into this though.... |
| Software | W10 21H1, barely |
| Benchmark Scores | I once clocked a Celeron-300A to 564MHz on an Abit BE6 and it scored over 9000. |
Yeah, At the moment - specifically this article - the only real info we have on the mobile 3000-series is CUDA core count and power target, so that's what matters. Looking at architectural efficiency is hard because across the range of SKUs for any architecture there is a huge range of different efficiencies, and the SKUs and power targets (which heavily influence the power efficiency) don't match up between Turing and Ampere either.Ok, by reading your last two sentences now I get what you were pointing at.
So the conclusion based on desktop models is that Ampere GPU is more power efficient(perf/W) than Turing GPU and as fast or faster depending on which models you are comparing(3060Ti vs 2080S, 3070 vs 2080, 3070 vs 2080ti), but because of the architectural changes in SM you need to watch out for the number of Cuda cores even with same clockspeed, because It's not representative of performance gain over Turing architecture and you could end up with much lower gaming performance than you wanted.
For example If you want to upgrade from RTX 2060 mobile with 1920 Cuda cores, then an Ampere GPU with 2944-3072 cores will perform similarly even If the difference in Cuda cores is 53-60% so you need to choose Ampere with 3840 Cuda or more, If you want at least ~25% more performance.
I think this sums It up pretty nicely.
I have to wonder If RTX 3060 mobile will have only 3072Cuda(24SM) with 192bit GDDR6 bus.
An uncut GA104 has 6144Cuda cores(48SM) and 256bit GDDR6 bus. Based on this even 128bit bus should be enough for 3072 cores(24SM) and Nvidia would need to deactivate half of cores(SM) to get this from GA104, that's too much of a waste.
I think this RTX 3060 is based on GA106 and there will be RTX 3060Ti or Super with 3840 cores. The question is If GA106 will have only 24SM or 30SM in full config, but considering GA104 has 48SM I think It will have 30SM and 192bit GDDR6 bus.
The point that's perhaps even more important than the relative 'per-core' efficiency of Ampere vs Turing is actually how they're going to squeeze a 320W card into a 115W laptop!
A desktop 2080 had 2944 cores @ 215W, a mobile 2080 had 2944 @ 115W
Same core count, 44% TDP reduction
Same silicon (binned for voltage efficiency) so the reduced TDP was good for 80-90% of the desktop performance.
A desktop 3080 has 8704 cores @ 320W, a mobile 3080 has 6144 @ 115W
30% core count reduction, 65% TDP reduction.
Lower tier silicon with reduced ROPs, TMUs, Tensor cores etc. If performance is even half of a desktop 3080 I'll be impressed.
It's a huge cut, and so the comparison that people need to be careful to avoid is mobile Ampere vs mobile Turing - because that's no longer like for like, it's comparing a desktop-equivalent with something that absolutely isn't a desktop equivalent!
