GE Announces Kepler Graphics Card for Military and Aviation

Status
Not open for further replies.

leo2kp

Distinguished
Oct 9, 2006
2,055
0
20,160
Best answers
115
I can honestly say that if I saw that thing in an airplane or something else, I would never have thought "yep, that's a graphics card."
 

blazorthon

Glorious
Sep 24, 2010
14,010
0
43,660
Best answers
512
[citation][nom]Chainzsaw[/nom]Kind of odd to go with kepler when the 7XXX has much better GPGPU abilities.Anyone care to explain why they chose kepler?[/citation]

GCN is only so much better when consumer graphics GPUs are used. Kepler's professional GPUs have far greater DP performance than their consumer GPUs. GCN might still be better, but with 384 cores supplying over 600GFLOPS of DP performance, the professional Kepler GPUs are at the least, very good competition. I think that this card has almost as much DP performance as the GTX 590.
 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
2,019
0
19,780
Best answers
0
[citation][nom]rozz[/nom]For this article, I can legitimately ask the question, "will it play crisis?"[/citation]

Yeah, because the next time you fly on the airlines you want to be assured that the pilots can play video games in the cockpit :)
 

blazorthon

Glorious
Sep 24, 2010
14,010
0
43,660
Best answers
512


It would probably do a crap job of playing Crysis. The GTX 550 TI would probably beat it. This card is built for DP compute, not gaming performance, and 384 Kepler cores is a very small number for Kepler cores when it comes to gaming.
 

atikkur

Distinguished
Apr 27, 2010
327
0
18,790
Best answers
1
[citation][nom]Chainzsaw[/nom]Kind of odd to go with kepler when the 7XXX has much better GPGPU abilities.Anyone care to explain why they chose kepler?[/citation]

because of the communities my friend,, i believe nvidia is still the most famous amongst the scientist in concern of paralel-computing, their support and effort to promote this gpgpu thing are the toppest. and now, is the time for them to harvest their big work. imo.
 

blazorthon

Glorious
Sep 24, 2010
14,010
0
43,660
Best answers
512


Did you not read the article? It clearly states that this little card has over 600GFLOPS of DP compute performance. That makes it the fastest low end GPGPU board that I'v ever heard of. It's right up with the GTX 590 in DP compute performance.
 

Chainzsaw

Splendid
Dec 31, 2002
2,864
0
21,660
Best answers
211
GCN is only so much better when consumer graphics GPUs are used. Kepler's professional GPUs have far greater DP performance than their consumer GPUs. GCN might still be better, but with 384 cores supplying over 600GFLOPS of DP performance, the professional Kepler GPUs are at the least, very good competition. I think that this card has almost as much DP performance as the GTX 590.
AFAIK the highest 7xxx series supports ■947 GFLOPS Double Precision compute power which is still much more powerful than NVIDIAs offering.
 

blazorthon

Glorious
Sep 24, 2010
14,010
0
43,660
Best answers
512
[citation][nom]Chainzsaw[/nom]AFAIK the highest 7xxx series supports ■947 GFLOPS Double Precision compute power which is still much more powerful than NVIDIAs offering.[/citation]

This is a low end card. It's TDP is probably below 60w. This does not compete with the 7950 (7970 has more than 1100GFLOPS of DP compute performance according to Tom's tests, so I assume that you meant the 7950 when you said 947GFLOPS). I only used the GTX 590 as an example to say where it's DP performance lies. In fact, I earlier said that the gaming performance of this card is closer to the GTX 550 TI, possibly below it, just to show how it is not a consumer card like the 79xx cards are. Of course, the article should have been enough evidence for that. It has 384 Kepler FP64 cores. Of course it doesn't beat a high end card like the 7970 that is semi-compute oriented and the same generation.
 

Chainzsaw

Splendid
Dec 31, 2002
2,864
0
21,660
Best answers
211
This is a low end card. It's TDP is probably below 50w. This does not compete with the 7950 (7970 has more than 1100GFLOPS of DP compute performance according to Tom's tests, so I assume that you meant the 7950 when you said 947GFLOPS). I only used the GTX 590 as an example to say where it's DP performance lies. n fact, I earlier said that the gaming performance of this card is closer to the GTX 550 TI, possibly below it, jsut to show how it is not a consumer oriented card. Of course, the article should have been enough evidence for THAT. It has 384 Kepler cores. Of course it doesn't beat a high end card like the 7970 that is semi-compute oriented and the same generation.

I know what you said. However the 7xxx series has a better architecture for exactly what GE is looking for.

What if they made the card out of AMD's architecture instead of NVIDIAs - it would probably still have higher compute performance than this card they mentioned (same form factor, TDP, etc).


Oh well GE should have consulted us here at TOMSHARDWARE first for best bang for the buck compute performance :p
 

ashesofempires04

Distinguished
Nov 10, 2011
48
0
18,540
Best answers
2
It won't matter how good of a card it is; if it's not hardened against vibration, physical shock, and EM interference, the military isn't going to use it.

That goes double for any consumer level card; they aren't built to handle the abuse that military applications put on electronics.
 

blazorthon

Glorious
Sep 24, 2010
14,010
0
43,660
Best answers
512
[citation][nom]Chainzsaw[/nom]I know what you said. However the 7xxx series has a better architecture for exactly what GE is looking for. What if they made the card out of AMD's architecture instead of NVIDIAs - it would probably still have higher compute performance than this card they mentioned (same form factor, TDP, etc).Oh well GE should have consulted us here at TOMSHARDWARE first for best bang for the buck compute performance[/citation]

You don't know that. This 40-60 watt card is about half as fast as the 250w 7970. We don't know how fast a professional GCN GPU would be for the power usage and we don't know very well how much power usage the FP64 Kepler based cards use either (my numbers are speculation based on some math and comparing other cards to where this one is said perform). You have no idea whether or not GCN would make this better or not.
 

blazorthon

Glorious
Sep 24, 2010
14,010
0
43,660
Best answers
512
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]You don't know that. This 40-60 watt card is about half as fast as the 250w 7970. We don't know how fast a professional GCN GPU would be for the power usage and we don't know very well how much power usage the FP64 Kepler based cards use either (my numbers are speculation based on some math and comparing other cards to where this one is said perform). You have no idea whether or not GCN would make this better or not.[/citation]

Also, using GCN would have meant no CUDA.
 

kristoffe

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2010
134
0
18,690
Best answers
1
I have yet to see an ati card that isn't buggy and actually has more real world fps than a competing nvidia card. OpenCL is great but cuda took off. bye bye betamax
 

Chainzsaw

Splendid
Dec 31, 2002
2,864
0
21,660
Best answers
211
You have no idea whether or not GCN would make this better or not.
Neither do you. However the proof is in the architecture. Heck the old fermi architecture was better at compute abilities than kepler.

Also, using GCN would have meant no CUDA.
IMO OpenCL is a better way of doing things than CUDA. I'm sure both have their strengths and weaknesses though.
 

blazorthon

Glorious
Sep 24, 2010
14,010
0
43,660
Best answers
512
[citation][nom]kristoffe[/nom]I have yet to see an ati card that isn't buggy and actually has more real world fps than a competing nvidia card. OpenCL is great but cuda took off. bye bye betamax[/citation]

I have yet to see an AMD card that is any more buggy than a Nvidia card and AMD competes with Nvidia in performance extremely well. Nvidia's top card, the GTX 680, is only a hair above the 7970, in most games and even when it's not, it's still not a huge difference. The 7970 has similar leads over the 680 in some games. AMD and Nvidia are closer with this graphics card generation than they were with the previous generation (GTX 500 versus Radeon 6000).

Nvidia has had just as many driver/bug problems as AMD. In fact, Nvidia has had worse problems. Nvidia, not AMD/Ati, was the one who released a driver that actually kills the graphics card. I think it was Nvidia's 196.75 or something like that. AMD never screwed up that badly. Both companies have their problems, but you're just a fanboy.
 

kristoffe

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2010
134
0
18,690
Best answers
1
I haven't really experienced half as many as with ati, and this is a full range of legacy to current pci-e 3.0 cards. real world results, not numbers as well.

not really, I am a forensic artist that uses consumer and prosumer cards alike and I write in both cuda and opencl.

;) good luck on your derpathon champ
 

blazorthon

Glorious
Sep 24, 2010
14,010
0
43,660
Best answers
512
[citation][nom]Chainzsaw[/nom]Neither do you. However the proof is in the architecture. Heck the old fermi architecture was better at compute abilities than kepler.IMO OpenCL is a better way of doing things than CUDA. I'm sure both have their strengths and weaknesses though.[/citation]

CUDA is supposedly easier to code in and the developers for it already have experience with it, so they don't want to switch. Also, GCN can't be more than four times faster than it is on the 79xx cards because they have a 1 to 4 DP to SP ratio, so unlike you, I have a very good idea of how well it can perform.
 

Chainzsaw

Splendid
Dec 31, 2002
2,864
0
21,660
Best answers
211
Also, GCN can't be more than four times faster than it is on the 79xx cards because they have a 1 to 4 DP to SP ratio, so unlike you, I have a very goo idea of how well it can perform.
Where in the world did I say four times faster? Or where in the world did you get four times faster?

Stop fabricating things. Whats with the personal attacks anyways "unlike you"..."You have no idea".....I do have an idea, I do know what i'm talking about.

Whats with the attitude anyways?

Do you think I would be here just because I can type? No, I'm here because I know about technology, and not some random schmuck who doesn't know the difference between different architectures.

I'm done here. Continue fabricating things if you wish.
 

chomlee

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
243
0
18,680
Best answers
0
I dind't know what you guys meant by DP so I did a google search on it and I got something totally unexpected. Then I realized you meant Double Precision.
 

Chainzsaw

Splendid
Dec 31, 2002
2,864
0
21,660
Best answers
211
That a low end card such as this one on this article can beat the GTX 690 in DP performance is undeniable proof of this. It has one tenth of the core count of the 690, but almost double the performance. That's very in line with the 1 to 24 DP to SP ratio of the GK104 cards.
Did you even read my reply to him, i'm not talking about consumer cards, i'm talking about if they made a non-consumer card like what they did with this one in this article. Reading comprehesion skills 101. So you can blow your smoke elsewhere.

You have no clue as to what blazorthon is talking about and he is absolutely correct.
You just have no clue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS