News Nvidia CEO Jensen says, 'Our life goal is not to build CUDA GPUs' — notes the company changed its mission but never changed the name.

Status
Not open for further replies.
split off gaming gpu segment of your company :|

focus on the ai that prints you $ and let someone else focus on gaming cards.
Eventually, a deeper split between actual graphics cards and AI accelerators is bound to happen. Just... not quite yet.

both sides really do not care about the other side of the business as its not the primary part of the product usage for them.
Well, there's DLSS and other types of generative AI being developed for gaming... so, I wouldn't say GPUs have no interest in AI.
 
Last edited:
split off gaming gpu segment of your company :|

focus on the ai that prints you $ and let someone else focus on gaming cards.

both sides really do not care about the other side of the business as its not the primary part of the product usage for them.
They have splitthe gaming and ai units. While each has functions the other doesn’t, the core ALU pipelines are closely related.

The reason Nvidia has such a dominant card in gaming is because of the work to build powerful machine learning compute. For the frustration involved with gaming being a second class citizen, anyone building gaming GPUs alone won’t be able to keep up.
 
They have splitthe gaming and ai units. While each has functions the other doesn’t, the core ALU pipelines are closely related.
Nvidia, AMD, and Intel each have a server architecture which is dedicated to HPC (fp64) and AI (training + inference). They each also have client GPUs, which do graphics + AI inference. So, there's an architectural split, but it's not strictly along the lines of AI vs. graphics.

By contrast, if you look at dedicated AI chips, there are some notable differences to what any of the above architectures look like. The dedicated AI processors tend to have a higher ratio of SRAM to compute. Also, less emphasis on: external memory bandwidth, cache coherence, or global data movement. That's because interactive rendering involves lots of global data movement, whereas AI processing lets itself much more readily to partitioning and graph-oriented processing (i.e. "data-flow processing"). Cerebras, Graphcore, and Tenstorrent are all examples of this approach.


Nvidia can do dataflow processing, but more at the level of partitioning GPUs within a cluster. Within a single GPU, there's way too much data movement for it to be optimal. I get the feeling that Nvidia is currently playing off its entrenched CUDA advantage, big time.
 
"I just never changed the name."?!?! WTF? Why would he change the name? it's just a made up word, it's meaningless.
Changing the name when you change the goal of the product is a very common thing to do. In recent years we have ended up with devices called NPUs or Neural Processing Units which are dedicated to doing the calculations required for neural networks.

Now GPUs, especially Nvidia ones are not just GPUs, they contain the main GPU but also Ray Tracing (RT) units and tensor cores, hence your GPU is more than a GPU.

For Nvidia's server GPUs, meant for machine learning, they maybe should have a name change as their main goal is no longer graphics but machine learning. Google has their Tensor Processing Units (TPUs), processors made specifically for tensor calculations, mainly for neural networks. So if Nvidia's latest server GPUs are meant primarily for AI and machine learning then why still call them Graphics Processing Units?

So what if all names are just made up? Names are how we differentiate things. Should all sharp objects just be called knives? Knives, chisels, planes, etc. Should they all just be called knives because names are made up? No they shouldn't, they are different tools for different functions, hence they have different names, if Nvidia's latest "GPUs" aren't primarily meant for graphics then shouldn't they have a name change to better describe what they are for?
 
"I just never changed the name."?!?! WTF? Why would he change the name? it's just a made up word, it's meaningless.
The co-founders named all their files NV, as in "next version". The need to incorporate the company prompted the co-founders to review all words with those two letters, eventually leading them to find "invidia", the Latin word for "envy".

With dropping the "i", the name "Nvidia" seemed an obvious fit. They wanted everyone to envy their products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scottslayer
At the CASPA 2023 Dinner Banquet, Jensen Huang addresses whether GPU architectures will continue to dominate for the next few years. While answering the question, he also discusses how GPUs have evolved beyond being "just" for graphics.

Nvidia CEO Jensen says, 'Our life goal is not to build CUDA GPUs' — notes the company changed its mission but never changed the name. : Read more
Heather just like China He has China at heart and he will always put China first That's what things are modified. A typical rich idiot and people listen
 
Well, to Jensen's point: GPUs haven't been about graphics for a good while now. It's good he is reaminding the audience they're just general purpose accelerators (glorified SIMDs on a PCB of sorts) for embarrasingly parallel tasks. Float point monsters is another good name, I guess? Heh. Even using "GPGPU" is kind of wrong nowadays.

There's plenty semantics to last a lifetime of discussion and all, but the core point is we should maybe adapt the language to the reality: let's call them "general purpose accelerators" (GPAs) and then make the distinction within?

As per always, the main point stands from what Jensen said: "context, bois; context".

Regards.
 
GPUs, especially Nvidia ones are not just GPUs, they contain the main GPU but also Ray Tracing (RT) units and tensor cores, hence your GPU is more than a GPU.
LOL, how does Ray Tracing hardware make them any bit less of a GPU? While there are some niche, non-graphical applications of ray tracing, the RT cores in their GPUs are both intended for and 99.99% used for graphics.

For Nvidia's server GPUs, meant for machine learning,
Nope. The H100 doubled down on general-purpose fp64 and fp32 compute. Nvidia seemed unwilling to walk away from the HPC market, but also opted not to further bifurcate their product line. So, the H100/H200 remains targeted both at AI and scalable, parallel computing.

if Nvidia's latest server GPUs are meant primarily for AI and machine learning then why still call them Graphics Processing Units?
Do they? Where/when did you see Nvidia last call them GPUs?
 
Well, to Jensen's point: GPUs haven't been about graphics for a good while now. It's good he is reaminding the audience they're just general purpose accelerators (glorified SIMDs on a PCB of sorts) for embarrasingly parallel tasks. Float point monsters is another good name, I guess? Heh. Even using "GPGPU" is kind of wrong nowadays.
What's ironic about saying this now is that it's gotten less and less true, over the past decade. If we go back about 10 years ago, you would be spot-on that, aside from video codecs, display engines, ROPs, TMUs, and perhaps Tessellation engines, GPUs were just straight-forward floating point SIMD + SMT engines.

In the meantime, along came Tensor cores, integer arithmetic, and RT cores. Nvidia has even added hardware for performing optical flow analysis! They're still mostly arrays of SIMD processing engines, but not as much as before (and not only floating point).

let's call them "general purpose accelerators" (GPAs)
That's a little too non-specific. CPUs are the ultimate generalists.

Intel has promoted the following classification:

oneapi-architecture.png

Source: https://spec.oneapi.io/versions/latest/architecture.html

They define them as follows:

  • Scalar architecture typically refers to the type of workloads that are optimal on a CPU, where one stream of instructions operates at a given rate typically driven by CPU clock cycles. From system boot and productivity applications to advanced workloads like cryptography and AI, scalar-based CPUs work across a wide range of topographies with consistent, predictable performance.
  • Vector architecture is optimal for workloads, which can be decomposed into vectors of instructions or vectors of data elements. GPUs and VPUs deliver vector-based parallel processing to accelerate graphics rendering for gaming, rich media, analytics and deep learning training and inference. By scaling vector architectures from client, data center, and the edge, we can take parallel processing performance from gigaFLOPS to teraFLOPS, petaFLOPS, and exaFLOPS.
  • Matrix architecture derives its name from a common operation typically performed for AI workloads (matrix multiplication). While other architectures can execute matrix multiply code, ASICs have traditionally achieved the highest performance implementing the type of operations typically needed for AI inferencing and training, including matrix multiplication.
  • Spatial architecture is a special architecture usually associated with an FPGA. Here, the data flows through the chip, and the computing operation performed on the data element is based on the physical location of the data in the device. The specific data transformation algorithm that has been programmed into the FPGA.
Source: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/silicon-innovations/6-pillars/architecture.html

Using that taxonomy, we might call GPU-like compute devices something like "Vector Compute Accelerators". However, there have long been Vector Processors in the super computing sector, and I'm sure purists would turn up their nose at trying to lump GPUs in with some of those elegant machines.
 
I think it's been pretty clear that nVidia's "secret" to success has been developing custom tools to design chips better and more predictively.

AMD's last few generations of GPUs never seemed to hit clock or power targets compared to nVidia, or had broken hardware features, and Intel's GPUs released broken .

Meanwhile, nVidia has been on 2 year release cadence with HUGE GPUs hitting high speeds with high efficiency on cutting edge nodes.

If everyone could do it, they all would be releasing huge GPUs to defeat nVidia through brute force, but they haven't. And AMD is moving to GPU chiplets to compete.

So, AI this. AI that... but nVidia execution on delivering huge, efficient GPUs is what allows them to lead in AI.
 
AMD's last few generations of GPUs never seemed to hit clock or power targets compared to nVidia, or had broken hardware features, and Intel's GPUs released broken .

Meanwhile, nVidia has been on 2 year release cadence with HUGE GPUs hitting high speeds with high efficiency on cutting edge nodes.
That's an odd thing to say, when RDNA2 managed to catch Nvidia on raster performance. Part of the reason was that Nvidia did not use the best process node for RTX 3000, but instead went with Samsung 8 nm, while AMD used TSMC N7.

AMD is moving to GPU chiplets to compete.
That's mainly due to the economics of SRAM scaling. I think Nvidia will follow.
 
AMD got a chiplet GPU working a year ago. Prior to that, AMD's GPUs have been less than competitive at the high-end. Call them just rumors, but AMD GPUs never hit the designed clock ranges, and, again, release with broken hardware features. Go read up on thier GPUs over the past decade.

nVidia just toots out huge monolithic GPUs with high clock speeds like it's nothing. The last "dud" silicon nVidia made was the GTX 480.
 
AMD got a chiplet GPU working a year ago. Prior to that, AMD's GPUs have been less than competitive at the high-end.
It sounds like you missed all the benchmarks from RDNA2 vs. RTX 3000. AMD pulled a pretty big coup, hanging with & even sometimes beating Nvidia on raster performance.

Go read up on thier GPUs over the past decade.
Who cares about decade-old GPUs? AMD really turned a page, with RDNA. GCN didn't age well, as it was primarily aimed at GPU compute. Fortunately, that doesn't matter to us, today.

nVidia just toots out huge monolithic GPUs with high clock speeds like it's nothing.
Yeah, as long as you don't mind paying whatever they feel like charging for them.
 
It sounds like you missed all the benchmarks from RDNA2 vs. RTX 3000. AMD pulled a pretty big coup, hanging with & even sometimes beating Nvidia on raster performance.
MPg9gyCBiLLW2QPqxWmzw.png


Who cares about decade-old GPUs? AMD really turned a page, with RDNA. GCN didn't age well, as it was primarily aimed at GPU compute. Fortunately, that doesn't matter to us, today.


Yeah, as long as you don't mind paying whatever they feel like charging for them.
The problem with AMD is they are either late to the ball game or price their GPUs too high. They are also not as efficient as before. That 6950xt was power hungry.
NVIDIA has them beat on many fronts. Raster is the least important thing to most people who buy GPUs.
I am a gamer and I want an all around good GPU. Not one that just does raster well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.