GF100’s Gaming Architecture

Although it feels like ages ago, NVIDIA announced the Fermi architecture back in September of 2009, focusing on the compute abilities of the GPU that would be GF100. Today’s announcement is about filling in the blanks – where does the graphics hardware fit in to the design that NVIDIA revealed earlier.

As a quick refresher, the GF100 is composed of 512 SPs, which NVIDIA now calls CUDA cores. Each CUDA core is organized in to a block of 32 cores which we call a Streaming Multiprocessor (SM), which in turn are laid out so that 4 of them are in a Graphics Processing Cluster (GPC). Finally, there are 4 GPCs in a single GF100 chip. 32x4x4 = 512 CUDA cores.

  GF100 GT200x2 (GTX 295) GT200 (GTX 285) G92 (9800+ GTX)
Stream Processors 512 2 x 240 240 128
Texture Address / Filtering 64/256 2 x 80 / 80 80 / 80 64 / 64
ROPs 48 2x 28 32 16
Core Clock ? 576MHz 648MHz 738MHz
Shader Clock ? 1242MHz 1476MHz 1836MHz
Memory Clock ? GDDR5 999MHz (1998MHz data rate) GDDR3 1242MHz (2484MHz data rate) GDDR3 1100MHz (2200MHz data rate) GDDR3
Memory Bus Width 384-bit 2 x 448-bit 512-bit 256-bit
Frame Buffer ? 2 x 896MB 1GB 512MB
Transistor Count 3B 2 x 1.4B 1.4B 754M
Manufacturing Process TSMC 40nm TSMC 55nm TSMC 55nm TSMC 55nm
Price Point $? $500 $400 $150 - 200

When NVIDIA first unveiled GF100, we did not know anything about the ROPs, texture units, or any of the fixed-function graphics units that are customary in a GPU. Today we now have that information, and can discuss where it goes.

While GF100 resembles GT200 in a number of ways as a compute GPU, as a gaming GPU it’s very close to being a complete departure from GT200. The big change here is that the single block of fixed-function hardware as we know it is gone. Virtually every piece of hardware has been split up and moved down a level, and can now be found as part of a GPC or as a SM. NVIDIA’s GF100 block diagram does a good job of showing this.

What’s left of the fixed function hardware is the GigaThread Engine, which is what NVIDIA is calling their scheduler. To understand where our fixed function hardware went, we must meet the newest execution units: The PolyMorph Engine and the Raster Engine.

We’ll start with the Raster Engine. The Raster Engine is the combination of all the raster related hardware that we would have found previously in the fixed function pipeline. It does edge/triangle setup, rasterization, and z-culling in a pipelined manner. Each GPC has its own Raster Engine. NVIDIA has very little to say about the Raster Engine, but very little has changed from GT200 besides the fact that there are now 4 of them (one for each GPC) as opposed to 1 larger block. Each rasterizer can do 8 pixels per clock, for a total of 32 pixels per clock over the entirety of GF100.

The much more important of the two new execution units is the PolyMorph Engine, which is what NVIDIA is calling the execution unit that handles geometry for GF100. The PolyMorph Engine is responsible for handling Vertex Fetch, Tessellation, Viewport Transform, Attribute Setup, and Stream Output. It’s here where the Tessellator is located, one of the biggest changes that DX11 is bringing to GPU design. Unlike the Raster Engine, each SM has a PolyMorph Engine, giving the GF100 16 PolyMorph Engines altogether.

While the PolyMoprh Engine may sound simple in its description, don’t let it fool you. NVIDIA didn’t just move their geometry hardware to a different place, clone it 15 times, and call it a day. This was previously fixed-function hardware where a single unit sat in a pipeline and did its share of the work. By splitting up the fixed-function pipeline like this, NVIDIA in actuality created a lot of work for themselves. Why? Out of order execution.

OoO is something we usually reserve for CPUs, where high-end CPUs are built to execute instructions out of order in order to extract more performance out of them through instruction level parallelism. OoO is very hard to accomplish, because you can only execute certain instructions ahead of other ones while maintaining the correct result for your data. Execute an add instruction that relies on a previous operation before that’s done, and you have problems. GF100 isn’t a full OoO design, so we’re not going to cover OoO in-depth here, but if you’d like to know more please see this article.

At any rate, internally each PolyMorph Engine is still a simple in-order design. NVIDIA hasn’t gone so far as to make a PolyMorph Engine an OoO design – but because there are 16 of them when there used to be just 1, OoO hazards can occur just as they would in an OoO executing CPU. NVIDIA now has to keep track of what each PolyMorph Engine is doing in respect to the other 15, and put the brakes on any of them that get too far ahead in order to maintain the integrity of results.

To resolve the hazards of OoO, GF100 has a private communication channel just for the PolyMorph Engines that allows them to stay together on a task in spite of being spread apart. The fact of the matter is that all of the work that goes in to making a design like this work correctly is an immense amount of effort, and NVIDIA’s engineers are quite proud of this effort. They have taken the monolithic design of prior GPUs’ geometry units, and made it parallel. We can’t overstate how much of an engineering challenge this is.

However all of this work came at a cost, and not just the significant engineering resources NVIDIA threw at GF100. The other cost was time – we believe that the PolyMorph Engine is the single biggest reason that GF100 didn’t make it out last year. It’s the single biggest redesign of any component in GF100, and is something that NVIDIA had to start virtually from scratch on. When NVIDIA told us that designing a big GPU is hard, this is what they had in mind.

Now why did NVIDIA put themselves through all of this? Because in their eyes, they had to. The use of a fixed-function pipeline in their eyes was a poor choice given the geometric complexity that a tessellator would create, and hence the entire pipeline needed to be rebalanced. By moving to the parallel design of the PolyMorph Engine, NVIDIA’s geometry hardware is no longer bound by any limits of the pipelined fixed-function design (such as bottlenecks in one stage of the pipeline), and for better or for worse, they can scale their geometry and raster abilities with the size of the chip. A smaller GF100 derivative will not have as many PolyMorph or Raster units as GF100, and as a result won’t have the same level of performance; G92 derivatives and AMD’s designs both maintain the same fixed function pipeline through all chips, always offering the same level of performance.

Speaking of performance, we’ll get to that in a bit, but for now we’ll finish our discussion of GF100’s graphics units. Each SM has 4 texture units, which have changes somewhat from the GT200. In GT200, the texture units were at the TPC level; here they are per SM. The texture units are also affected by the cache reorganization of GF100; for L1 cache they still have the same 12KB of texture cache per set of 4 texture units, while they all share GF100’s 768KB L2 cache, which is now used by all execution units and not just textures. Each unit can compute 1 texture address and fetch 4 texture samples per clock, a significantly higher texture fetch rate than on the GT200. Furthermore in conjunction with DX11, NVIDIA’s texture units now support DX11’s new compressed texture formats. Finally, texture units are now tied to the shader clock and not the core clock. They run at 1/2 the shader clock speed of GF100.

Last but not least, this brings us to the ROPs. The ROPs have been reorganized, there are now 48 of them in 6 parttions of 8, and a 64bit memory channel serving each partition. The ROPs now share the L2 cache with the rest of GF100, while under GT200 they had their own L2 cache. Each ROP can do 1 regular 32bit pixel per clock, 1 FP16 pixel over 2 clocks, or 1 FP32 pixel over 4 clocks, giving the GF100 the ability to retire 48 regular pixels per clock. The ROPs are clocked together with the L2 cache.

That leaves us on a final note: clocks. The core clock has been virtually done away with on GF100, as almost every unit now operates at or on a fraction of the shader clock. Only the ROPs and L2 cache operate on a different clock, which is best described as what’s left of the core clock. The shader clock now drives the majority of the chip, including the shaders, the texture units, and the new PolyMorph and Raster Engines. Specifically, the texture units, PolyMorph Engine, and Raster Engine all run at 1/2 shader clock (which NVIDIA is tentatively calling the "GPC Clock"), while the L1 cache and the shaders themselves run at the full shader clock. Don’t be surprised if GF100 overclocking is different from GT200 overclocking as a result.

Index Why NVIDIA Is Focused On Geometry
POST A COMMENT

115 Comments

View All Comments

  • Zool - Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - link

    There are still plenty of questions.
    Like how tesselation efects MSAA with increased geametry per pixel. Also the flat stairs in uniengine (and very plastic, realistic after tesselation and displacement mapping), would they work with collision detection as after tesselation or before as completely flat and somewhere else in the 3d space. The same with some physix efects. The uniengine heaven is more of a showcase of tesselation and what can be done than a real game engine.
    Reply
  • marraco - Monday, January 18, 2010 - link

    Far Cry Ranch Small, and all the integrated benchmark, reads constantly the hard disk, so is dependent of HD speed.

    It's not unfair, since FC2 updates textures from hard disk all the time, making the game freeze constantly, even in the better computers.

    I wish to see that benchmark run with and without SSD.
    Reply
  • Zool - Monday, January 18, 2010 - link

    I want also note that for the stream of fps/3rd person shooters/rts/racing games that look all same sometimes upgrading the graphic card doesnt have much sense these days.
    Can anyone make a game that will use pc hardware and it wont end in running and shoting at each other from first or third person ? Dragon age was a quite weak overhyped rpg.
    Reply
  • Suntan - Monday, January 18, 2010 - link

    Agreed. That is one of the main reasons I've lost interest in PC gaming. Ironically though, my favorite console games on the PS3 have been the two Uncharted games...

    -Suntan
    Reply
  • mark0409mr01 - Monday, January 18, 2010 - link

    Does anybody know if Fermi, GF100 or whatever it's going to be called have support for bitstream of HD audio codecs?

    Also do we know anything else about the video capabilites of the new card, there doesn't really seem to have been much mentioned about this.

    Thanks
    Reply
  • Slaimus - Monday, January 18, 2010 - link

    Seeing how the GF100 chip has no display components at all on-chip (RAMDAC, TMDS, Displayport, PureVideo), they will probably be using a NVIO chip like the GT200. Would it not be possible to just put multiple NVIO chips to scale with the number of display outputs? Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - link

    If it's possible, NVIDIA is not doing it. I asked them about the limit on display outputs, and their response (which is what brought upon the comments in the article) was that GF100 cards were already too late in the design process after they greenlit Surround to add more display outputs.

    I don't have more details than that, but the implication is that they need to bake support for more displays in to the GPU itself.
    Reply
  • Headfoot - Monday, January 18, 2010 - link

    Best comment for the entire page, I am wondering the same thing. Reply
  • Suntan - Monday, January 18, 2010 - link

    Looking at the image of the chip on the first page, it looks like a miniature of a vast city complex. Man, when are they going to remake “TRON”…

    …although, at the speeds that chips are running now-a-days, the whole movie would be over in a ¼ of a second…

    -Suntan
    Reply
  • arnavvdesai - Monday, January 18, 2010 - link

    In you conclusion you mentioned that the only thing which would matter would be price/performance. However, from the article I wasnt really able to make out a couple of things. When NVIDIA says they can make something look better than the competition, how would you quantify that?
    I am a gamer & I love beautiful graphics. It's one of the reasons I still sometimes buy games for PCs instead of consoles. I have a 5870 & a 1080p 24" monitor. I would however consider buying this card if it made my game look better. After a certain number(60fps) I really only care about beautiful graphics. I want no grass to look like paper or jaggies to show on distant objects. Also, will game makers take advantage of this? Unlike previous generations game manufacturers are very deeply tied to the current console market. They have to make sure the game performs admirably on current day consoles which are at least 3-5 years behind their PC counterparts, so what incentive do they have to try and advance graphics on the PC when there arent enough people buying them. I am looking at current games and frankly just playing it, other than an obvious improvement in framerate, I cannot notice any visual improvements.
    Coming back to my question on architecture. Will this tech being built by Nvidia help improve visual quality of games without additional or less additional work from the game manufacturing studios.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now