backtop


Print 17 comment(s) - last by name99.. on Jan 7 at 8:22 PM

NVIDIA looks to strengthen its position in the mobile sectors with Tegra 4

With smartphones and tablets taking over the computing world and putting traditional PCs and notebooks on the back burner, a number of companies are jockeying for position to deliver the highest performing SOCs on the market. NVIDIA has been in this game for a while with its Tegra line of processors, and its most recent Tegra 3 has scored a slew of design wins over the past year.
 
NVIDIA is looking to build upon that success with its next generation Tegra 4. While we're sure that NVIDIA was looking to surprise everyone at CES, most of the details on the new chip leaked in mid-December. The Cortex-A15-based Tegra 4 is built on a 28nm process, continues the 4+1 design (quad-core + companion core), and features 72 NVIDIA GeForce GPU cores.
 

NVIDIA says that the move to 28nm help the Tegra 4 consumer 45 percent less power than its predecessor and would allow mainstream phones to deliver 14 hours of continues HD video content.
 
However, Tegra 4 doesn't have integrated LTE onboard. Instead, NVIDIA is hyping up its optional Icera i500 processor for LTE functionality. Although the move to 28nm is likely to improve battery life across the board, not having LTE integrated on-chip isn't going to do it any favors either.
 
We’re likely to see a number of Tegra 4-based products at CES, and we’ll be sure to keep you informed of the ones that really catch our eye.

Source: NVIDIA



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By steven975 on 1/7/2013 10:11:49 AM , Rating: -1
So, Apple, at least up through A5, basically integrates COTS components and has the fastest mobile processors around bar none. Up until the A6, they literally did very little work, and yet smashed Tegra3 in pretty much every way.

It does seem Apple is the only company willing to spend real money on the processors...performance pretty much necessitates die space, and the other companies are skimping BIG TIME there.

I'd be curious as to:
1. How this compares to Imagination Technologies' newest GPUs. How many Geforce cores are needed to equal one Imagination core? How much performance per mm2 and watt is each delivering?
2. How many Geforce cores will show up in the real world. I see "up to 72" here, but I'm willing to bet that in the real world, companies will probably want to use the minimum amount possible to save money...so like 12.




By theapparition on 1/7/2013 10:36:34 AM , Rating: 5
I disagree with your comments.

The Tegra 3 was actually more powerful CPU wise and competitive GPU wise with Apple's A5. So using the term "smash" was a bit incorrect. The A5X brought superior GPU capability by adding the SGX543MP4 quad core GPU. But CPU wise, it was basically still OMAP or Tegra 3.

The A6 upped the ante, certainly. A custom core based on the ARM instruction set rather than the reference A9/A15 design has it's benefits (and a few drawbacks). They actually downgraded the GPU to the SGX543MP3 but with a higher clock.

The A6 is the benchmark for newer SoCs, and kudos to Apple for that and setting a benchmark. But there's certainly a lot of upcoming competition. OMAP 5, Exynos 5, and Qualcomm's newest, along with the Tegra 4.

As to your question about GeForce cores, each Tegra 4 will come with 72. I have no knowledge of them custom making dies for customer applications. However, depending on yields, it may be possible that there will be chip fallout and binning will occur. In that case, there may be different binned versions. From past NVidia history, this isn't a difficult chip for TSMC to make and yields should be quite good.


By Wolfpup on 1/7/2013 11:23:06 AM , Rating: 3
Apple does NOT have the fastest mobile SOCs around. They're good, but...

The "smashed Tegra 3" thing is bogus and was addressed.

Apple's new Swift CPU cores are faster than A9, but nowhere near as good as A15...and this has FOUR A15s versus two Swift cores. That ain't "smashing" anything.

Don't know how the GPU cores will compare, but at least by shear number this is way past Tegra 3, so seems likely it's the best right now.


By nafhan on 1/7/2013 11:35:26 AM , Rating: 2
Apple took a track similar to what Qualcomm did in regards to the A15: ARMv7 compatible CPU that has a MUCH better power consumption profile than a "real" A15 at the expense of some speed. I don't think we've seen an A15 design, yet, that would make sense in a smartphone (including Tegra 4). So, they're definitely doing the right thing.

I'm really curious to see what power numbers for the Tegra 4 look like. The fact that they're going on and on about performance means it probably won't have great power numbers, IMO.


By zephyrprime on 1/7/2013 12:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the article does say that it uses 45% less power.


By nafhan on 1/7/2013 5:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno... I'm still holding out for real numbers. HD video might be handled by "5th" core + GPU or something.


By nafhan on 1/7/2013 11:29:19 AM , Rating: 2
I think we're making the switch from fixed function shaders. So, based on my experience when this happened on the desktop 2 Tegra 4 unified shaders will equal 1 Tegra 3 fixed function shader pipeline. So, this probably has about 3X the GPU power of the Tegra 3 in shader limited situations (72/2 = 12*3), which would put it in the same ballpark as the iPhone 5. That also matches up with what Nvidia did on the Tegra 3: same ballpark as the iPhone 4S's chip.

Nvidia is claiming 6X the GPU power of the Tegra 3, but I'm thinking that's probably best case scenario and/or they're running it at much higher clockspeeds than Tegra 3, or maybe they've dramatically increased memory bandwidth. I know older Tegra designs were somewhat limited in that regard. It'll be interesting to actually see 3rd party benches.


By TakinYourPoints on 1/7/2013 12:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
Aside from Apple there's also Qualcomm that NVIDIA is playing catch-up with. I'm looking forward to benchmarks by Anandtech, but given the pattern of the last few years at best I expect it to just barely catch up with what there is now, only to be leapfrogged shortly by Apple and Qualcomm.

We'll see.


By name99 on 1/7/2013 8:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Up until the A6, they literally did very little work, and yet smashed Tegra3 in pretty much every way.


This is not a helpful way to characterize Apple's behavior.
Apple started off with extremely off-the-shelf parts, the innovation was in the software (and perhaps in the choice of additional parts added, the breadth of sensors, the use of a high-quality, for the time, h.264 decoder).
They moved on to asking for parts that had higher performance (most obvious in the GPU arena).
They moved on to a custom SOC (made with mostly 3rd party cells, but with some unorthodox choices, like higher memory bandwidth).
And then we got a custom CPU.

You see this as four years of doing nothing, then a custom CPU. I see it as four years of learning on the job, one step after another.

As for the "my 4 A15s can beat up your 2 Swifts", grow up.
There is no perfect CPU design. You can optimize for power. You can optimize for computational performance. You can optimize for memory performance. There's a reason ARM AND Intel AND IBM are all three successful in the CPU business.
The trick, however, is to know what your market requires, otherwise you produce a white elephant like the Pentium4.
If you're going to rant about how wonderful 4 A15 cores are, do so by
(a) providing numbers (power and memory numbers) and
(b) providing realistic CURRENT-DAY scenarios in which four cores are useful.

I'm all for competition in this space. A7, Tegra4, next-gen Atom --- bring them all on. But let's try to maintain a level of discourse higher than "15>7 therefore A15 is better than A7" or "two cores bad, four cores good".

Of particular interest here is the memory behavior of Tegra 4. As I have said many times before, an obvious lesson to me when I worked at Apple and we were using PPC was that memory performance really matters, and PPC's superior core was irrelevant in the face of Intel's substantially superior memory performance. Apple's constant push to ramp up the memory performance of iOS devices shows that they still remember this lesson.
It would not surprise me if a future path for Apple consists of a lot more apparently unsexy stuff going on in the memory uncore, and a lot less concern with pumping up the core. So while Tegra may look cool in terms of better branch predictors, a more aggressive superscalar implementation, more rename registers, etc, Apple will be putting its design energy into a smarter memory controller and better PoP packaging, to bring the DRAM closer to the core and allow it to run faster, while still not burning too much power in the memory bus.

The details of the core are sexy, I know --- I love that stuff. The details of the memory system seem so damn boring, from coherency protocols to memory controller state machines. But we are at the stage (and about fifteen years of experience has shown) that a sexy core hooked up to a sub-par memory system is usually very disappointing in real-world code, as opposed to micro benchmarks.


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki