Nvidia unveils Tegra K1 SoC with 192 CUDA cores, Kepler architecture

By on January 6, 2014, 11:30 AM
nvidia, tegra, ces, soc, kepler, ces 2014, tegra k1 soc, cuda cores, mobile cpu

Not too long ago I questioned why we hadn’t seen Nvidia’s Tegra 4 processor show up in many mobile devices this past year considering the previous iteration powered the majority of Android devices on the market at the time. Perhaps the company’s new 192-core Tegra K1 mobile chips are to blame.

Nvidia recently unveiled the “impossibly advanced” chip during its CES press conference in Las Vegas. And no, that isn’t an error – 192 CUDA cores based on the Kepler GPU architecture, the same one used in discrete desktop graphics cards. This level of graphics power is roughly the same as a low-end GeForce GT 630 or 635 desktop cards from last year but in a mobile package.

The Tegra K1 will ultimately be offered in two varieties: a 32-bit quad-core model and a 64-bit version that will use Nvidia’s dual-core Denver CPU clocked at up to 2.5GHz. Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang compared the K1’s performance to the Xbox 360 and PS3 in one slide, showing how it handily beats both in terms of GPU and CPU horsepower as well as power consumption – just 5 watts (under ideal circumstances, one would assume).

Raw power aside, Nvidia touted the benefits of using the same GPU architecture for desktop and now mobile components. As you might have already guessed, this will make it much easier for developers to bring their engines to mobile. One such example is Epic Games who is bringing their Unreal Engine 4 to Tegra K1.

We’re hearing that the quad-core Tegra K1 will be available in the first half of 2014 while the 64-bit Denver SoC won’t make an appearance until the second half of the year.




User Comments: 11

Got something to say? Post a comment
mosu said:

Dream on about a "majority of Android devices". Tegra was a flop, Logan might be a good name, for start.

Guest said:

Wow!!!! if that only consumes 5W.. what the F%$&/ is wrong with the desktop versions?!

Gars Gars said:

Rly nothing

get over it

JC713 JC713 said:

This will be a failure in my honest opinion. Who needs that type of power on a mobile device (smartphone or tablet). Plus, with no LTE support, this will only support niche devices, and not flagship smartphones where the real money is. The Intel Atom already dominates this sector because the name is well known. Not sure how this will perform. The only advantage I see coming out of this is the low power consumption for such a powerhouse.

Guest said:

I would not buy it at all. Nvidia are a-holes. Why even bring out a 32 bit version when everything has already transisioned to 64. What fu faces. I would strike against profit hungry corporations by totally ignoring this release and not buy it at all. Let corporations eat the cost.

TheBigFatClown said:

This will be a failure in my honest opinion. Who needs that type of power on a mobile device (smartphone or tablet). Plus, with no LTE support, this will only support niche devices, and not flagship smartphones where the real money is. The Intel Atom already dominates this sector because the name is well known. Not sure how this will perform. The only advantage I see coming out of this is the low power consumption for such a powerhouse.

Who needs that type of power...is that a serious question? "YEEZUS!!!!" in my best Kayne West voice.

Where have I heard that before? Nobody will "ever" need over 640K. Why do people constantly complain about advances in technology. It boggles the mind. Somebody who wants to kill time playing Unreal Engine 4 on their cellphone. That's who will need that much power.

Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

This will be a failure in my honest opinion. Who needs that type of power on a mobile device (smartphone or tablet). Plus, with no LTE support, this will only support niche devices, and not flagship smartphones where the real money is. The Intel Atom already dominates this sector because the name is well known. Not sure how this will perform. The only advantage I see coming out of this is the low power consumption for such a powerhouse.

I disagree about your statement regarding flagship smartphones, Low to mid range smartphones is where the real money's at. They outsell flagship devices in droves.

Duskywolf50 said:

You are right about be ridiculous have high end graphic chip on phone expect I want console small as phone size so I can bring anywhere and hook to TV and use wireless controller.

JC713 JC713 said:

Who needs that type of power...is that a serious question? "YEEZUS!!!!" in my best Kayne West voice.

Where have I heard that before? Nobody will "ever" need over 640K. Why do people constantly complain about advances in technology. It boggles the mind. Somebody who wants to kill time playing Unreal Engine 4 on their cellphone. That's who will need that much power.

I understand technology needs to advance and I love it. But I dont see this being a priority currently. Majority of apps dont even fully harness the power of quad-core CPUs, and heck, even dual-cores. I get that it is cool to play unreal engine 4 games on the go, but technologies like batteries need to catch up first.

I disagree about your statement regarding flagship smartphones, Low to mid range smartphones is where the real money's at. They outsell flagship devices in droves.

True.

1 person liked this | TheBigFatClown said:

I understand technology needs to advance and I love it. But I dont see this being a priority currently. Majority of apps dont even fully harness the power of quad-core CPUs, and heck, even dual-cores. I get that it is cool to play unreal engine 4 games on the go, but technologies like batteries need to catch up first.

True.

Well, there is no universal or mandated priority about the order of advancements in the field of technology. Seagate works on giving us more storage space in smaller dimensions. Intel works on faster CPUs, etc. I still don't agree with what you are saying. I could say that batteries need to catch up right now. I have to charge my smartphone everyday....not every week. Why not every week? And I don't even play Unreal Engine 4 games on it yet.

Some areas of technology advance faster than others but don't hate on those technologies. Sometimes the need has to be there to give people an incentive to catch up.

So battery life isn't advancing as fast as other fields of technology. Oh well. I complain more about Blu-Ray BD-R disc still only holding 25GB per disc instead of a terrabyte. I am tired of waiting on that. I want 1TB BD-R discs for no more than $5 a disc. And I want them 2 weeks ago.

ikesmasher said:

Some areas of technology advance faster than others but don't hate on those technologies. Sometimes the need has to be there to give people an incentive to catch up.

The need for better batteries is already there and the incentive is already there. Its been there for years.

Its not that battery life isnt advancing as fast as other tech, its that its really not advancing at all (minus a breakthrough at GA tech months ago, likely years away from any sort of production). They just throw in bigger batteries though and its all good.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.