Originally Posted by ViN86
SP's are different from CUDA cores. Typically higher clocked and more efficient. That's why a 480 CUDA core GTX480 outperforms a 1600 SP HD5870.
EDIT: I wonder if Nvidia will change architecture but still refer to them as CUDA cores?
Guess we won't know for sure until (hopefully) this week or next.
It is given that both IHV classify a basic functional unit differently because of their adopted architecture. There is no standardization for this and we go by what these IHV own defined functional units are. Cuda cores for Nv and now GCN thing for ATI. Hence, the difference in the numbers of the count of these basic functional units and are directly not comparable is already a given.
My statement still is valid to whatever NV defines as their basic functional unit for Kepler. I doubt that they would fundamentally re-write the board with Kepler on this aspect (improved and optimized from Fermi ones though they may be). I think we were led to believe through different road maps that Maxwell is the architectural change and not Kepler.
With the process shrink from 40nm to 28nm this allows for more transistors to be packed in the same area but, from rumors the so called 1536 CC GK104 is 340mmsq or thereabouts. Given that someone running another website (who has a knack for getting industry news from moles) has stated that GK110 may be reticule limited, I may be inclined to follow that logic based on the Gk104 rumors that the 4XXX CC count for the rumored GK110 may be off. The actual CC may be lower...... Thus also my deduction that this basic function unit for Kepler series isn't suddenly all the inferior to Fermi ones.
I am guessing this makes sense when I am drunk