Autopilot HW2.5!?

[verygreen]

Can't remember where I read it exactly. @verygreen remember same?

there was a reddit thread with pictures of a late july built car.
The board looked the same as what we saw on previous teardowns, but the heatsinks were not really removed.

The pictures were taken down already, though I am sure somebody has a cached copy somewhere.

Here it was: July MX hardware • r/teslamotors

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Much thanks @verygreen.

So it does not look like, at least, like the different APE module we saw (and assumed might be in the Model 3?) in that "table photo"...

 

[James*]

I was able to get a written response from my delivery specialist that my car had the HW and it was built in June. I have no idea how the verified it, but I have the email and I will keep it handy for the future

When you move the maps on the touchscreen is it smoother with HW 2.5 or is that something else that has been upgraded on the Model 3 and not integrated into Model S/X yet?

 

[verygreen]

When you move the maps on the touchscreen is it smoother with HW 2.5 or is that something else that has been upgraded on the Model 3 and not integrated into Model S/X yet?

hw2.5 is not related to the computers that drive the screens so there would be no effect.

 

[James*]

hw2.5 is not related to the computers that drive the screens so there would be no effect.

Thanks for the information.

 

[Tangible]

The EAP software that was "expected" to be delivered December 2016 is now barely at parity with AP1, with none of the promised additional features. It's unlikely that Tesla has any idea whether HW2.0 will support FSD or not when and if they ever get their software development act together. They're just blowing smoke up our (non-existent) tailpipes.

The stuff about free upgrades should be taken with a pound of salt, not just a grain. With this company it's best to be content with what you already have, and to ignore promises, expectations,etc.

 

[vandacca]

The EAP software that was "expected" to be delivered December 2016 is now barely at parity with AP1, with none of the promised additional features. It's unlikely that Tesla has any idea whether HW2.0 will support FSD or not when and if they ever get their software development act together. They're just blowing smoke up our (non-existent) tailpipes.

The stuff about free upgrades should be taken with a pound of salt, not just a grain. With this company it's best to be content with what you already have, and to ignore promises, expectations,etc.

You do realize that no one knows what HW is required to support FSD? This is bleeding edge stuff and Tesla is one of the first to be implementing this. Until they continue to build it, they won't know exactly how much horse-power they'll need. Of course, Nvidia has a guess of how much will be required, but until it's implemented, no one can say for sure.

 

[evster]

Any more news regarding when the cut-over date from HW2.0 -> 2.1 (2.5) for Model S/X is. My car was confirmed on August 3rd and build has not yet started (expected to start build any day now) so just wonder if I will get the new hardware or not?

 

[trmmcd]

This is all part of being on the bleeding edge. Tesla was very careful to implement the HW2 in a manner that led to very easy replacement of the processing board. No doubt they realized that this would likely be required. If they were to wait until they had all of the processing power they needed with a high degree of certainty - the entire S/X fleet would still be on HW1/Mobile Eye. It also sounds as though they are committed to replacing HW2.0 if needed so I don't think people should get to hung up on this point. Lastly, there will probably be quite a bit of advanced capability beyond AP1 offered with this board before replacement is needed.

 

[boaterva]

Any more news regarding when the cut-over date from HW2.0 -> 2.1 (2.5) for Model S/X is. My car was confirmed on August 3rd and build has not yet started (expected to start build any day now) so just wonder if I will get the new hardware or not?

I'm pretty sure since our cars haven't started production, we have the new hardware, for whatever it's worth. It looks like it may have been about the data of the July 28th 'reveal' event. But as usual, it's hard to say for people 'on the edge'. But that article definitely said cars not built as of that date (last week?) would definitely have it.

 

[noahsw]

Any more news regarding when the cut-over date from HW2.0 -> 2.1 (2.5) for Model S/X is. My car was confirmed on August 3rd and build has not yet started (expected to start build any day now) so just wonder if I will get the new hardware or not?

I'm in a similar situation and my delivery specialist confirmed I'll have the new hardware.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

You do realize that no one knows what HW is required to support FSD? This is bleeding edge stuff and Tesla is one of the first to be implementing this. Until they continue to build it, they won't know exactly how much horse-power they'll need. Of course, Nvidia has a guess of how much will be required, but until it's implemented, no one can say for sure.

But Tesla is the only one taking money for it and making claims of the FSD capability (Level 5 mentioned) of their production car. With that comes added responsibility, surely.

Also, I should add many manufacturers are very likely much further along in FSD than Tesla in their prototypes. There is plenty of knowledge of the requirements on the market, it isn't just like Tesla is suddenly the only one pioneering and finding out.

 

[Alketi]

Is there definitive proof that new S/X vehicles are getting HW 2.5?

I'd be surprised if this is the case as HW 2.5 doesn't really apply to S/X as much as the Model 3.

Also, Tesla denied the dual-GPU rumor. Are we in agreement that there's no dual-GPU or is there contradictory proof of this as well?

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Also, Tesla denied the dual-GPU rumor. Are we in agreement that there's no dual-GPU or is there contradictory proof of this as well?

Well someone (@verygreen I think?) has found some proof of "dual nodes" on HW 2.5 that are not there on HW 2.0, whatever that means.

As for S/X getting HW 2.5, we have Tesla's statement through Electrek.

Who knows what the full truth is...

The Autonomous Vehicles subforum on TMC has many interesting threads on this.

 

[vandacca]

From this article, it says,

Nvidia describes the Drive PX 2 as “the world’s first AI supercomputer for self-driving cars”. Its computing power is comparable to about 150 MacBook Pros and the company estimates that one can support a level 4 self-driving system while two would be necessary for a fully self-driving level 5 vehicle, but Tesla is aiming for its software to be efficient enough to run level 5 on one.

I think Tesla was hoping to get away with one, but wants to have the option of being able to upgrade it if they're wrong (which I feel is likely).

@AnxietyRanger, sure Tesla's claims of their cars being FSD capable does bring along some moral responsibility (no legal responsibility though).

However, there are a few implementations of FSD being developed, so it's difficult to say who is out front. Assuming that LIDAR isn't critical to FSD and Tesla's Vision/Radar implementation is sufficient, then I would say that Tesla is way out in front.

The reason for my opinion is that the hardest part of FSD is not the sensors, nor the AI. It's the data required for AI training that's the most important piece, and Tesla is killing it in that area with hundreds of thousands of vehicles collecting data.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@AnxietyRanger, sure Tesla's claims of their cars being FSD capable does bring along some moral responsibility (no legal responsibility though).

I'm not sure there is no legal responsibility. I agree there is no legal responsibility to get regulatory approval (and it they don't, regulations can limit them and that's OK), but if the hardware were to turn out not FSD capable at all, not even as driver's aid withing Level 2 (or 3) regulations... I wonder if a court wouldn't decide otherwise, as the car's hardware suite was advertised as FSD capable...

 

[TMSE]

Hey guys,

Can anybody help me decipher this message in the ER today (http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...7EC4E06DF840/TSLA_Update_Letter_2017-3Q.pdf)?

"Now that the foundation of the Tesla vision neural net is right, which was an exceptionally difficult problem, as it must fit into far less computing power than is typically used, we expect a rapid rollout of additional functionality over the next several months and are progressing rapidly towards our goal of a coast-to-coast drive with no one touching the controls"

I am particularly curious about the "as it must fit into far less computing power than is typically used, " part. Does it imply that current nVidia computing HW being used is inadequate?

@verygreen ,
I was told that you are an expert in this domain. Could you please comment?

 

[verygreen]

Well, there are multiple variables here. First, it's not like there are any other cars we can readily explore on the market that use a similar NN on a beefier hardware. Do they mean the in-car HW is a lot less capable than some desktop solutions developers use? I can certainly believe that.

Reportedly during the call Elon mentioned that they think current HW can get about same safety as a typical human or some such which is well below the previously promised benchmarks (around 27ish minute).

The only running NN right now uses about 20-25% of the existing GPU. Of course more NNs would use more, how much more? A bit harder to tell, but we can see the rain-detecting one is really small and we don't need to run it at 30fps so unlikely to have a big impact. The repeaters one is about the same size as the front looking one, but we need 2x as much power because we need double the cams (they apparently intend to run this net for both repeater-cams and the B-pillar ones).

 

[chillaban]

Well, there are multiple variables here. First, it's not like there are any other cars we can readily explore on the market that use a similar NN on a beefier hardware. Do they mean the in-car HW is a lot less capable than some desktop solutions developers use? I can certainly believe that.

I took it to mean AP2/2.5 is less powerful than their desktop/server training environment as well as the beefier onboard compute used by other non-consumer-facing autonomous solutions (e.g. Waymo, Cruise, etc).

You're right in that we have nothing that we can tear down and analyze, but I'd still imagine lane recognition and lane position control even in those LIDAR+radar equipped cars is largely based off camera recognition of lane lines as well.

 

[TMSE]

Well, there are multiple variables here. First, it's not like there are any other cars we can readily explore on the market that use a similar NN on a beefier hardware. Do they mean the in-car HW is a lot less capable than some desktop solutions developers use? I can certainly believe that.

Reportedly during the call Elon mentioned that they think current HW can get about same safety as a typical human or some such which is well below the previously promised benchmarks (around 27ish minute).

The only running NN right now uses about 20-25% of the existing GPU. Of course more NNs would use more, how much more? A bit harder to tell, but we can see the rain-detecting one is really small and we don't need to run it at 30fps so unlikely to have a big impact. The repeaters one is about the same size as the front looking one, but we need 2x as much power because we need double the cams (they apparently intend to run this net for both repeater-cams and the B-pillar ones).

@verygreen , @chillaban ,

Thank you both!