Cooler Master MasterBox NR 600 review
MSI to unveil 10th Anniversary RTX 2080 Ti Lightning Edition
Ballistix Elite 3600 MHz 16GB Dual Channel DDR4 review
ASUS ROG Rapture GT-AC2900 Gaming Router review
Asustor Nimbustor 4 (AS5304T) NAS Review
Promo: VIP-SCDKey Games and Windows 10 / Office
be quiet! Dark Rock SLIM review
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming OC review
Edifier G4 Pro Headset review
Microsoft Office 2016 Pro and Windows 10 Pro for just $34
Rumor: AMD Radeon 490 and 490X Polaris graphics cards launch end of June
In line with expectations today some new rumors surfaced on the mighty WWW. AMD possibly will have its first Polaris based series 400 Radeon graphics cards available in June, this would invoke the R9 490 and R9 490X. It is likely that these cards will be on display at Computex.
From what we heard, the Radeon R9 400 series will indeed get gddr5x memory, Micron (who delivers this new type of memory) already spread word that it is in volume production ever since srping. The AMD Radeon R9 490 and 490X graphics cards will be fitted with a Polaris 10-gpu, aimed at the high-end segment of the desktop market. Polaris 11 would be the GPU series specced for lower class graphics cards.
It was AMD themselves who in a recent roadmap was showing that polaris would be avilable this year during the Capsaicin-event at the Game Developer Conference.
Obviously AMD has not shared any specifications so all this remains unsubstantiatied including the memory type and naming. The roadmap also disclosed that you can expect HBM2 based product no sooner then early 2017.
thatguy91
Senior Member
Posts: 6650
Joined: 2010-08-27
Senior Member
Posts: 6650
Joined: 2010-08-27
#5254863 Posted on: 04/07/2016 02:46 PM
If we knew the wattage of the card we could come to a reasonable estimation of the performance. The claim is 2.5 times the performance per watt, so if the card is 200 W versus an old gen 200 W, it will be 2.5 times faster.
If we knew the wattage of the card we could come to a reasonable estimation of the performance. The claim is 2.5 times the performance per watt, so if the card is 200 W versus an old gen 200 W, it will be 2.5 times faster.
Redemption80
Senior Member
Posts: 18235
Joined: 2009-01-06
Senior Member
Posts: 18235
Joined: 2009-01-06
#5254870 Posted on: 04/07/2016 03:05 PM
That seems like wishful thinking, im sure Maxwell had similar efficiency claims.
I'm looking to build a bedroom PC in the next few months, might pick something up from this range, get me back checking out AMD stuff while still having the confort zone of the main Nvidia setup.
That seems like wishful thinking, im sure Maxwell had similar efficiency claims.
I'm looking to build a bedroom PC in the next few months, might pick something up from this range, get me back checking out AMD stuff while still having the confort zone of the main Nvidia setup.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12055
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12055
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5254874 Posted on: 04/07/2016 03:15 PM
That seems like wishful thinking, im sure Maxwell had similar efficiency claims.
I'm looking to build a bedroom PC in the next few months, might pick something up from this range, get me back checking out AMD stuff while still having the confort zone of the main Nvidia setup.
It doesn't seem that far fetched honestly. Nvidia is basically claiming double performance/watt. AMD was already, slightly behind in efficiency on Fiji (although arguably they are ahead in some of the newer titles). So they have more room to catch up.
I'm just not sure they are launching a 200w card. We know Polaris 11 is sub 100w and we know that Polaris 10 is capable of Hitman QHD @ 60fps. We also kind of maybe know they are only launching those two cards initially and we know that Nvidia isn't doing anything gaming wise with GP100 until next year.
Idk, I imagine Polaris 10 will be ~165w and be about 15-20% faster then a Fury X and I imagine that Nvidia will launch a similar card shortly after, probably the same chip that's going on the PX2.
That seems like wishful thinking, im sure Maxwell had similar efficiency claims.
I'm looking to build a bedroom PC in the next few months, might pick something up from this range, get me back checking out AMD stuff while still having the confort zone of the main Nvidia setup.
It doesn't seem that far fetched honestly. Nvidia is basically claiming double performance/watt. AMD was already, slightly behind in efficiency on Fiji (although arguably they are ahead in some of the newer titles). So they have more room to catch up.
I'm just not sure they are launching a 200w card. We know Polaris 11 is sub 100w and we know that Polaris 10 is capable of Hitman QHD @ 60fps. We also kind of maybe know they are only launching those two cards initially and we know that Nvidia isn't doing anything gaming wise with GP100 until next year.
Idk, I imagine Polaris 10 will be ~165w and be about 15-20% faster then a Fury X and I imagine that Nvidia will launch a similar card shortly after, probably the same chip that's going on the PX2.
Kaotik
Senior Member
Posts: 132
Joined: 2004-12-24
Senior Member
Posts: 132
Joined: 2004-12-24
#5254875 Posted on: 04/07/2016 03:15 PM
Micron has not said it's in volume production, they've said that they've started shipping samples to customers, and expect to start volume production during summer.
Micron has not said it's in volume production, they've said that they've started shipping samples to customers, and expect to start volume production during summer.
hapkiman
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 2014-12-22
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 2014-12-22
#5254884 Posted on: 04/07/2016 03:48 PM
Very interesting! AMDs first solid product in a while that I'm curious about. On a side note. Use spell check man (srping?). And you said "HBM2 based product no sooner then early 2017" - "then" should be "than."
@Denial may be right about the first wave of these AMD cards, they may not surpass the Furys and 980 Tis.
Very interesting! AMDs first solid product in a while that I'm curious about. On a side note. Use spell check man (srping?). And you said "HBM2 based product no sooner then early 2017" - "then" should be "than."
@Denial may be right about the first wave of these AMD cards, they may not surpass the Furys and 980 Tis.
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 6972
Joined: 2014-09-27
Senior Member
Posts: 6972
Joined: 2014-09-27
#5254892 Posted on: 04/07/2016 04:20 PM
Very interesting! AMDs first solid product in a while that I'm curious about. On a side note. Use spell check man (srping?). And you said "HBM2 based product no sooner then early 2017" - "then" should be "than."
@Denial may be right about the first wave of these AMD cards, they may not surpass the Furys and 980 Tis.
Listening to ar Raja Koduri interview I got the impression that AMD doesn't want to deal in huge GPUs any longer. These cards might have the same configuration as a Fiji card (4096 shaders etc)m but they might be at 50% the frequency and be overclockable on top.
Judging by NVIDIA's Pascal announcement, they managed to cram in there more than double the hardware at 25%+ the frequencies. All the small indicators we have show that AMD probably has a more mature process to work with, so a Polaris 10 with 4096 shaders at 1.5-1.8GHz wouldn't surprise me at all.
Very interesting! AMDs first solid product in a while that I'm curious about. On a side note. Use spell check man (srping?). And you said "HBM2 based product no sooner then early 2017" - "then" should be "than."
@Denial may be right about the first wave of these AMD cards, they may not surpass the Furys and 980 Tis.
Listening to ar Raja Koduri interview I got the impression that AMD doesn't want to deal in huge GPUs any longer. These cards might have the same configuration as a Fiji card (4096 shaders etc)m but they might be at 50% the frequency and be overclockable on top.
Judging by NVIDIA's Pascal announcement, they managed to cram in there more than double the hardware at 25%+ the frequencies. All the small indicators we have show that AMD probably has a more mature process to work with, so a Polaris 10 with 4096 shaders at 1.5-1.8GHz wouldn't surprise me at all.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12055
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12055
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5254900 Posted on: 04/07/2016 04:31 PM
Listening to ar Raja Koduri interview I got the impression that AMD doesn't want to deal in huge GPUs any longer. These cards might have the same configuration as a Fiji card (4096 shaders etc)m but they might be at 50% the frequency and be overclockable on top.
Judging by NVIDIA's Pascal announcement, they managed to cram in there more than double the hardware at 25%+ the frequencies. All the small indicators we have show that AMD probably has a more mature process to work with, so a Polaris 10 with 4096 shaders at 1.5-1.8GHz wouldn't surprise me at all.
Well I think AMD does want large GPUs, they just don't like to lead with them.
In fact Anandtech wrote an article about their "Small Die Strategy" all the way back in 2008.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2556/2
When the smoke clears, AMD's strategy is to simply build a GPU for the masses and attempt to scale it up and down. While NVIDIA is still building its GPUs the same way it has for decades, starting very large and scaling down.
AMD isn't taking a radically different approach to building and designing GPUs than NVIDIA, it's simply building one market segment lower."
And it makes sense. On a new process when yields are crappy, having a giant die just going to drive the cost per chip way up. Nvidia can justify it with the GP100 because it's going into a $100,000+ box where companies don't think twice about spending $15,000+ per GPU because it's still way cheaper than the alternative.
In gaming though, that additional manufacturing cost would turn a normally priced $650 chip into a $2000 one. Very few gamers would actually buy it. Most people would just complain. That and Nvidia would have no product for next year. So they are better off reaping the high margins off GP100 units in the compute/HPC area and just doing a half size chip for gamers that's normally priced.
Listening to ar Raja Koduri interview I got the impression that AMD doesn't want to deal in huge GPUs any longer. These cards might have the same configuration as a Fiji card (4096 shaders etc)m but they might be at 50% the frequency and be overclockable on top.
Judging by NVIDIA's Pascal announcement, they managed to cram in there more than double the hardware at 25%+ the frequencies. All the small indicators we have show that AMD probably has a more mature process to work with, so a Polaris 10 with 4096 shaders at 1.5-1.8GHz wouldn't surprise me at all.
Well I think AMD does want large GPUs, they just don't like to lead with them.
In fact Anandtech wrote an article about their "Small Die Strategy" all the way back in 2008.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2556/2
When the smoke clears, AMD's strategy is to simply build a GPU for the masses and attempt to scale it up and down. While NVIDIA is still building its GPUs the same way it has for decades, starting very large and scaling down.
AMD isn't taking a radically different approach to building and designing GPUs than NVIDIA, it's simply building one market segment lower."
And it makes sense. On a new process when yields are crappy, having a giant die just going to drive the cost per chip way up. Nvidia can justify it with the GP100 because it's going into a $100,000+ box where companies don't think twice about spending $15,000+ per GPU because it's still way cheaper than the alternative.
In gaming though, that additional manufacturing cost would turn a normally priced $650 chip into a $2000 one. Very few gamers would actually buy it. Most people would just complain. That and Nvidia would have no product for next year. So they are better off reaping the high margins off GP100 units in the compute/HPC area and just doing a half size chip for gamers that's normally priced.
Koniakki
Senior Member
Posts: 2797
Joined: 2009-09-15
Senior Member
Posts: 2797
Joined: 2009-09-15
#5254901 Posted on: 04/07/2016 04:32 PM
Can't wait! Go AMD, GO!
Can't wait! Go AMD, GO!
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 6972
Joined: 2014-09-27
Senior Member
Posts: 6972
Joined: 2014-09-27
#5254910 Posted on: 04/07/2016 05:06 PM
Well I think AMD does want large GPUs, they just don't like to lead with them.
In fact Anandtech wrote an article about their "Small Die Strategy" all the way back in 2008.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2556/2
And it makes sense. On a new process when yields are crappy, having a giant die just going to drive the cost per chip way up. Nvidia can justify it with the GP100 because it's going into a $100,000+ box where companies don't think twice about spending $15,000+ per GPU because it's still way cheaper than the alternative.
In gaming though, that additional manufacturing cost would turn a normally priced $650 chip into a $2000 one. Very few gamers would actually buy it. Most people would just complain. That and Nvidia would have no product for next year. So they are better off reaping the high margins off GP100 units in the compute/HPC area and just doing a half size chip for gamers that's normally priced.
A lot of things have changed since 2008. I believe that if they are cornered performance-wise, they would most likely make another big die. But read the article and listen to his interview at PC Perspective.
They want to invest in fast, small, good yield dies and scale them using an interposer instead of making a huge die. He's even speaking about "beyond crossfire", where they give that as a default configuration. Judging by their roadmap this will come with Vega.
Well I think AMD does want large GPUs, they just don't like to lead with them.
In fact Anandtech wrote an article about their "Small Die Strategy" all the way back in 2008.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2556/2
And it makes sense. On a new process when yields are crappy, having a giant die just going to drive the cost per chip way up. Nvidia can justify it with the GP100 because it's going into a $100,000+ box where companies don't think twice about spending $15,000+ per GPU because it's still way cheaper than the alternative.
In gaming though, that additional manufacturing cost would turn a normally priced $650 chip into a $2000 one. Very few gamers would actually buy it. Most people would just complain. That and Nvidia would have no product for next year. So they are better off reaping the high margins off GP100 units in the compute/HPC area and just doing a half size chip for gamers that's normally priced.
A lot of things have changed since 2008. I believe that if they are cornered performance-wise, they would most likely make another big die. But read the article and listen to his interview at PC Perspective.
They want to invest in fast, small, good yield dies and scale them using an interposer instead of making a huge die. He's even speaking about "beyond crossfire", where they give that as a default configuration. Judging by their roadmap this will come with Vega.
Lane
Senior Member
Posts: 6361
Joined: 2005-02-25
Senior Member
Posts: 6361
Joined: 2005-02-25
#5254920 Posted on: 04/07/2016 05:23 PM
Listening to ar Raja Koduri interview I got the impression that AMD doesn't want to deal in huge GPUs any longer. These cards might have the same configuration as a Fiji card (4096 shaders etc)m but they might be at 50% the frequency and be overclockable on top.
Judging by NVIDIA's Pascal announcement, they managed to cram in there more than double the hardware at 25%+ the frequencies. All the small indicators we have show that AMD probably has a more mature process to work with, so a Polaris 10 with 4096 shaders at 1.5-1.8GHz wouldn't surprise me at all.
Well, i dont think that they dont want deal with huge GPU's.. Just they seems to start with small ones... As Nvidia.
Nvidia have annonce first delivery of GP100 on selected supercomputers center in June.. But availability for OEM in Q1 2017.. ( dont even count seeing a customer, gaming version of GP100 before 2017 as this is release roadmap is only for Tesla ).
Its exactly what have been done by Nvidia with GK100 if you remember well. First delivery for some supercomputer center ( Titan ) the difference is the 680 was allready out at this time.
This said, both brands, need big and high performance chips for the HPC markets really quick.. Maxwell and Fury was not really a big deal in this market, as intentionnally not made for it. Now that they can move from 28nm process and architecture they will show their muscle for it.
For Nvidia, it is allready done with GP100.. But as the release roadmap show it, the real availibility will be for 2017...
I dont know if AMD plan to push it before ( Polaris ) or Vega ( 2017, who match GP100 roadmap). The roadmap of AMD can suggest that Vega will go against GP100.
Potentially we could end with a GP102-GP104 version from Nvidia vs small Polaris, and got the big die version in 2017, so GP100 vs Vega ( for gaming, consumers workstation card ). Buttthere, i just compare both roadmap informations.
Listening to ar Raja Koduri interview I got the impression that AMD doesn't want to deal in huge GPUs any longer. These cards might have the same configuration as a Fiji card (4096 shaders etc)m but they might be at 50% the frequency and be overclockable on top.
Judging by NVIDIA's Pascal announcement, they managed to cram in there more than double the hardware at 25%+ the frequencies. All the small indicators we have show that AMD probably has a more mature process to work with, so a Polaris 10 with 4096 shaders at 1.5-1.8GHz wouldn't surprise me at all.
Well, i dont think that they dont want deal with huge GPU's.. Just they seems to start with small ones... As Nvidia.
Nvidia have annonce first delivery of GP100 on selected supercomputers center in June.. But availability for OEM in Q1 2017.. ( dont even count seeing a customer, gaming version of GP100 before 2017 as this is release roadmap is only for Tesla ).
Its exactly what have been done by Nvidia with GK100 if you remember well. First delivery for some supercomputer center ( Titan ) the difference is the 680 was allready out at this time.
This said, both brands, need big and high performance chips for the HPC markets really quick.. Maxwell and Fury was not really a big deal in this market, as intentionnally not made for it. Now that they can move from 28nm process and architecture they will show their muscle for it.
For Nvidia, it is allready done with GP100.. But as the release roadmap show it, the real availibility will be for 2017...
I dont know if AMD plan to push it before ( Polaris ) or Vega ( 2017, who match GP100 roadmap). The roadmap of AMD can suggest that Vega will go against GP100.
Potentially we could end with a GP102-GP104 version from Nvidia vs small Polaris, and got the big die version in 2017, so GP100 vs Vega ( for gaming, consumers workstation card ). Buttthere, i just compare both roadmap informations.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12055
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12055
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5254924 Posted on: 04/07/2016 05:31 PM
Well, i dont think that they dont want deal with huge GPU's.. Just they seems to start with small ones... As Nvidia.
Nvidia have annunce first delivery on selected supercomputers center in June.. But availability for OEM in Q1 2017.. ( dont even count seeing a customer, gaming version of GP100 before 2017 as this is only for Tesla ).
I don't think there is a point in dealing with large ones. Not unless it's a high margin market.
Yields are most likely poorer than 28nm and transistor costs didn't go down much. It makes much more sense to do a small chip and clock it higher for performance then just make a large chip. And I think AMD suggests that this is the future, because we probably won't have another 28nm, 4 year debacle. TSMC is entering 10nm volume this year. Which means we will probably have 10nm GPU's in 2018, resetting the process all over again.
@PrMinisterGR
Yeah, I agree with what your saying, I just think that was AMD's strategy all along. 28nm was different because it was around forever and matured. They could afford to make larger GPU's with it. Unless they skip another node again, I don't think we will see larger GPU's, especially in low margin markets.
Well, i dont think that they dont want deal with huge GPU's.. Just they seems to start with small ones... As Nvidia.
Nvidia have annunce first delivery on selected supercomputers center in June.. But availability for OEM in Q1 2017.. ( dont even count seeing a customer, gaming version of GP100 before 2017 as this is only for Tesla ).
I don't think there is a point in dealing with large ones. Not unless it's a high margin market.
Yields are most likely poorer than 28nm and transistor costs didn't go down much. It makes much more sense to do a small chip and clock it higher for performance then just make a large chip. And I think AMD suggests that this is the future, because we probably won't have another 28nm, 4 year debacle. TSMC is entering 10nm volume this year. Which means we will probably have 10nm GPU's in 2018, resetting the process all over again.
@PrMinisterGR
Yeah, I agree with what your saying, I just think that was AMD's strategy all along. 28nm was different because it was around forever and matured. They could afford to make larger GPU's with it. Unless they skip another node again, I don't think we will see larger GPU's, especially in low margin markets.
toxzl1
Senior Member
Posts: 160
Joined: 2006-05-01
Senior Member
Posts: 160
Joined: 2006-05-01
#5254929 Posted on: 04/07/2016 05:36 PM
I want to sell my 2x390X
Definitely crossfire and SLI are so fkng bad...
Looking for a beast single GPU I hope AMD makes another FuryX Polaris
I want to sell my 2x390X
Definitely crossfire and SLI are so fkng bad...
Looking for a beast single GPU I hope AMD makes another FuryX Polaris
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 6972
Joined: 2014-09-27
Senior Member
Posts: 6972
Joined: 2014-09-27
#5254930 Posted on: 04/07/2016 05:40 PM
Well, i dont think that they dont want deal with huge GPU's.. Just they seems to start with small ones... As Nvidia.
Nvidia have annonce first delivery of GP100 on selected supercomputers center in June.. But availability for OEM in Q1 2017.. ( dont even count seeing a customer, gaming version of GP100 before 2017 as this is release roadmap is only for Tesla ).
Its exactly what have been done by Nvidia with GK100 if you remember well. First delivery for some supercomputer center ( Titan ) the difference is the 680 was allready out at this time.
This said, both brands, need big and high performance chips for the HPC markets really quick.. Maxwell and Fury was not really a big deal in this market, as intentionnally not made for it. Now that they can move from 28nm process and architecture they will show their muscle for it.
For Nvidia, it is allready done with GP100.. But as the release roadmap show it, the real availibility will be for 2017...
I dont know if AMD plan to push it before ( Polaris ) or Vega ( 2017, who match GP100 roadmap). The roadmap of AMD can suggest that Vega will go against GP100.
In the interview he specifically says that big GPUs are pretty much unsustainable from a point on. Also from all these years following things I've learned that soft launches mean nothing. Wait for in-depth architecture reviews and actual benchmarks. At this point only AMD has displayed working silicon. The AMD roadmap also suggests that Vega might be multi-gpu on an interposer.
I don't think there is a point in dealing with large ones. Not unless it's a high margin market.
Yields are most likely poorer than 28nm and transistor costs didn't go down much. It makes much more sense to do a small chip and clock it higher for performance then just make a large chip. And I think AMD suggests that this is the future, because we probably won't have another 28nm, 4 year debacle. TSMC is entering 10nm volume this year. Which means we will probably have 10nm GPU's in 2018, resetting the process all over again.
@PrMinisterGR
Yeah, I agree with what your saying, I just think that was AMD's strategy all along. 28nm was different because it was around forever and matured. They could afford to make larger GPU's with it. Unless they skip another node again, I don't think we will see larger GPU's, especially in low margin markets.
I don't believe we'll see anything complex at 10nm yet. No, mobile chips are not really complex compared to Intel/AMD CPUs and NVIDIA/AMD GPUs. Even Intel had to abandon tick-tock because of the 10nm process. TSMC was saying the same for their 20nm process and it never happened for complex processors. My gut feeling is that we'll be here for 14nm as long as it was for 28nm. The Pascal Tesla is telling me that NVIDIA is going for the standard approach of huge GPUs. AMD's roadmap and that interview tells me that they will try to leverage their interposer tech to present a larger GPU comprised of smaller, cheaper GPUs.
Well, i dont think that they dont want deal with huge GPU's.. Just they seems to start with small ones... As Nvidia.
Nvidia have annonce first delivery of GP100 on selected supercomputers center in June.. But availability for OEM in Q1 2017.. ( dont even count seeing a customer, gaming version of GP100 before 2017 as this is release roadmap is only for Tesla ).
Its exactly what have been done by Nvidia with GK100 if you remember well. First delivery for some supercomputer center ( Titan ) the difference is the 680 was allready out at this time.
This said, both brands, need big and high performance chips for the HPC markets really quick.. Maxwell and Fury was not really a big deal in this market, as intentionnally not made for it. Now that they can move from 28nm process and architecture they will show their muscle for it.
For Nvidia, it is allready done with GP100.. But as the release roadmap show it, the real availibility will be for 2017...
I dont know if AMD plan to push it before ( Polaris ) or Vega ( 2017, who match GP100 roadmap). The roadmap of AMD can suggest that Vega will go against GP100.
In the interview he specifically says that big GPUs are pretty much unsustainable from a point on. Also from all these years following things I've learned that soft launches mean nothing. Wait for in-depth architecture reviews and actual benchmarks. At this point only AMD has displayed working silicon. The AMD roadmap also suggests that Vega might be multi-gpu on an interposer.
I don't think there is a point in dealing with large ones. Not unless it's a high margin market.
Yields are most likely poorer than 28nm and transistor costs didn't go down much. It makes much more sense to do a small chip and clock it higher for performance then just make a large chip. And I think AMD suggests that this is the future, because we probably won't have another 28nm, 4 year debacle. TSMC is entering 10nm volume this year. Which means we will probably have 10nm GPU's in 2018, resetting the process all over again.
@PrMinisterGR
Yeah, I agree with what your saying, I just think that was AMD's strategy all along. 28nm was different because it was around forever and matured. They could afford to make larger GPU's with it. Unless they skip another node again, I don't think we will see larger GPU's, especially in low margin markets.
I don't believe we'll see anything complex at 10nm yet. No, mobile chips are not really complex compared to Intel/AMD CPUs and NVIDIA/AMD GPUs. Even Intel had to abandon tick-tock because of the 10nm process. TSMC was saying the same for their 20nm process and it never happened for complex processors. My gut feeling is that we'll be here for 14nm as long as it was for 28nm. The Pascal Tesla is telling me that NVIDIA is going for the standard approach of huge GPUs. AMD's roadmap and that interview tells me that they will try to leverage their interposer tech to present a larger GPU comprised of smaller, cheaper GPUs.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12055
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12055
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5254936 Posted on: 04/07/2016 05:51 PM
In the interview he specifically says that big GPUs are pretty much unsustainable from a point on. Also from all these years following things I've learned that soft launches mean nothing. Wait for in-depth architecture reviews and actual benchmarks. At this point only AMD has displayed working silicon. The AMD roadmap also suggests that Vega might be multi-gpu on an interposer.
I don't believe we'll see anything complex at 10nm yet. No, mobile chips are not really complex compared to Intel/AMD CPUs and NVIDIA/AMD GPUs. Even Intel had to abandon tick-tock because of the 10nm process. TSMC was saying the same for their 20nm process and it never happened for complex processors. My gut feeling is that we'll be here for 14nm as long as it was for 28nm. The Pascal Tesla is telling me that NVIDIA is going for the standard approach of huge GPUs. AMD's roadmap and that interview tells me that they will try to leverage their interposer tech to present a larger GPU comprised of smaller, cheaper GPUs.
Nah, the initial Nvidia gaming GPU's will be the same size as AMD's. We aren't getting a 600mm2 gaming GPU this year. Nvidia can afford to build GP100s because they are selling them for over $10,000 per unit. Nvidia's margins in HPC/Cloud are almost 25% more than they are for gaming. Datacenter revenue for them has increased 40% over the last three years while gaming has only increased 30%. Financially it makes far more sense for Nvidia to build a larger chip for that purpose. All it does is expand margins even further.
Samsung plans on having 10nm Exynos chips in 2017, same with Qualcomm and the 830. A 10nm GPU in 2018 doesn't seem that far of a stretch. If GPU's hang on 14/16nm for as long as 28nm and yields hit 28nm numbers, there is no point in using an interposer for multi-GPU purposes. 28nm yields are over 90%. The added complexity of the interposer offers no advantage over just having a larger chip. That is unless you're going over the reticule limit of ~600mm2.
In the interview he specifically says that big GPUs are pretty much unsustainable from a point on. Also from all these years following things I've learned that soft launches mean nothing. Wait for in-depth architecture reviews and actual benchmarks. At this point only AMD has displayed working silicon. The AMD roadmap also suggests that Vega might be multi-gpu on an interposer.
I don't believe we'll see anything complex at 10nm yet. No, mobile chips are not really complex compared to Intel/AMD CPUs and NVIDIA/AMD GPUs. Even Intel had to abandon tick-tock because of the 10nm process. TSMC was saying the same for their 20nm process and it never happened for complex processors. My gut feeling is that we'll be here for 14nm as long as it was for 28nm. The Pascal Tesla is telling me that NVIDIA is going for the standard approach of huge GPUs. AMD's roadmap and that interview tells me that they will try to leverage their interposer tech to present a larger GPU comprised of smaller, cheaper GPUs.
Nah, the initial Nvidia gaming GPU's will be the same size as AMD's. We aren't getting a 600mm2 gaming GPU this year. Nvidia can afford to build GP100s because they are selling them for over $10,000 per unit. Nvidia's margins in HPC/Cloud are almost 25% more than they are for gaming. Datacenter revenue for them has increased 40% over the last three years while gaming has only increased 30%. Financially it makes far more sense for Nvidia to build a larger chip for that purpose. All it does is expand margins even further.
Samsung plans on having 10nm Exynos chips in 2017, same with Qualcomm and the 830. A 10nm GPU in 2018 doesn't seem that far of a stretch. If GPU's hang on 14/16nm for as long as 28nm and yields hit 28nm numbers, there is no point in using an interposer for multi-GPU purposes. 28nm yields are over 90%. The added complexity of the interposer offers no advantage over just having a larger chip. That is unless you're going over the reticule limit of ~600mm2.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 12055
Joined: 2004-05-16
Matches what RTG said in the reddit AMA. I wouldn't even call it a rumor at this point.
I expect Nvidia will have something of similar performance in the few months following that. I doubt any of the first wave cards will be much faster then what we have already -- just more efficient.