I predict the opposite. With Broadwell and then Skylake, Intel has allocated more and more die space to the iGPU. We're at a point in which the iGPU inside the latest Intel chip actually has equal die space vs the CPU. At this point, you can even start to think of the latest Intel "APU" as having an integrated cpu. Actually, if Intel does start allocating more die space for the iGPU than the cpu, then it really is an iCPU. It might be the GPU that will eventually kill off the cpu. The casual user only need to open a pdf file so fast but the demand for visual computing will never slow down.
Discrete high-end GPUs is soon to be a dead dodo, that much I agree though. It's trapped in a vicious cycle of escalating costs, lower PC demand, and death of AAA PC games pushing GPUs to the limit while providing very visible graphical gains like Crysis did.
The casual user only need to open a pdf file so fast but the demand for visual computing will never slow down.
With a GTX960 you are still in the upper end. And Steam compose of 1.60% there.(DX11+ cards only)
NV's Geforce GPU segment increased 50% year over year in revenue this last quarter. Go to their IR page if you don't believe me.
Starting next year, we will see the beginning of the VR revolution pushing the need for 2x4K at 60 fps and higher. Even the operating systems will go VR over the next decade. Lots and lots of demand for gpu throughput.
Yea I dont see dgpu's going anywhere just yet.
(pure speculation as it may be, i cant see it play out differently)
The million dollar question is how many will jump on VR.
Once VR is cheaper and is able to be tested in stores, I think perception will change. Right now, it's hard to describe VR to someone who hasn't experienced it. Just because VR isn't accessible to a wide range of people right now doesn't mean it won't be accessible ot a wide range in the future.
With his recent record and generally off the wall comments, not sure if I would even consider Carmack an asset.
In any case, VR could really take off, or it could be a flop like 3D TV pretty much turned out to be. Obviously it depends on price, but also ease of use, comfort of the user, availabily of content, and a lot of other things. There is a lot of enthusiasm on these forums of course, but it remains to be seen how wide general acceptance will be.
I was against vr completely before. But Facebook picked it up, porn is using it, the people are investing in it and I don't see it going away. The rift could sell zero units and we'd still see a new vr project announced.The rift launches early next year, i expect it to be on display "hands on" in many stores all over. I guesstimate that demand will be high very early on. The product + carmack + moneytank(zuckerberg) = very good odds.
I had the Rift DK2 at home for a while (was available for "testing" at work ). The old 580 GTX (OC) and the 7950 (OC) can't provide the 75 fps needed in many advanced demos, 37 fps were the standard. It renders in some 2.5k resolution with downscaling. And the OLED pentile pixels are still very prominently sitting in front of you. So to improve the immersion they need at least a single 4k display plus a lot of GPU performance. With that in mind VR and AR won't rush into households but appeal to many people bored by current stereoscopic impressions.
@Headgear Vfx1:
263x230 pixels display resolution per eye.
GE is going to buy AMD.
They want to expand into the Space Heater / Toaster Oven / Hot Water Heater Internet of Things, and AMD's products are perfect for this.
I cannot wait to toast my Pop Tarts at 4GHz.
Have you verified, what the IC design costs consist of? Is it the physical layout or functional stuff too? And how much was mitigated by improved design automation? If design costs go up due to mask costs (and w/o EUV they take bigger and bigger chunks of the total costs), that still doesn't say anything about the costs of improving the logic on architectural, RTL, or lower levels.You saying mask cost is 5-10M$? How many masks needs to be done before you even got a final chip? And what about IC design cost that goes up with a factor of 2 every (half)node? R&D? See the point? I would bet you AMD for example will never make anything but loss on their Fiji dies due to volume. And thats even when they reuse GCN 1.2.
That's a number I picked up in some discussion. When I was younger I'd measured the die myself. Now I let others prove, that this die shown in your linked photo isn't big:Please link your 600mm Pascal GPU.
You are not one of those "That [CPU|GPU] performance is enough for my surfing." proponents, are you? And an IGP still causes a lot of design costs. And those bigger dGPUs usually don't have many different units as those used in IGPs. Shader blocks are the same, HW codecs, display gens, caches, busses.. most of that is the same or very similar in one family.The problem isnt whats possible. The problem is whats financially viable. And suddenly you sit with IGPs and no dGPU for the same reason.
Probably yes. In some vehicle test system we had older and expensive VR/AR glasses. Even with fast head tracking and a real car under your seat this looked like an 80's, early 90's game. No true immersion then. But the brains' 3D recognition accepted that world after a few minutes.So you believe it failed because the resolution wasn't high enough?
Maybe you're right, but I kind of doubt it. I think it failed because only a fraction of the population is willing to wear something like that on their face while they wave their hands around and kick their feet in the living room. A problem which hasn't gone away btw.
Have you verified, what the IC design costs consist of? Is it the physical layout or functional stuff too? And how much was mitigated by improved design automation? If design costs go up due to mask costs (and w/o EUV they take bigger and bigger chunks of the total costs), that still doesn't say anything about the costs of improving the logic on architectural, RTL, or lower levels.
That's a number I picked up in some discussion. When I was younger I'd measured the die myself. Now I let others prove, that this die shown in your linked photo isn't big:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37459726&postcount=16
Rumoured numbers like 17B transistors still have to be confirmed. But I think it's clear, that this is no cheap design and it won't be sold to the masses either.
You are not one of those "That [CPU|GPU] performance is enough for my surfing." proponents, are you? And an IGP still causes a lot of design costs. And those bigger dGPUs usually don't have many different units as those used in IGPs. Shader blocks are the same, HW codecs, display gens, caches, busses.. most of that is the same or very similar in one family.
So we are discussing the cost delta of making bigger dies, scaling up the memory subsystem, adding some special units maybe, and the full feature shaders capable of 1:2 DP:SP throughput, PCB design, etc. Like $300M for the iGPU and $350M for the dGPU design. Questioning the full costs of only one of two costly options is a typical human behaviour. And margins are probably higher for dGPUs.
People don't stop buying >150 HP cars to save the climate, so why should they step back from their ever growing expectations in visual experiences?
High end GPUs will also vanish when the ROI disappears.
Yea screams BS to me as well. Microsoft would hurt itself by pissing off other hardware makers, some are still pissed they made the surface, and Intel would have antitrust issues.
Be careful, its Geforce GTX not Geforce. YoY their revenue went up 50M$. And again, this is mainly due to AMD losing.
words
This is the important part.
No one forecasts negative cash flows ad infinitum when doing a valuation, otherwise the net result would be wealth destruction in the long run, which means it would be better to close the shop and sell all assets today before they lose any more value.
I don't think borrowing would be an issue for a new management team. The market is drowning with liquidity and even a junk debtor like AMD is actually improving its debt profile because of good conditions on the debt market, so whoever were to buy AMD wouldn't have issues financing it.
But think about it, this BoD has spent 3 years trying to turn the company around and failing, and this after betting the farm on the worst architecture of all times and missing every single growth trend on the market for the last decade. Those guys are consistently missing every single financial goal they establish for themselves, especially in the last 3 years. Do you think this clueless BoD can come forward and ask investors for even more money?
Actually, the very high end cards will be the last to go. They will be based on Nvidia's* professional line and compute cards (which command very high prices and margins). Low and mid-range GPUs will go away first, just because the margins will be too small to support the investment in development. All of this is IMHO, because if some disruptive technology comes to GPUs (in design, manufacturing or demand creation) then all bets are off.
* I used Nvidia here as AMD's GPU sales are tanking and will likely continue to do so unless some company takes the graphics division private and is willing to invest more heavily into GPU development.
GPU development isn't AMD's problem. It's product perception (and, ultimately, marketing).
nononononono
Its so the toaster can 3d Print the actual pop tart from scratch! ()
Monopolies aren't a big deal in the US anymore.
Right, it is indeed. If we take their Bulldozer-era level of performance/R&D as an indicator of future products, then AMD is basically a non-starter. All this buyout buzz seems to revolve around Keller and the idea that he has something better in mind than that.
GPU development isn't AMD's problem. It's product perception (and, ultimately, marketing).
I was against vr completely before. But Facebook picked it up, porn is using it, the people are investing in it and I don't see it going away. The rift could sell zero units and we'd still see a new vr project announced.
I'm going to try 3d mods for dolphin emulator soon and see if that works for me but people will always be interested in things that will add more immersion. 3d feels gimmicky. Vr sounds amazing now after I've looked it more and more.