I believe NAVI will be much faster in compute than Polaris. Both AMD and NV are going for compute the last 3-4 years and with RayTracing added lately, we going to get even more compute in GPUs the coming years.
I would say that Navi is probably not going to be a great compute card. We'll see.
Yes and no. Several have said that designs will specialize for the separate uses going forward. Of course, there will still be many shared units in both lines.I believe NAVI will be much faster in compute than Polaris. Both AMD and NV are going for compute the last 3-4 years and with RayTracing added lately, we going to get even more compute in GPUs the coming years.
Yes and no. Several have said that designs will specialize for the separate uses going forward. Of course, there will still be many shared units in both lines.
Intel's Gen 11 architecture ditches FP64 altogether. It's part of the reason the EU sizes at ISO-process is 25% smaller. If you want to run it it has to be emulated. So you might see with future Intel products a line that's very focused on gaming, and another that's very focused on compute.
Since process gains are becoming smaller and less frequent, expect more specialization to extract maximum gains.
All they have to do is to fit enough units into a small enough TDP and they will be competitive.
Even the cost factor is pretty irrelevant because intel could just sell at a loss to gain market share.
https://hothardware.com/news/nvidia-tom-petersen-departs-company
Exclusive: NVIDIA's Tom 'TAP' Petersen Shockingly Departs For Intel
No idea if this is actually significant...
It's significant in that Intel seems to be taking this move seriously and is poaching top talent from both NVIDIA and AMD.
- Alexander Lyashevsky, a very talented engineer and a corporate fellow at AMD was hired as the Senior Director of Machine Learning Algorithms and Software Architecture at Intel.
- Jason Gunderson, another top CPU engineer and Sr. Director Program Managemen at AMD was brought on as Senior Director and Cheif of Staff Silicon Engineering at Intel.
- Radhakrishna Giduthuri, a top AI engineer at AMD who had spent 7 years in their software architecture and AI department was snagged by Intel as a Deep Learning Architect in the AI Products Group.
- Joseph Facca, is one of the key talent that was not taken directly from AMD but was approached form a different route. Joseph had previously been with AMD and led board design teams for ATI but had left in the September of 2016. He had been working in a much smaller company as an R&D expert and Intel brought him on board as an ‘industry leader’ to “create, design and deliver industry-leading discrete graphics products.
Jim Keller?
Chris Hook, apparently.Who did Intel get from AMD other than Raja?
Eh,even if it's an Aprils fool this is pretty much the most logical thing for intel to do.Intel ‘Xe Unleashed’ GPU Lineup Leaked – Xe Power 2 Flagship Graphics Card, Roadmap And More
Wow!
Edit: I just fell hard for a an April fools post, like an idiot LOL.
Intel ‘Xe Unleashed’ GPU Lineup Leaked – Xe Power 2 Flagship Graphics Card, Roadmap And More
Wow! View attachment 4758
View attachment 4760
Edit: I just fell hard for a an April fools post, like an idiot LOL.
Eh,even if it's an Aprils fool this is pretty much the most logical thing for intel to do.
For GPUs you can just stick more and more compute units into your cards to deal with higher resolutions,I mean radeon is doing this for years, or not?Isn't that why radeon is so much better value for mining and so on,because they have much more units compared to the competition.
There's a huge difference between increasing the compute units in your design and getting multiple discrete GPUs to act seamlessly as one unit.
That could work, although it would leave the gaming cards compute heavy and hence on the slow side.Maybe that's where the 150W card rumor is coming from. The compute cards will have multiple dies on the package but the gaming cards will only have one.
Maybe that's where the 150W card rumor is coming from. The compute cards will have multiple dies on the package but the gaming cards will only have one.
Faked slides: GPU performance increase becomes exponential!
Faked slides: Shows graph with linear relationship.
Other then assigning addresses to all the units what else is there to consider? They will all be on the same board or chip even so you won't have all the problems that come from trying to sync up two cards on different slots/busses.There's a huge difference between increasing the compute units in your design and getting multiple discrete GPUs to act seamlessly as one unit.
Chris Hook, apparently.
That's the thing: NV, AMD, and now Intel already know that. There's a limit to the number of cards they can sell to people chasing top performance. So the trick is to push prices ever higher, and maybe drag everyone else along for the ride wherever possible.
When I first got into PC gaming heavily, my first card that I bought for a custom system was a GeForce 2 Ti 200 (I had an ATI card in my pre-built P5-100 machine). It was a decent midrange card that performed below GeForce3 solutions, but outperformed some previous GeForce2 products, and definitely sat above the entry-level category. I don't remember what I paid for it, but it had to be $150 or less. Here's an old roundup of GeForce 2/3 products from AT:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/873/24
The GeForce 2 Ti 200 products ranged in price from $115-$125 depending on which one you got.
Can you get a midrange card today for $115? No. Midrange is slowly vanishing anyway, but if you want to think of a 1660Ti as midrange, then you can see how prices have moved.
Only if you're willing to make compromises on framerates and/or image quality. Take the used card market out of the picture and look at what's available today: can you guarantee a 1% or .1% percentile of 60fps @ 1440p in current titles with something like an RX590?
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13570/the-amd-radeon-rx-590-review
For many of those games, the answer is "no". Even RX Vega 64 struggles in a few areas. My overclocked Vega FE had issues staying above 60 fps all the time in a few games that didn't like it, like Fallout 4 (though that may have been more my CPU). Compare that to the Quake III Arena benchmarks from the old 2002 AT benchmarks: every card tested was way over 60 fps! Resolutions were lower back then, but still. If you had a monitor that supported 1280x1024 or 1600x1200 then you could get that higher resolution and probably still not drop below 60fps very often.
So yes, I respect that you (and many others) have set price limitations on what you will pay. It's smart not to cross those lines. We are still all paying more for less. Intel knows that, and will price accordingly.
The price you listed were not launch prices of these cards, those prices were after some time on the market already. Below is the launch prices and they were not all that great upon closer inspection.
Look at the specs and build of the cards and you will realize much of the reason why prices were so low back then is because these cards were budget cards compared vs the high end of today. The card you are referring to is incredibly low end in todays market in terms of design and bill of materials.
So you're comparing game requirements from early 2000's to game requirements from 2019 and somehow reach the conclusion the ~80mm2 chip from 2001 was a better deal than the ~230mm2 chip from 2019, because the latter is not "midrange" anymore. Don't you see a problem here?Right, $150 is close to what I paid for my GF2 Ti 200 if I recall correctly. But remember that Polaris is also quite long in the tooth, and I compared a $125 GF2 Ti 200 to an RX 590 of today (which itself has been out for awhile).
Why not ? They are focused on gaming for CPU's.I doubt we will see Intel focused on gaming.