I think that NVIDIA should be able to sell a GP100 w/ 16GB of HBM2 at the $1K price point. NV can use the current Maxwell chips, which are still quite efficient, at lower price points until it can roll out the rest of the Pascal family.
Likely fake. I don't think the market's ready for something like a $1500 Titan. I would think they would be more gentile with the price hikes.
I suppose it depends whether you like using your card to play games, or to argue Green vs Red.
It does not. Again, it's a simple fact.
AMD cards improved due to drivers.
That's it. I'm not saying anything else.
When you say "Nvidia cards got worse", that's wrong. They didn't get slower, they didn't magically suck. AMD improved their drivers and improved their GPU performance.
No spin, nothing else.
When you start to skew what is actually happening, we're not having a conversation based in reality. We're then having a conversation based on a false statement which is just useless to have.
I don't care which "team" wins. It's irrelevant to me, I buy whatever GPU I need. With Gsync/Freesync, the options are already chosen for me.
It does not. Again, it's a simple fact.
AMD cards improved due to drivers.
That's it. I'm not saying anything else.
When you say "Nvidia cards got worse", that's wrong. They didn't get slower, they didn't magically suck. AMD improved their drivers and improved their GPU performance.
No spin, nothing else.
When you start to skew what is actually happening, we're not having a conversation based in reality. We're then having a conversation based on a false statement which is just useless to have.
I don't care which "team" wins. It's irrelevant to me, I buy whatever GPU I need. With Gsync/Freesync, the options are already chosen for me.
I think we could see some shifts. Before kepler nvidia's power consumption was epic. I don't think people realize what nvidia had to do to get to kepler and have launch advantages over AMD. If they are pushing pascal as a compute GPU, they might be reversing some of those cuts and that could mean pascal will be a power hungry chip at least. Like someone said before, overclocking could take a dive etc.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5699/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-review/3
If they keep their software scheduler they can probably stay ahead of AMD on performance when asynchronous compute is out of use. That might be the most important. The gains on efficiency they get from investing in drivers is their biggest advantage and things point to that possibly going away next year. AMD ended up ahead sooner or later against kepler and probably most of the maxwell 2 cards, but next year might be the first time in a while they have a generational lead (no new GPU from nvidia on the same architecture wins). Mostly because they have the experience on HBM, dx12 like APIs and of making these full chips while fighting for efficiency. Nvidia dropped that fight with kepler and might pick it up, years later, in 2016.
This might not matter to nvidia though. A minor loss in consumer graphics won't matter if they sell more GPUs at higher prices to professionals.
AMD gaining performance is the functional equivalent to Nvidia losing performance.
Glass half full vs Glass half empty. The glass is still at 50% capacity.
Complete and utterly wrong, because we have an absolute reference on the matter of improve or losing performance.
While they do make A9s. The question is cost. Apple seems to be willing to pay 100 or even 200$ for every ~100mm2 A9.
Where the hell are you getting your numbers from, those figures don't make a lick of sense.
I'd be very surprised if they are paying much more than $50 per SoC, and that would be generous.
Inference based on questionable reasoning then?
I'm pretty sure it would be huge news if the BoM on the 6s had doubled over the 6. Has anyone heard any news to that effect?
Shintai threw me by talking about cost per SoC.The one estimation I had seen had the manufacturing cost of the A9 at $20-25. Apple keeps such a tight lid on things that we don't even really know if that's even close to being accurate and of course it doesn't include the R&D to design the chip which had to be massive esp given it's at two foundries.
Either way I don't think it's relevant to GPUs since Apple's volume is so much more than both AMD+nVidia combined that pricing isn't comparable.
A8 was ~37$ just in raw manufactoring cost, excluding all other expenses.
A8 is smaller than A9. Uses a process that is much cheaper. Got higher yield.
A9 is pretty much equal in size to a 8MB cache dualcore GT2 Skylake (Bigger than Core M). But without being close to the same yields.
And then there is the R&D on top.
As long as Apple can ignore cost they can keep it going.
A8 was ~37$ just in raw manufactoring cost, excluding all other expenses.
A8 is smaller than A9. Uses a process that is much cheaper. Got higher yield.
Apple A7 (104mm2) on the iPhone 5s made at 28nm cost $36
Apple A8 (89mm2) on the iPhone 6 made at 20nm cost $37
Apple A9 (96mm2) on the iPhone 6s made at 14nm FF cost $37
So, 14nm FF is not that much more expensive than it was though it would.