If anything, AMD is small fish when it comes to TSMC's 7 nm production. The issue isn't capacity per se, it's more that the wafer costs are insane at 7 nm, and early on it's even worse. That's why you are likely going to only see very high margin products from AMD (and nVidia) until the middle of the year at the earliest... and that includes Ryzen.
But are 7nm prices really that high? For one thing- Apple's chip is ~83mm2, and is estimated to cost $72 to produce. Ryzen chip would be bigger, but also, Apple probably does not do much binning.
OK, I'm confused. We have the claim made often that TSMC will not have enough capacity for AMD to fab all their die there and now Apple can get a better pricing deal because they have the volume whereas AMD does not.Apple doesn't do much binning but you have to think they are getting a substantially better deal than AMD is though... if only because of the volume. I would think they would want to sell even the busted dies as Epyc early on.
I imagine Vega 20 is going first because the margins on that are even better than Epyc.
There isn't much volume left for everyone who isn't Apple because Apple - who have much more money than anyone else right now! - have first call on the capacity and need a lot of it.
-After the sometimes absurd levels of kowtowing to NV from reviewers during this latest launch, is such a thing really so outlandish?
There is a long and storied history of driver level "optimizations" in the video card space. If NV can enable variable rendering as the default in drivers they'd likely get away with it for a while since image quality comparisons aren't really a thing in modern reviews. Everyone just assumes the final rendered product is exactly the same between all vendors, and that no one is taking any shortcuts.
This is something I've often wondered about. Are images rendered by both GPU designers equivalent? I for one have noticed differences in effects depending on which card I used. Who's right? Is any? Certainly in the past, there have been discrepancies resulting in performance differences.kinda wish there was a reference software renderer available just to see what stuff is *supposed* to look like vs. how the graphics cards are rendering.
I thought it was sarcasm at first but I guess not.kinda wish there was a reference software renderer available just to see what stuff is *supposed* to look like vs. how the graphics cards are rendering.
These guys need to stop! A cut down RX580 is not an RX580. This isn’t as bad as NVIDIA with their outright deceptive low end parts, but it is leading down the same path.
I mean, it's bad, but not 'cripple performance by 50%' bad like the DDR4 1030.How is this not as bad? It's every bit the same and therefore every bit as bad.
Agreed, the Nvidia camp isn't any better with there crazy prices and its not gonna get any better any time soon.These guys need to stop! A cut down RX580 is not an RX580. This isn’t as bad as NVIDIA with their outright deceptive low end parts, but it is leading down the same path.
i thought they'd discontinued a reference rasterizer following dx9. wonder if they'll make one for dx12?I thought it was sarcasm at first but I guess not.
You can use the reference rasterizer and/or WARP. More info here: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/direct3darticles/directx-warp#how-to-use-warp
I think if AMD can do a refresh and not a rebrand of the 580 and match gtx 1070 performance then that will be good for everybody.
If history is any indication, it will be marketed around Asia Pacific as well.RX 580 for china
i thought they'd discontinued a reference rasterizer following dx9. wonder if they'll make one for dx12?
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1918935-1-1.html
Polaris 30 will use TSMC 12nm, would be released next month 1H