That seems a lot more reasonable for a 2 or 3 board design than whatever that image wccf is supposed to represent. Using the 4090 Ti prototype design would be interesting though.Throwing my guess for the 5090 cooler configuration. It's my only guess for how they can maximize the airflow even further
View attachment 99566
Makes sense. Essentially finding other ways to leverage the through-heatsink approach. 30 and 40 series FE cards already use one through-heatsink fan, so it's natural to try to use two. The issue is that means you have a floating PCB in between the two fans, so you need another PCB for the IO bracket and maybe another for power. Maybe the structure of the card comes from a bracket which ties all the fans and PCBs together.Throwing my guess for the 5090 cooler configuration. It's my only guess for how they can maximize the airflow even further
View attachment 99566
600 W or bust.Will it be less power hungry?
Look for approx 450W-520W. Especially if increased clocks and/or increased per SM throughput.Will it be less power hungry?
IMO there shouldn't be consumer level GPUs above 250W. At least I don't want electric stoves.
You can always set power limitsIMO there shouldn't be consumer level GPUs above 250W. At least I don't want electric stoves.
People have proven to care more about performance than absolute power draw. Especially if some level of efficiency improvements can be plugged into higher performance than previously possible with older architectureIMO there shouldn't be consumer level GPUs above 250W. At least I don't want electric stoves.
People have proven to care more about performance than absolute power draw.
Where were those people when the RX480 performed above the GTX1060 while pricing below?
If that's a majority of buyers, then the reviewers weren't really representing them then.
But somehow, as soon as we got RDNA2 vs. Ampere then all of a sudden power efficiency wasn't that important anymore.
Humm... 🤔
Where were those people when the RX480 performed above the GTX1060 while pricing below?
If that's a majority of buyers, then the reviewers weren't really representing them then.
But somehow, as soon as we got RDNA2 vs. Ampere then all of a sudden power efficiency wasn't that important anymore.
Humm... 🤔
You're still paying for overbuilt VRMs, your-momma-sized cooling setups and anti-sagging brackets (lmao) that the GPU wouldn't otherwise need if it was clocked at a sane level and not at the plateau of the v/f curve.You can always set power limits
No, for RDNA3 just drop the clocks slightly below those of 7900GRE (260W TDP GPU, and a poor bin at that).So previous AMD generation would stop at 6800. No 6800XT or above. Current generation would stop at 7700XT.
Previous generation NVidia would stop at 3070. No 3070 Ti or above. Current generation would stop at 4070 Super.
That would suck. Don't deny other people more powerful options, just because you don't want them...
You're still paying for overbuilt VRMs, your-momma-sized cooling setups and anti-sagging brackets (lmao) that the GPU wouldn't otherwise need if it was clocked at a sane level and not at the plateau of the v/f curve.
No, for RDNA3 just drop the clocks slightly below those of 7900GRE (260W TDP GPU, and a poor bin at that).
It's even better for Ada: the laptop 4090, which has the same config as the desktop 4080 can be configured with TDP of up to 150W, meaning there's a 100W headroom to introduce the AD102 instead of AD103 and maybe even raise clocks a little.
Those in need of 350W+ monstrosities should pay for GALAX HOF series or whatever.
v/f curve placement of consumer GPUs has been dumb for a while now.
Many cards sold today could have sub 200W power budgets and still be pretty awesome. We've just gotten to the point where they are still competing with the last generation of cards they (AMD & nvidia at least) overvolted and overclocked for hardly any reason by default and seem to be weird about backing down.
The 4070S would be proportionally slower if clocked at a sane level, so relative performance would remain the same. Would also help with not normalising optimising games for GPUs that pull 1/5 of a vacuum cleaner suction power.Well... the 4090 laptop (which has the same specs as the 4080... minus the clock speed) has about the same performance in Timespy as the 4070 Super. Would you be happy paying $1200+ for that?
That comparison slightly favoured NV until VRAM limitations and FineWine kicked in.Where were those people when the RX480 performed above the GTX1060 while pricing below?
If that's a majority of buyers, then the reviewers weren't really representing them then.
The 4090 laptop is 120W TDP. Increase power to the levels discussed above (200-250W) and let's see how the 4070 Super fares against it. Also, quoting 100-150W mobile products based on the same silicon used in 300W+ desktop cards only goes to show how these chips could easily be tamed under 250W for a rather acceptable performance penalty. (acceptable only to some, as the discussion shows)Well... the 4090 laptop (which has the same specs as the 4080... minus the clock speed) has about the same performance in Timespy as the 4070 Super. Would you be happy paying $1200+ for that?
Kopite confirms this:Looks like GB202 might be like A100 of sorts with a split L2 on a singe monolithic die. If so, it does suggest that future high end GPUs could be MCM a la B100.
Those people care most particularly about performance. The most important factor is performance/$The people that care more about performance, aren't the ones buying ~$200 cards.
Plus the obvious, that most people just want NVidia cards.