- Feb 12, 2013
- 3,818
- 1
- 0
After power, heat, drivers, 3.5GB ramgate, game works, etc. What do you think is next...I think the HDMI 2.0 thing is overblown and 6GB minimum for 4k is bs.
14/16nm reuse for 4-5 generations and the dGPU dying off. After where this forum will be renamed to IGPs and Graphics.
Yeah rebadging really struck me, why are "we" so opposed to this? It's not like 28nm can deliver much more performance.The next big trend is rebranding / rebadging. Nvidia did it twice with Fermi and Kepler, AMD has done it at least twice (if not more) with it's current lineup. Nvidia will do it again with Maxwell before finfet cards come out.
14/16nm reuse for 4-5 generations and the dGPU dying off. After where this forum will be renamed to IGPs and Graphics.
This is what I thought. But there are two issues that complicated it.
1) When with Intel iGPU be fast enough to play AAA games? It's not just a bandwidth problem, but also a die size problem.
2) Nvidia has such commanding marketshare in dGPU that I would expect they can afford at least a 10'nm' foundry node and likely whatever is next. It will take even longer before iGPUs have the die space & bandwidth to beat a dGPU in in UHD (which will become the next '1080p' of gaming in a few years).
1: Its about economics, not performance. YoY dGPU shipments decreased 19.43%. At some time we will have stagnant/old dGPUs while IGPs keep increasing.
2. For 10nm the numbers seems to be that a chip design alone cost 150 million $. And need something like 1.5 billion $ revenue to make it attractive. And thats 1 chip design. So for example with nVidia, GTX980 and GTX970 would have to generate that amount. While today on 28nm you can get away with something like 375 million $ revenue.
14/16nm reuse for 4-5 generations and the dGPU dying off. After where this forum will be renamed to IGPs and Graphics.
I don't think dGPU will die off if VR starts to become popular.
VR will slow down the process but it will become a luxury product quickly. Every new push in definition will be a case for dGPUs but apart from business sector, it will be caught up by iGPUs with their colossal R&D budgets and polyvalence. iGPUs have overtaken the market in such a prodigious way, it's just a matter of time.
dGPUs are like muscle cars in an era of Smarts.
1: Its about economics, not performance. YoY dGPU shipments decreased 19.43%. At some time we will have stagnant/old dGPUs while IGPs keep increasing.
2. For 10nm the numbers seems to be that a chip design alone cost 150 million $. And need something like 1.5 billion $ revenue to make it attractive. And thats 1 chip design. So for example with nVidia, GTX980 and GTX970 would have to generate that amount. While today on 28nm you can get away with something like 375 million $ revenue.
Yeah rebadging really struck me, why are "we" so opposed to this? It's not like 28nm can deliver much more performance.
Unless they use HBM 1, setting a new low standard that Intel won't catch up that in time...I can see the bottom and low middle dGPU disappearing as the iGPU is very soon able to take on that whole role.
I don't see the middle and high end dGPU disappearing for a while yet.
nVidia improved performance per watt very significantly on 28nm with Maxwell. Despite the "power doesn't matter" mantra that some proclaim here, it does matter to me and I suspect a lot of other people who dont want to upgrade their PSU or to just have a cool, quiet compact system for mid range performance. I applaud AMD for the apparently improved efficiency of Fury, but they sorely need those improvements across the entire line-up as well.
Never gonna happen.
I don't think dGPU will die off if VR starts to become popular.
Unless they use HBM 1, setting a new low standard that Intel won't catch up that in time...