Im more interested in that this guy is claiming sept/oct for Pascal release. Another year on 28nm unless AMD pulls a rabbit out of the hat
How much of that is due to new to the Fury arch and how much is due to HBM1? You're attributing all the gains to HBM1 and I wonder how you can source those claims. Let's see.
nVidia did better with GDDR5.
Yes, HBM allowed AMD to build a card which is faster and uses less power but they needed HBM for this.
nVidia has changed the architecture from Kepler and has released a whole family of chips from low-end to high-end.
nVidia is faster with GDDR, uses less power and has more memory.
AMD needed HBM to have the room for more transistors without running out of power...
Without HBM Fury X would use 350W+ instead of <=300W.
AMD needed HBM to have the room for more transistors without running out of power...
Without HBM Fury X would use 350W+ instead of <=300W.
AMD needed HBM to have the room for more transistors without running out of power...
Without HBM Fury X would use 350W+ instead of <=300W.
This is better for the mid range cards that would never have got HBM anyway as GDDR5X is better then GDDR5. I suppose the only question is what do the GTX 970/980 class cards get - HBM or GDDR5X?
Will Pascal mid-range cards be that fast that today's GDDR5 wouldn't be enough? I don't think so.
HBM (1 and 2) just makes sense for the future in terms of performance, costs and features.
What is the cost structure of HBM versus GDDR memory.The cost structure of HBM makes it hard to justify in 300-400$ cards...
What is the cost structure of HBM versus GDDR memory.
You didn't answer the question and provided no data just guesses and your opinion.Limited supply, premature, currently 1 supplier, TSV, Interposer etc.
It shouldn't be a surprise. Is DDR4 cheaper than DDR3 today?
You didn't answer the question and provided no data just guesses and your opinion.
Right I forgot
What is the cost structure of HBM versus GDDR memory.
I guess your universe doesn't accommodate the fact that this interposer allows at the very least, a simpler AND smaller PCB.Right I forgot. HBM is completely different from anything else in the industry. Super cheap, easy to implement, massive supply from multiple producers and everything is a piece of cake and a home run from day 1.
Better? Because that's what you want to hear isn't it.
The interposer alone is 5-10$ over GDDR5(X). Something that will never change. Its just a new baseline extra cost. TSV implementation isn't free either. And then we can talk about the supply and production of the chips. Even if everything goes smooth, HBM as chips alone may not even reach GDDR5(X) price parity before a few years. And then there is still the TSV and interposer.
GDDR5X didn't come out of the blue because everything is only rosy in HBM land. Its a hotfix until HBM can deliver.
No I wanted you to back up your claim, which you almost never do. And everyone would like to see what the cost structure of HBM actually is, the thing you claim to know all about. You specifically talked about cost structure.Better? Because that's what you want to hear isn't it..
If you don't know what the total cost is (you obviously have no idea) then don't make definitive statements.The cost structure of HBM makes it hard to justify in 300-400$ cards
How many pennies? And back up your claim.PCB cost savings is pennies.
HBM is the future of memory, the only one that doesn't seem to grasp this is you. It it likely HBM costs more overall versus GDDR5 but this is expected as is the case with almost every new bit of tech. Next you're going to tell us that no one should go with a new manufacturing node because initially it costs more.When you need additional steps and components the cost structure goes up. And this is something HBM suffers from as a baseline cost.
I can understand HBM is a tender subject for some.
HBM is the future of memory, the only one that doesn't seem to grasp this is you. It it likely HBM costs more overall versus GDDR5 but this is expected as is the case with almost every new bit of tech. Next you're going to tell us that no one should go with a new manufacturing node because initially it costs more.
HBM still looks like a premature tech that needs to evolve further to get a solid ground. While GDDR5X is a bit of a hotfix. It solves the current short term issues and provides something HBM cant do yet.
When you need additional steps and components the cost structure goes up. And this is something HBM suffers from as a baseline cost.
I can understand HBM is a tender subject for some.
Also since the new cards most likely had HBM in mind, would it not also cost money to redo the cards to fit ddr instead?