Agreed. Other than GP100 we're probably talking about small chips for NVIDIA as well.
BTW you're 2 days late OP. D:
I expect Nvidia to go the exact same route as well. Only with the GP100 as the joker due to Knights Landing. If GP100 cant compete with this, Nvidia loses the HPC. But any GP100 chips will cost more than your first born assuming they can. Another thing people have to remember, there are no cost savings transistor wise. All the current leaked chips seems to be more or less shrinked 28nm in terms of size with little to no increase.
fixedBut again, performance/price and low power is what the 99% crowd wants.
fixed
If that was the case, AMD should sell much better already and cards like the GTX970 and down a lot less. This also shows the complete lack of understanding on this forum about the reality.
So no, you didn't fix anything. Just showing the lack of understanding there is.
Another hint why this 4096SP SKU is vega11:
Because if its vega10 and have 4096SP then cutdown version will have 3584SP just like fury non x.
Then vega 11 must have 3072SP and cutdown version 2560SP.
So vega 11 will be at polaris 10 performance.This is just not gonna happend.
This 4096SP SKU is vega 11 and AMD have even bigger 400+mm2 SKU at sleeve.
Remember size as well.
GTX680=294mm2 ~3.5B (32ROP)
GTX980=398mm2 ~5.2B (64ROP)
I fully agree on the unbalanced chip as I already stated. And for that matter every time its not shader limited Vega 10 can look much better, assuming ROP increase. And hopefully they increase it to 128. But I doubt shader power will change much at all and I will guess they will look around equal gflops wise.
I expect Nvidia to go the exact same route as well. Only with the GP100 as the joker due to Knights Landing. If GP100 cant compete with this, Nvidia loses the HPC. But any GP100 chips will cost more than your first born assuming they can. Another thing people have to remember, there are no cost savings transistor wise. All the current leaked chips seems to be more or less shrinked 28nm in terms of size with little to no increase. But again, performance/watt and low power is what the 99% crowd wants. In that relation this forum lives in its own world. So financially they are doing the right move. If I had to guess, Vega 10would end up in the 175-200W area as top bin.
So stock clock seems to be 1152mhz for the 2300sp part, according to the linux drivers, so theres at least an improvement from that direction.
Hopefully it means we can expect 1250-1300mhz aftermarket/common oc.
You keep repeating this, but its not really true. What most people want is maximum possible performance at minimum possible cost. There is no place for watts in that equation, low power consumption is just a nice bonus. Only select few with HPCs and stuff like that care about that primarily, surely not 99 percent crowd.
Why doesn't sale reflect this then?
AMD does the right thing when they champion performance/watt this time around.
Why doesn't sale reflect this then?
AMD does the right thing when they champion performance/watt this time around.
Why doesn't sale reflect this then?
AMD does the right thing when they champion performance/watt this time around.
When do they not reflect it? You mean when people kept buying gtx970? Perhaps the people who bought it were not aware they could potentially get better bang for their money with comparable AMD card? So because they actually are not HW enthusiasts, not that much because they somehow care about their card to have say 150 instead of 200W consumption?
OFC they do the right thing. But only cause more performance per watt means more absolute performance. At the same wattage levels as before per usual tier of peformance.
When do they not reflect it? You mean when people kept buying gtx970? Perhaps the people who bought it were not aware they could potentially get better bang for their money with comparable AMD card? So because they actually are not HW enthusiasts, not that much because they somehow care about their card to have say 150 instead of 200W consumption?
OFC they do the right thing. But only cause more performance per watt means more absolute performance. At the same wattage levels as before per usual tier of peformance.
I don't think it's as simple as saying raw performance or perf/Watt is what counts. You have to look at what is around in the market and figure how to make your card look like a no-brainer upgrade. Nobody with a 970 is gonna upgrade to a Polaris 10 with 980 performance at 100W. Fury X performance at 150W is another matter though.
I wouldn't argue people actively look for performance/watt, it just happens to be Nvidia has that right now.
I would also argue, people aren't looking at performance / price, because AMD currently has that and they are floundering.
People go by marketing/image/brand recognition/etc. Nvidia could turn it around next gen and sit on performance / price while AMD sits on performance / watt, and I'd predict NV would still devour AMD in terms of sale.
Mobile, where the options are limited and often made by the OEMs, performance / watt matters a whole bunch, but at this point consumer input is barely noticed. Look at poor Carizzo. Another wise AMD goldmine and it's bastardize because OEMs don't care what consumers want in the mobile space, they care more about their bottom dollar. (And then brand kicks in when OEM probably assume that consumers won't pay top dollar for an AMD laptop that roasts chest nuts, thus not putting the effort to deliver a device with the proper cooling regardless of what they can sell it for.)
TL;DR:
The 99% barely care about actual metrics, they care more about the shiny and marketing. Just swing by NeoGAF once or twice - I swear I get stupider each time I read a PC-related thread.
Sorry to break it to you, but Carrizo is a terrible laptop and desktop chip. Not because of some evil conspiracy.
If marketing is the reason, why did it first happen with Maxwell that at the same time offered exactly what the consumer demands?
You make it sound like its someone else fault again.
If AMD can get close to or even reach NVidia this time around in performance/watt. I bet you their share will climb to 30%+ on that alone.
How much do you guys think these chips will go for? In the $700+ range?
Odd, I didn't even once mention that. I gave examples of how NV promotes their products better, where AMD lost public/manufacturer favor, and thus why NV is destroying AMD and you think I'm making excuses for AMD?
Okay, but if you think it's solely because the majority of buyers are hitting up performance / watt reviews, you go right ahead and think that.
EDIT: I need to address the red.
Yeah, I covered that too. If OEM/Manufacturers regain confidence in AMD, they'll use it more often. IE, they aren't trying to properly cool a chip and thus cut into their own margins.
What you're stating is so blatantly obvious, I don't get why you even had to state it.
We can see after Polaris10/Polaris11/GP104/GP106 release. If its due to marketing AMD will be at 20% or below. If its due to low power and performance watt they will be higher. Lets say 30%. Deal?