All for subpar perf and memeworthy SoC errata as is customary with Tegra.If it were Jensen, you can bet he will have the fattest VCache, bigliest SLC and the widest CPU core possible
Perhaps. It would cost 2x more tho ("CEO math"). Look at the xx90 graphics cards, chances are, he would not even sell you a fully enabled config for that, hah.AMD as usual counting their mm2, be it in GPUs or CPUs. This company is too conservative.
If it were Jensen, you can bet he will have the fattest VCache, bigliest SLC and the widest CPU core possible.
I wouldn't blame them. They almost went bankrupt thanks to Bulldozer. Jim Keller says he talked to multiple people there when he joined and most of them didn't believe that AMD could ever create a world class CPU. Then Keller got to work and left them with the gift of a winning mindset.This company is too conservative.
If Nvidia designed a CPU core you wouldn't be able to buy it.
I didn't see Denver nor Carmel in PCs.They did (see Project Denver) at one point, but it was enough of a disappointment that they just decided to use the stock ARM cores (or do very little tweaking to the design) and use their superior graphics as a reason for customers to buy their SoCs. Qualcomm was really the only company that did sufficiently well with their own cores to justify the cost, and that was only until they floundered and also gave up on custom designs for a time.
True words about Jensen pricing, but regarding performance, even cut-down x90 part is more performant than anything AMD cheaped on.Perhaps. It would cost 2x more tho ("CEO math"). Look at the xx90 graphics cards, chances are, he would not even sell you a fully enabled config for that, hah.
In games yes but in professional workloads, look at 7900 XTX in SpecWorkstation: https://me.pcmag.com/en/graphics-cards/19867/amd-radeon-pro-w7600even cut-down x90 part is more performant than anything AMD cheaped on.
7900XTX and RTX 4090 are not pro GPU. I'm not sure there's any point in comparing them with SPECworkstation.In games yes but in professional workloads, look at 7900 XTX in SpecWorkstation: https://me.pcmag.com/en/graphics-cards/19867/amd-radeon-pro-w7600
View attachment 101473
View attachment 101474
They can be very much used as one lmao.7900XTX and RTX 4090 are not pro GPU
Point is, there's more to the 7900 XTX than meets the eye.I'm not sure there's any point in comparing them with SPECworkstation.
Isn't FP64 performance castrated on RTX 4090?There's an argument the 7900 XTX isn't but the RTX 4090 has the ECC mode option in Nvidia's control panel. Pretty sure that's only enabled for "Pro" GPUs.
Yeah but so is the RTX 6000...Isn't FP64 performance castrated on RTX 4090?
People using benchmarks represented by SPECworkstation are in a niche 😀They can be very much used as one lmao.
Quadros/Radeonpros are generally niche.
I didn't know that, thanks. There was a time when nvidia consumer GPU were much less powerful in FP64 than their pro counterpart.Yeah but so is the RTX 6000...
Seems unlikely at this point.Anyway, Zen 5 and RDNA4 should be a great married couple.
I meant CPU+dGPU.Seems unlikely at this point.
Despite that, thanks to the general software advantage of Nvidia i would argue that 4090 is more often than not better choice even for professional workloads, not just gaming.In games yes but in professional workloads, look at 7900 XTX in SpecWorkstation: https://me.pcmag.com/en/graphics-cards/19867/amd-radeon-pro-w7600
I agree, except there is one big difference in that Threadripper offers no additional gaming performance unlike the 4090 over the 4080.Despite that, thanks to the general software advantage of Nvidia i would argue that 4090 is more often than not better choice even for professional workloads, not just gaming.
I use it for archviz rendering. AMD cards are not even supported with my renderer of choice. In others, like Blender Cycles, they are like 2x-5x slower than their Nvidia counterparts. SpecWorkstation bench win for 7900XTX is nice, but its not neccesarily reflected in real world apps.
Admittedly though, i was bit harsh with my previous post. 7900XTX is indeed not bad GPU overall. I wanted to mostly point out that AMD could have blow Intel out of the water in the "client" space, if they wanted, same way Nvidia does to them with their x90 cards. But they are too busy counting mm2 and AMDs equivalent to Nvidias x90, aka something like Threadripper, is locked to different, more expensive platform. If Nvidia rolled like this, we would have x80 cards as top dogs and 102/202 chips would be available only as Quadros.
'Lisa' didn't enjoy the hype train (+32%) ...
Her response ??
She sent us a frosted train (+16%)
(32 + 16)/2 = 24
At the end ... you will finally get the Pelham 24 train ...
... and most people will be quite happy with it ...