Lol. As I told above, never underestimate the most common mistakes.
Lmao. Both to the actual issue but also the doomposters everywhere regarding a 2 week delay (lol)
Exactly-- but my point is, if it was just a packaging issue, it wouldnt matter if some typo was on the box or the IHS of the review samples. They are saying that not only did they hold off on sending more out, they are recalling all of the ones that were sent out. They would not need to do that if the problem was errors or typos in packaging or IHS.
I don't know why Gavin Bonshor doesn't do some antics on official Youtube channel (if there is one?) to attract more attention to our most illustrious website. He can do so much by donning our official mascot dress (remind me what that is?) and doing some hoopla dancing.Many less people would go to a comprehensive review like Anandtechs (hahaha, I couldn't resist the joke)
Let me guess, somebody put "AI" somewhere for good measure...
Lmao. Both to the actual issue but also the doomposters everywhere regarding a 2 week delay (lol)
Or they forgot to put "," into boosting frequency, so it says it boosts to 57 GHz :-DLet me guess, somebody put "AI" somewhere for good measure...
More like someone forgot to?Let me guess, somebody put "AI" somewhere for good measure...
They should've left such a typo in. Would've been fun for enthusiasts to chase that elusive speed with all sorts of crazy cooling solutionsOr they forgot to put "," into boosting frequency, so it says it boosts to 57 GHz :-D
They could easily fix a hardware issue within a week or two. Just look at Intel, they didn't need a respin they're able to solve it with a firmware update (at least to the extent of preventing future degradation, they can't undo potential past degradation)
AMD could have looked at Intel's troubles, done some internal reviews "are we vulnerable to the same sorts of problems", found they were, and are making changes to insure voltage levels are kept within bounds to prevent similar issues. By recalling before release they avoid the risk of having chips out there that are operating "unfixed" for months/years by the sort of people who never update their firmware.
Now I have no idea what AMD's problem really is, but the timing of this given Intel's announcement seems a little suspicious to me. A couple week delay to cut the possibility of such issues off at the pass would be well worth it, if it means being able to sit back with a smug grin on your face while Intel deals with the fallout for their problems for the next year or two.
"I don't think performance is a concern here" Aussie Steve @ ~8:27 on latest HWUB video.
N3E is enterprise/server, N3 is efficient junk. N3P is the value play performance/efficiency mainstream 3nm. N3X is for Nvidia, high end performance and increased silicon density.Is that speculation?
It's either AIMD or AyyMD slapped on the packaging.Let me guess, somebody put "AI" somewhere for good measure...
Normally, yes, but when Ian Cutress says "due to a typo" that would be box packaging and labeling, not what you are speaking about.The box or inscription on the IHS is not what people are referring to when they say packaging issues. In the IC world, packaging means the placing of the die on the substrate and making all of the electrical connections needed.
If that's true, WTH????Normally, yes, but when Ian Cutress says "due to a typo" that would be box packaging and labeling, not what you are speaking about.
Normally, yes, but when Ian Cutress says "due to a typo" that would be box packaging and labeling, not what you are speaking about.
Going from how omnipresent the 9900X is in marketing and product listing leaks, and the first early review also being on a 9900X, I very much doubt that.My best guess is that the Yields just aren't there. 5.4 and 5.5GHz kinda works, so the 2 small SKUs can Release on 8th, but the number of 5.6 and 5.7GHz CCDs is so low that it would've been a paper launch.
With all the 13 and 14th gen degradation stories that are going on they have enough to worry about with their own rigs to be concerned with AMD.Sadly, the only ones rejoicing at AMD's recall are Intel users who get more time to NOT get depressed upon seeing Zen 5 benchmarks.
LPDDR5x @ 8533 MHz with 256-bit interface is 273 GB/s.Is there a chance Strix Halo would outperform 9950X for membw bound workloads?
Does anyone happen to have numbers for theoretical membw for Strix Halo vs 2:1 DDR5 ~8000 on Zen5 DT?
They are guessing. They see AMD recalling all units and announcing that they're replacing it with a fresh batch and jump to the conclusion that it must be a hardware issue.That’s not what hardwareluxx is reporting. It’s also a hardware issue.
Yeah, by a lot, each CCD gets 2*32B fabric uplink (aka the new norm going forward).Is there a chance Strix Halo would outperform 9950X for membw bound workloads?
That's not the limiting factor at all.LPDDR5x @ 8533 MHz with 256-bit interface is 273 GB/s.
I'm aware. He explicitly asked about memory bandwidth, not the throughput between the I/O die and the CCD (for GNR).That's not the limiting factor at all.