Sure, whatever you say Tracy :rolleyes:

my_name_is_earlI hope it's not 10% increase in performance and 300% increase in price. It just works!

It's what happens when the only other competition hasn't made a performance increase in nearly 2 years and hasn't been able to compete in the high end market in nearly 5 years.

jeremyshawAre you sure about the 61MT/mm^2 figure? That would be pretty close to TSMC's claims for their 7nm HPC variant (66MT/mm^2, iirc; Ampere is at ~65MT/mm^2 and AMD Renoir is estimated at ~63MT/mm^2 as well).

Ah and what is Navi 10 estimated at - 41.0M / mm². So 8nm Samsung lands between 41 and 61. whatever, it will be good for 2 years and then we can finally enjoy 120M / mm² and 5NM EUV in 2022.

I say we will witness 10x density 10 years later compared to GF104.

GPU	Transistors million	mm²	Date	M / mm²
G92	754	324	2008	2,3
GF104	1950	332	2010	5,9
GK104	3540	294	2012	12,0
GM204	5200	398	2014	13,1
GP104	7200	314	2016	22,9
TU104	13600	545	2018	25,0
GA104	19500 est	332 est	2020	58,7 est
GH104	35400 est	294 est	2022	120,4 est

my_name_is_earlI hope it's not 10% increase in performance and 300% increase in price. It just works!

The more you spend, the more you save ... :kookoo:

BoboOOZThis will be my last post on this subject, because I think we discussed it enough.
But basically I think you idealize what is competition in a free market. Companies do not try to make the best product that they can make. Companies try to make the most money they can make. They do that usually by doing the cheapest product possible but which is still better than the competition, or at least competitive with the price of the competition.
Or, as they say, when you're chased by the bear, you don't have to be faster than the bear, you just have to be faster than your friend ;).

In order to make money, AMD needs a real product. Much better product than that their current RX 5700 XT that is just too slow and several Nvidia products have commanding lead over it.

Companies want and predict one thing, the customers decide another, hence you have AMD reporting red numbers in their fiscal reports for the RTG division group.
So, obviously, AMD's strategy and tactics simply don't work properly.

yeeeemanThis has been discussed a million times now. Higher end GPUs will be made on 7nm and lower end on 8nm.

Doubt it, there's going to be a considerable difference in power and clocks then. Architectures are built around one node only so they can scaled up and down without introducing too many nonlinearitiesin how characteristics change.

newtekie1It's what happens when the only other competition hasn't made a performance increase in nearly 2 years and hasn't been able to compete in the high end market in nearly 5 years.

AMD competed multiple times in the high end and sometimes they even had the performance crown (290X vs Titan) and yet it made no difference, Nvidia kept increasing prices and offering less. Maybe one day people will understand the real reason of why we're here.

Till then, enjoy your lower tier SKU with a price bump.

ARFIn order to make money, AMD needs a real product. Much better product than that their current RX 5700 XT that is just too slow and several Nvidia products have commanding lead over it.

Lower tier cards provide the bulk of the profits, those GPUs that are faster than a 5700 XT are also more expansive.

Imagine having to explain this in 2020.

Vya DomusLower tier cards provide the bulk of the profits, those GPUs that are faster than a 5700 XT are also more expansive.

Imagine having to explain this in 2020.

Ok, right then.
Now explain why Nvidia's Q1 2020 net income is close to $1B, while AMD's is miserable $160M ?

ir.amd.com/news-releases/news-release-details/amd-reports-first-quarter-2020-financial-results

www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/05/21/2037294/0/en/NVIDIA-Announces-Financial-Results-for-First-Quarter-Fiscal-2021.html

ARFNow explain why Nvidia's Q1 2020 net income is close to $1B, while AMD's is miserable $160M ?

Who the hell cares. It's not the high end for either of these two companies which generates the most income, it just isn't. Take any hardware survey, look at the number of sub 300$ GPUs and you'll notices every other higher end SKU pales into comparison.

Your average consumers doesn't buy a 2080ti or a 2080, they buy 2060s/5700XTs and below. It would have hardly made any difference if AMD had a higher end card from the day the 5700XT was released, those aren't volume products.

Vya DomusWho the hell cares. It's not the high end for either of these two companies which generates the most income, it just isn't. Take any hardware survey, look at the number of sub 300$ GPUs and you'll notices every other higher end SKU pales into comparison.

Your average consumers doesn't buy a 2080ti or a 2080, they buy 2060s/5700XTs and below. It would have hardly made any difference if AMD had a higher end card from the day the 5700XT was released, those aren't volume products.

Halo products sell the other cards. RX 5700 XT is just too slow for the market tier it is positioned in.
All the other AMD cards as well. This results in much fewer sales for AMD and 5-6 times higher net income for Nvidia.

ARFHalo products sell the other cards.

No they don't, that's just something forum dweller fanboys tell themselves. Typical, average consumers go to their favorite retailers and sort by price from low to high.

ARFRX 5700 XT is just too slow for the market tier it is positioned in.

How the hell can it be too slow if there are offerings from Nvidia with roughly the same performance and at the same price. Look at reviews for Christ sake, the 5700XT is often better value.

ARFThis results in much fewer sales for AMD and 5-6 times higher net income for Nvidia.

I don't think you understand how any of this works at all, stop trying. You thought (and probably still do) that halo products generate the most income, come on.

BoboOOZLoweer price, and , as a consequence, better price/performance ratio.

Nvidia had booked some volume at TSMC, but not a lot. You maybe don't realize, but NVidia is a much larger company and, hence, a much larger client than AMD, so they buy larger volumes. Anyway, Nvidia tried to pressure TSMC but lost, so 2 months ago they booked all the capacity that they could:
www.notebookcheck.net/Nvidia-AMD-book-out-spare-TSMC-7nm-production-lines-for-next-gen-GPUs.462511.0.html

my point is i don't think nvidia really have anything that they can use to pressure TSMC to lower their price. nvidia for years has been looking for other fab as an alternative. the talks about nvidia using samsung fab is not new. it has been talked about since 2012. TSMC also have their moment when things are not going well for them. 40nm and 20nm is few example for that.

ARFIn order to make money, AMD needs a real product. Much better product than that their current RX 5700 XT that is just too slow and several Nvidia products have commanding lead over it.

Companies want and predict one thing, the customers decide another, hence you have AMD reporting red numbers in their fiscal reports for the RTG division group.
So, obviously, AMD's strategy and tactics simply don't work properly.

I have no idea why you're quoting me, it wasn't in a fanboy discussion... Sorry if I sent the wrong message ;)

Me thinky AMD gobbled up all TSMC 7nm capacity.

ARFOk, right then.
Now explain why Nvidia's Q1 2020 net income is close to $1B, while AMD's is miserable $160M ?

Is that a serious question? Before this year how many laptop models with discrete gpus were specc'd with an Nvidia GPU? vs AMD which was pretty much zero.

Vya DomusAMD competed multiple times in the high end and sometimes they even had the performance crown (290X vs Titan) and yet it made no difference, Nvidia kept increasing prices and offering less. Maybe one day people will understand the real reason of why we're here.

Till then, enjoy your lower tier SKU with a price bump.

That's simply not true, and you're comparing a prosumer card to a gaming card. The Titan was more expensive because it was in a different product category and offered features that normal desktop cards didn't. It was a bridge card between desktop cards and full on workstation cards.

The 290X when it launched competed with the 780 in performance, and after the 290X launched nVidia quickly dropped the MSRP of the 780 to $50 less than the 290X even though they performed nearly exactly the same(unless you set the 290X to jet engine mode).

Vya DomusNo they don't

You are wrong. Ryzen is the most appropriate example. Before Ryzen, AMD also had cheap but relatively slow offerings, FX and A-series but virtually no consumers ever bought them. Once AMD retook the CPU performance crown with Ryzen 7 1800X, Ryzen 9 and Ryzen Threadripper, AMD's sales skyrocketed.

Vya Domus is confused and nvidia knows what to do.

ARFYou are wrong. Ryzen is the most appropriate example. Before Ryzen, AMD also had cheap but relatively slow offerings, FX and A-series but virtually no consumers ever bought them. Once AMD retook the CPU performance crown with Ryzen 7 1800X, Ryzen 9 and Ryzen Threadripper, AMD's sales skyrocketed.

But the halo in Ryzen family is 3950X and as you know most people go for the mid range 3600 or 3600X not the HALO as you say. AMD sales skyrocket because the Ryzen family of CPUs are extraordinary in comparison to Intel offering now. With FX it was a totally different story. They offer performance in all segments. If you think these sales are just because the gaming experience is better then you are totally wrong. Server and workstations have a lot to do with it. So the example of the "halo" product giving the most profit is wrong. Halo is mostly to show what they can do in a given segment of course someone will buy these for variety of reasons.

Its for brand reputation and when only two competitors, halo products are really important for marketing. Otherwise then would be no fanboys. Margins matters and of course market share. Poorly executed sw is also radeons problem from day one.

newtekie1That's simply not true, and you're comparing a prosumer card to a gaming card. The Titan was more expensive because it was in a different product category and offered features that normal desktop cards didn't. It was a bridge card between desktop cards and full on workstation cards.

Yet it was called "GeForce" like the rest. It was as much as prosumer card as any other 1000$ card is today.

Expensive and fast != "prosumer"

newtekie1The 290X when it launched competed with the 780 in performance, and after the 290X launched nVidia quickly dropped the MSRP of the 780 to $50 less than the 290X even though they performed nearly exactly the same(unless you set the 290X to jet engine mode).

I don't know what you seek to argue about that it competed with the 780, both the 780 and Titan were the same chip with the 780 having 2 SMs disabled. For all intents and purposes AMD's 290X was performing similar to Nvidia's thousand dollar GPU. Anyway the point is that AMD did compete in the past quite well in the high end and they gained nothing from it, they learn't their lesson and are now focusing primarily to the mid range.

ARFFX and A-series but virtually no consumers ever bought them.

That's perhaps because of your red and green tinted shades that you think that, plenty of people bought those. They were inexpensive and performed decently for their time, the 8xxx series were particularly popular.




What exactly were all those people up until 2017 buying ? AMD stickers ?

ARFOnce AMD retook the CPU performance crown with Ryzen 7 1800X

Except they didn't, the 1800X was still slower than 6900K across the board, plus Intel had a 10 core CPU available at the time. The only reason they succeed was because of the performance/dollar, proving one again that halo products aren't what drives sales. Most people probably don't even know which are the fastest GPUs/CPUs out there, let alone lettings themselves being influenced somehow because of them. Again, that's how fanboys think.

Vya DomusYet it was called "GeForce" like the rest. It was as much as prosumer card as any other 1000$ card is today.

Expensive and fast != "prosumer"

Geforce name or not, it was still a prosumer card. It had features and abilities that the normal gaming cards did not have.

Vya DomusI don't know what you seek to argue about that it competed with the 780, both the 780 and Titan were the same chip with the 780 having 2 SMs disabled. For all intents and purposes AMD's 290X was performing similar to Nvidia's thousand dollar GPU. Anyway the point is that AMD did compete in the past quite well in the high end and they gained nothing from it, they learn't their lesson and are now focusing primarily to the mid range.

Same chip or not, they were difference cards. You do know the $10,000 Quadro cards at the time wer using the same chip as the 780 too, right? Why aren't you complaining about those like their the same as the 290X?

And, hell, even nVidia one upped themselves. The 780Ti outperformed the 780, the 290X, and the Titan(even though they used the same chip) and was like $300 cheaper than the Titan.

But, the fact that you have to go back 7 years to get to a time that AMD even came close to competing kind of proves my original point though, doesn't it?

newtekie1Geforce name or not, it was still a prosumer card. It had features and abilities that the normal gaming cards did not have.

Such as ?

newtekie1You do know the $10,000 Quadro cards at the time wer using the same chip as the 780 too, right? Why aren't you complaining about those like their the same as the 290X?

Yes, and those were actual workstation cards, unlike the Titan. The only one complaining here is you because you don't want to accept that all of those cards were competing with each other.

newtekie1But, the fact that you have to go back 7 years to get to a time that AMD even came close to competing kind of proves my original point though, doesn't it?

No, they had high end offerings all the way up to recent times, Vega, Radeon VII. But as is the case with every stubborn Nvidia fan they disregard everything that isn't the absolute fastest possible as not being part of the high end product stack.

Vya DomusSuch as ?

The double precision FP performance was ~7 times what even the 780Ti was capable of. That's incredibly important for people doing complex mathematical simulations and 3D renderings. Hell, that's still more than 3 times the DPFP performance of the 2080Ti! Yeah, the original Titan still outperforms the 2080Ti in complex math. The extra memory also came into play with these calculations.

newtekie1The double precision FP performance was ~7 times what even the 780Ti was capable of.

Seven times slower doesn't mean the feature is missing, every other higher end Kepler card could do FP64. Again, the only thing that supposedly made this a "prosumer" card is that it was faster and had more memory. Great, but it didn't have any "pro" feature. Only the Titan V can be argued to have been a proper workstation card, Tensor Cores, HBM. All the others ? Meh.

newtekie1That's incredibly important for people doing complex mathematical simulations and 3D renderings.

Hardly anyone renders anything using FP64 outside some rare instances and the complexity of your simulation is independent from the precision used. "Incredibly important" is an overstatement, take it from someone that actually wrote some numerical simulations for GPUs.

newtekie1Yeah, the original Titan still outperforms the 2080Ti in complex math.

Want me to ruin your idea that these Titans are not workstation cards even further ? The current RTX Titan just as every other Turing card has the same 1:32 FP64 core ratio. So explain to me again, is that a prosumer card or not since you think FP64 is incredibly important ?

newtekie1The double precision FP performance was ~7 times what even the 780Ti was capable of. That's incredibly important for people doing complex mathematical simulations and 3D renderings. Hell, that's still more than 3 times the DPFP performance of the 2080Ti! Yeah, the original Titan still outperforms the 2080Ti in complex math. The extra memory also came into play with these calculations.

So Dp is so important Nvidia doubled down on it over 3 generations, wait no , they did the opposite , you trashed your own statement right there, so my 5870 and vega are great then with decent Dp?.

the Titan had f all worth for a gamer in USP, besides bragging rights and a bit of oomph.

Well, I thought Nvidia could have f'd the goose with Tsmc trying to get cheap chips, could be that they have really messed up here, or it could pan out fine, well see.

Vya DomusExcept they didn't, the 1800X was still slower than 6900K across the board, plus Intel had a 10 core CPU available at the time. The only reason they succeed was because of the performance/dollar, proving one again that halo products aren't what drives sales. Most people probably don't even know which are the fastest GPUs/CPUs out there, let alone lettings themselves being influenced somehow because of them. Again, that's how fanboys think.

Are you a troll ?

Ryzen 7 1800X scores 16,248 in PassMark, while Core i7-6900K only 14,478.

www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+7+1800X&id=2966

www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-6900K+%40+3.20GHz&id=2794