I agree and TSMC would get in to real trouble leaking any information about Amd/any customer chips.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Navi 23 ‘NVIDIA Killer’ GPU Rumored to Support Hardware Ray Tracing, Coming Next Year
- Thread starter Gregster
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2018
- Posts
- 2,827
Well, there's that. However, it would explain why he photoshoped the circuitry around the die. I wouldn't be surprised if it matched the ps5.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,107
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
Well, there's that. However, it would explain why he photoshoped the circuitry around the die. I wouldn't be surprised if it matched the ps5.
Well that just doesn't make sense.
If you believe there is any credence to him at all he was shown the die in a picture on a GPU, hence how he was able to use the PCIe lanes from the same picture as one method of estimating the dimensions.
Therefore if you actually believe he was shown anything, you can't logically also at the same time believe he was shown the PS5 dies as those would never have been on a GPU PCB. If you don't believe he was shown anything and his "die shot" is fantasy then the PS5 die comparison (of which I must stress I think using the shape of it to conclude anything is a massive leap) is irrelevant because it was all made up anyway.
Last edited:
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLadies and Gentlemen, my names Paul, and in this redgamingtech.com video yadda yadda yadda......................
By Golly Gosh.....
Under a day to go.. have you been testing the brakes at all? You sure we can stop if we need to? Or slow down before hitting any sharp bends?
Under a day to go.. have you been testing the brakes at all? You sure we can stop if we need to? Or slow down before hitting any sharp bends?
Wrong thread?
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,107
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2018
- Posts
- 2,827
That makes absolutely no sense. In order to have any credence in your theory you would have to provide a pic of non photoshop die. However, I doubt you are able to do that. Which only shows your strawman.
Pray for us all.
At the risk of repeating myself, maybe its worth waiting for 5nm GPUs in 2021.
The transistor density on 5nm (likely 5nm+) is estimated to be upto 170M /mm². Would've thought 5nm GPUs could have densities of around 100M /mm² (based on the fact that 7nm GPUs have around 2/3 the density of the max stated density for the 7nm fab. process).
Assuming thats true, thats about 5 or 6 times the transitor density of the R9 390 (my current GPU) , at 14.2M / mm². Old GPU is old...
Best we can hope for is significantly greater power effiency for RDNA 2, vs RTX 3000 series. Even greater for RDNA 3.
The transistor density on 5nm (likely 5nm+) is estimated to be upto 170M /mm². Would've thought 5nm GPUs could have densities of around 100M /mm² (based on the fact that 7nm GPUs have around 2/3 the density of the max stated density for the 7nm fab. process).
Assuming thats true, thats about 5 or 6 times the transitor density of the R9 390 (my current GPU
) , at 14.2M / mm². Old GPU is old...Best we can hope for is significantly greater power effiency for RDNA 2, vs RTX 3000 series. Even greater for RDNA 3.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,107
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
<risk alarm>Woop Woop</alarm>
But then 3nm GPUs are coming in 2022, so you better wait for them. And in 2025 TSMC are looking at going smaller still, so you might want to wait for them instead.
In no way was it a strawman by any definition so I can only assume that either you don't know actually know what a strawman is, or you completely missed the point. I don't care to guess which but I do note that a lot of people seem to love to peddle accusations of logical fallacies to try and look smarter than they are.
You said, merely having seen the similar shape of the PS5 die itself, "I'm not sure what corteks [sic] provided is from the 6000 series but from the PS5." My argument directly addressed that statement and in no way did it set up a different proposition to be knocked down. Ipso facto, absolutely not a strawman. There is also absolutely no requirement for me to possess nor to provide a picture of the die given my statements and it is most confusing that you would try to suggest that there is.
Let me put this incredibly simply.
Scenario A:
You believe Coreteks to be honest and reliable. In showing us that "die shot", he said in that very video that he took references from the board to measure the die size and in the video used GPU PCIe lanes from that GPU board to estimate the size. He would not ever conceivably have been shown a picture of the PS5 APU mounted on a GPU PCB, therefore under this scenario your suggestion that maybe he provided us a die shot from the PS5 is logically false.
Scenario B:
You believe Coreteks to be dishonest and unreliable. He lied in that video about seeing it and in showing us that "die shot" it was nothing more than a crappy photoshop, and thus under this scenario any comparison you subsequently make to the PS5 die now is rendered irrelevant on account of his "die shot" not being real anyway as he is dishonest and unreliable.
Conclusion:
Whether you trust Coreteks and his sources or whether you don't, there is no logical way (outside perhaps of some serious mental gymnastics) to conclude that there is any likelihood that he showed us the PS5 die in that video. That is the only argument I made, it directly addresses your comment, and it certainly does not require me to have seen nor provide proof of the die - it only requires me to have watched the video he did on it and paid attention.
Last edited:
Diminishing returns I would think, waiting for 3nm . Dont wanna wait too much longer personally.
5nm is already EUV, dont know if further enhancements to the lithography (beyond EUV) can be made with silicon.
Ive read that 3nm will add more EUV layers, so theres at least some room for improvement.
. Dont wanna wait too much longer personally.5nm is already EUV, dont know if further enhancements to the lithography (beyond EUV) can be made with silicon.
Ive read that 3nm will add more EUV layers, so theres at least some room for improvement.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,768
- Location
- Planet Earth
To make sure we have all bases covered Big Navi is:
1.)Slower than an RTX2080TI
2.)Faster/similar than an RTX2080TI
3.)Slower than an RTX3070
4.)Faster/similar than an RTX3070
5.)Slower than an RTX3080
6.)Faster/similar than an RTX3080...
all at the same time. That should cover all the leaks!!
1.)Slower than an RTX2080TI
2.)Faster/similar than an RTX2080TI
3.)Slower than an RTX3070
4.)Faster/similar than an RTX3070
5.)Slower than an RTX3080
6.)Faster/similar than an RTX3080...
all at the same time. That should cover all the leaks!!
To make sure we have all bases covered Big Navi is:
1.)Slower than an RTX2080TI
2.)Faster/similar than an RTX2080TI
3.)Slower than an RTX3070
4.)Faster/similar than an RTX3070
5.)Slower than an RTX3080
6.)Faster/similar than an RTX3080...
all at the same time. That should cover all the leaks!!
I like that you didn't include a "Faster than a 3090"... shows the level of confidence
I like that you didn't include a "Faster than a 3090"... shows the level of confidence
Must be an Nvidia shill!!!!
- Status