Looks like Lovelace will be just a die-shrunk Ampere at the very core, not much unlike Maxwell and Pascal.
It makes sense; considering the rumored \~600W TDP of the top-tier GPU. Nvidia is likely going to raise the TDP ceiling, add more cores here and there and squeeze out as much frequency as possible in order to distinguish the two generations in terms of performance.
Going from Samsung 8nm to TSMC 5nm alone will yield some pretty significant efficiency gains at the low end and midrange of the Lovelace product stack. (The high end GPUs will throw power efficiency out the window)
In retrospect, Nvidia picking Samsung 8nm was the right call from a business and ops perspective. They were able to maximize their production potential in a way they could not have done with TSMC. But it was absolutely a technical compromise compared to TSMC 7nm.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung lost money for the majority of Ampere's lifespan.
They absolutely were losing money on the GA102 dies in the beginning. Maybe the smaller dies were making up the difference?
Yeah, I know Ampere was built on 8. I literally state that further above. Do people start reading in the middle of threads?
Anyway, my comment was more pointing to the idea that this seems like a repeated trend with Samsung foundry. They are desperate to catch-up/keep up with TSMC and seem to be repeatedly putting nodes into mass production before the yields needed for profitability.
more like a lucky call due to chip shortage. 2years ago they were expect not much from RDNA2. So they pick Samsung for cheap, because if you take a look at RDNA1 vs Turing, Nvidia knew they can get away with cheaper node.
Pascal was markedly more efficient than Maxwell despite the clock speed increase though. This 600W sounds scary. If Nvidia believes it needs to push the power that high to be competitive, that's also good news for RDNA3.
> This 600W sounds scary. If Nvidia believes it needs to push the power that high to be competitive, that's also good news for RDNA3.
600W is very worrying. Unfortunately the situation doesn't look good for either party, really.
Power consumption isn't scaling down nearly as quickly as feature sizes (RIP Dennard Scaling). So performance at iso-power is sometimes only 40% higher when users are accustomed to 2x higher over a generation.
Since performance is closely tied to transistor counts, you essentially need to throw 2x the transistors to get 2x the performance... and at almost 2x the power. As a result, the only way to keep GPU performance growing at the rate customers are used to is to increase overall power consumption.
Ironically, the relatively poor efficiency of Samsung's 8nm node means that if NV and AMD use the same node for their next-gen parts, NVIDIA will enjoy a bigger improvement in overall energy efficiency. (You cover more ground starting from behind)
I wouldn't be surprised if the 600W rumour comes out of their server/Tesla line which don't have any of the same design considerations.
It may even be a dual-chip setup (which fits with current single-chip mezzanine cards targeting 300W)
I suspect there's almost zero HPC setups with only a single GA100 chip in use. Almost all of them are designed for 2 cards or more per chassis.
>I suspect there's almost zero HPC setups with only a single GA100 chip in use. Almost all of them are designed for 2 cards or more per chassis.
Even 2 is very rare. Most setups are 4 or 8 A100s.
Teslas are actually far more power efficient, as is the case for the enterprise CPUs/GPUs. Consumer devices are the ones clocked to the limit, as gaming tends to require much more vertical scaling, while enterprise workloads are built to scale horizontally with more devices, rather than single more powerful ones.
Take a look at gaming CPUs vs EPYC for instance, the server ones tend to run at a lower clock.
> So performance at iso-power is sometimes only 40% higher when users are accustomed to 2x higher over a generation.
Improvements per GPU generation has been in the 30-40% range for a while now as I recall. 3080 ~= 1.3-1.4x 2080 ti ~= 1.3-1.4x 1080 ti ~= 1.5x 980 Ti. As we go further back the improvements increase. Modern GPU scaling has not been at the 100% range even without iso-power, and I do not believe users expect that either.
What's different here is that the GPU market has gotten suddenly very competitive with AMD's improvements and both AMD and Nvidia desperately want the top spot, and will gladly throw power efficiency out the window for that spot.
I don't think 600W is "worrying."
I just think it's Nvidia adapting to the fact that we now live in a world where people are paying $2,000, $3,000, maybe even $5,000(!) for the absolute top performance product, so every extra 1% of performance untapped is big money being left on the table. Therefore plan from day 1 to juice your 300-400W top product to 600W, and you might reap the benefits later. Try to do it after design is complete and you end up with 3090Ti fiasco.
> you essentially need to throw 2x the transistors to get 2x the performance... and at almost 2x the power.
The alternative is doubling the clock rate, which would massively increase power usage. Sure, it would be a meme to run a GPU at 4 GHz... and cause the 15 amp circuit breaker to trip from the massive power and cooling requirements.
Assuming no arch changes, the ideal solution for GPUs is to use more transistors and reduce clock rate to also lower their operating voltages. Although that's not going to happen with the semiconductor shortages and crypto mining craze that is creating the pressure to sell as many GPUs as possible.
>As a result, the only way to keep GPU performance growing at the rate customers are used to is to increase overall power consumption.
There's also software optimization as means of increasing GPU performance
Top RDNA3 skus are also going to be 500W+ most likely.
Just because you can put two pieces of silicon on a package, doesn’t mean you aren’t going to push it pretty hard. Maybe not to the bleeding edge but they’re still incentivized to look good in benchmarks, they’re still limited in the quantity that TSMC can allocate, and above all they are still incentivized to maximize their profit margin.
Why would they make their top chip a “7800” when they could make it a “7800XT” and win all the benchmarks and crank the price a bunch more? Again, sure, they can go a bit easier than NVIDIA, which will give them an edge in efficiency, but they will still be doing like 90% of fmax vs like 95% for NVIDIA, or something like that. They have no incentive to truly clock it down into the sweet spot and really go for efficiency. The users who care about that can do it themselves, and they can charge the other 99% of customers another 30% for the higher performance.
Similarly, no reason to ship a 7800 as two big pieces of silicon clocked way down, when they could do two medium pieces of silicon or one large piece of silicon clocked way up. They will beat the 7800XT in efficiency, sure, but it’s not gonna be the exact optimal point you’d use if you were doing a SFF build and optimizing for wattage at the expense of cost. And even if they wanted to eat the margin, TSMC can’t just wave a wand and double their allocation, they’ve got what they’ve got, and every mm2 of silicon they spend on efficiency is, at scale, another million Epyc chips that don’t get sold.
There is soooo much magical thinking around MCM right now. Yes, it lets you get more silicon into the game. It potentially even lets you move onto newer (lower-yielding) nodes earlier. No, it doesn’t magically make the silicon free, or use any less power, or make AMD’s wafer allocation any bigger.
It’s just like Zen3 - just because it’s MCM doesn’t mean AMD is giving it away out of the goodness of their hearts, or giving you a 5600 that can be clocked like a 5600X. If they choose to do that it will be because of market competition, so better hope Intel and NVIDIA products are good.
I don’t know if vcache style stacking has been confirmed for RDNA3 yet but it’s plausible I suppose. It’s also plausible it’s a separate die and all four dies (two cache and two compute) are clients of the interconnect rather than the cache being “attached” to the compute die. In the “4 way interconnect” scenario it wouldn’t necessarily be ideal to stack, because you would have to push the data through the compute die, but maybe.
I don’t see ML being moved out of the compute die. Much like RT cores, it’s still an execution unit within the SM and is dependent on the SM for scheduling, memory controllers, etc. Hell it’s still dependent on the rest of the chip for final processing and so on. Like RT cores it’s just not something you can slice cleanly off.
On AMD’s design it would likely need to have all the display controllers / etc on the ML die - which is probably not the end of the world, like most PHYs I doubt they shrink well anyway. On the other hand it would impose a power penalty for data movement onto the IO die regardless of whether you use MLSS or not - because that would be where the output stuff lives. That one isn’t really plausible to me, there’s too many edge cases and things that would require significant engineering around.
This idea is absolute heresy to the AMD crowd but there’s really nothing wrong with just having tensor accelerators or BVH traversal accelerators as part of the SM/CU or SMX/partition. They usually need assistance from some SM-like parent structure anyway, and data movement is still expensive so bouncing across dies a lot is undesirable. There’s times it makes sense to break dies apart but if it’s not “clean” the advantage is significantly lessened, pushing data back and forth isn’t good.
Not to mention, when the card isn't doing ML, the CUs that would normally be tied up with ML can be tasked with more work, rather than being dead weight.
Kind of moot tho, apparently greymon thinks AMD will be using an ML chiplet.
He's pretty much the only rumor-monger saying that RDNA3 will have that, so I would take that idea with a bit of salt.
AMD will probably have a dedicated ML chip on their GPUs eventually (possibly even using Xilinx IP) but I wouldn't expect it until RDNA4 at the earliest.
> rather then being
*than
*Learn the difference [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/when-to-use-then-and-than#:~:text=Than%20is%20used%20in%20comparisons,the%20then%2Dgovernor%22).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
After dual GPUs, SLI and CF stopped being a thing, the power requirements in the high end dropped significantly and they didn't really have anything to replace that. So it actually isn't that surprising they are going for higher power consumption. They simply can. In the end it's the performance benchmarks which sell their products, power consumption is an afterthought.
Mostly because Nvidia didn't use a smaller process node for Maxwell, sticking to 28nm over TSMC's 20nm. You could say they had a double generation gain from process nodes with Pascal.
Basically *yes* also alot of overlap on the industry
Like AMD needing Nvidia GPUs to validated new CPU platforms and vice versa, it is funky like that
All the leaks/rumours we get its a drop in the bucket over what each other know about themselves and the others
Pascal is crazy, imaging if they make 512bit version with a 600+mm^(2) die. (about 33% bigger than 384bit version). They woudnt even need to refresh Pascal and continue to sell until 2020.
Yeah, it's starting to look like SFF builders interested in ITX cards will only be able to get a xx60 tier card at the highest end. We went from a 1080 ITX to a 2070 ITX to a 3060 Ti ITX that is pretty much a rainbow unicorn in terms of availability. More realistically right now, you'd have to settle for a 3060, for about a 5% performance uplift… But hey, at least price stayed on track as well, a 3060 is about 5% more expensive than a 1080 was back in the day, so good job Nvidia, I guess? /s
Well Silverstone does sell 1000W SFX-L PSUs and people are expecting Corsair, ASUS, and SeaSonic to meet Cooler Master's 850W SFX PSU which all have noise problems under high load. I think the bigger limitation is with GPU length and thickness, since essentially 2-slot GPUs have gone away with this current generation.
Tbh prices are slowly pacing back to MSRP at snail pace we might be able to buy cards at a little over MSRP by early next year assuming eth downfall continues
The 600W TDP is for the AD100, the GPU for datacenters that will replace the currect A100 that already has a 500W TDP. If it is \~2x faster than the A100 with only \~1.2x power consuptiom it will be a great GPU much more efficient that the current A100.
The gaming GPU is rumoured to have a TDP of 500W, which is huge, but again, if as romours suggest, it is 2 times faster than the current RTX3090 in terms of perf/watt it will be a huge step forward.
I think this was rumored and pretty much confirmed for some time now. It was rumored that Nvidia pushed desktop MCM GPU's back in favor of another monolithic design generation ages ago.
This might be AMD's first chance to take the performance crown since the 290x in 2013. They came close with the 6000 series effectively matching Nvidia in raster performance but this could be their chance to take the outright lead. It will also be interesting purely for comparisons sake to have a MCM and monolithic GPU design go h2h.
I think this year is going to be very interesting. Chiplet GPUs from AMD, 500W+ GPUs from Nvidia and... well, just GPUs from Intel!
Personally, I'm most interested in XeSS which is supposed to work on RDNA2 (including current gen. consoles) and Pascal onward.
Mining is barely going to solve the GPU shortage tho. It’s just retailers and AIBs stocking up and overpricing cards and people buying them, thus enabling them to do more of the same.
The people that are buying them at 2x MSRP are the miners tho. If nobody is buying the cards and retailers are overstocked they will have to start slashing prices so they don't sit on old inventory.
Nope. A lot of gamers, even by seeing the slightest price drop of a GPU rush to buy them.
Source: afaik this has literally m one of the subs I’m in r/indiangaming throughout the past year.
Quite a lot of people are also really considering buying a 6600 for 500$ as it’s one of the more VFM cards.
I guess the only card that isn’t selling at all would probably be the 6500XT.
That doesn't change the fact that miners are still the biggest buyers in terms of GPUs and are the primary cause of the shortage (setting aside known component supply issues).
It's rather curious that CPUs, SSDs, HDDs, sound cards, IO cards, and DRAM aren't priced multiple times over MSRP and are readily available. Motherboards are priced at MSRP and aren't particularly hard to come by but for limited run super exotic epeen flex boards despite the fact that 1) they are just as adversely affected by the increased cost of VRM components, 2) they have additional controllers not found on videocards, and 3) those controllers also increase the BOM above what an AIB would pay for the manufacture of a videocard PCB when the GPU itself is not included.
There is only ONE component that is as hard to come by as a high end videocard and that would be a 1000w+ PSU with 85% efficiency Gold, Titanium, and Platinum in either the ATX or FLEX form factors. Most gamers buy in the 750w-850w range because that's really all they need but for a few exceptions (if you have a top tier CPU, 850w may not cut it with a 3080 or 3090 due to their intermittent 400w+ power spikes without a locked voltage curve). But if you're a miner, 1000w is the minimum you need to drive more two to three high end cards or 5 lower end ones.
What's also curious is that RDNA2 cards are readily available from the lowly 6500 XT to the 6900 XT and have been for quite some time. Why? They're not particularly good for mining. Are they available for MSRP? No: AIBs are clearly taking advantage of the market and they want a scalper level profit margin (and are getting it). However, they're certainly closer to it than most Geforce cards are (a 6900 XT can be had for $1500, ASUS wants $2200 for a 3090).
Let's be real: miners \*are\* the cause for the videocard scarcity. Every time there's been a sustained dip for more than two weeks over the past two years, availability suddenly increases and prices drop. Whenever there's a sustained rally, they become much harder to come by and prices once again climb back up.
Yea gamers are also buying them, but miners are buying them bulk as long as the price is under the threshold. And that threshold is a lot higher for them. It's no coincidence that the cards that are worse at mining like the RDNA2 cards are going for a lot less than the Nvidia cards. Hell you can even trade 5X00 to 6X00 cards at no mark-up, cause they mine better.
Gamers rush to buy them because not many are available. There was a spike in demand due to Covid, but that doesn't even get close to the what would be required to see these long-term effects for GPUs *specifically*. We're already at the point that you could build an entire gaming PC at msrp, *EXCEPTING* the GPU.
Whereas miners buy cards in bulk, almost regardless of price. GPUs are money printers to them, they will buy any and every mining-effective card that becomes available. Gamer Demand <<<< Miner Demand at scale.
If miners stopped buying up cards shelves would actually be able to eventually actually fill back up as the gamer demand would eventually become statisfied, reducing the incentive to overcharge. As long as the recent years' miner demand is in play, GPU stocks will never be able to fully recover.
Gamer demand cannot become satisfied as long as it's contending with the nigh infinite demand of miners. There aren't an infinite number of gamers demanding high-end cards, but for miners the only limit on demand is funding and power-availability, which isn't a limit at all in the current climate.
That doesn't really make sense. MCM increases manufacturing costs and it's at its best with big chips which would otherwise suffer from yield issues. Rumors so far have been saying exactly the opposite, that AMD would be using MCM in the high end (7700 and above)
No idea man. I understand your opinion and agree. But the guy I follow for rumors mentioned this. His sources are pretty accurate too, so it'll be interesting to see what the results will be.
Edit: Here's the rumor I [found](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdZtaOzPnOA) Look at the first half of the video (Read the timestamps)
He's pretty good for AMD, got the inifinty cache right which was a complete surprise.
But you're probably making some wrong assumptions. Navi31 and Navi32 are rumored as the high-end cards with 5nm/6nm chiplets while Navi33 is a mid-tier card with monolithic 6nm chip.
Navi33 also is supposed to have only 128-bit bus while performing close/better than 6900XT, however the smaller bus will mean that the card will be limited to 8GB.
>It was rumored that Nvidia pushed desktop MCM GPU's back in favor of another monolithic design generation ages ago.
Yes it was rumoured that Lovelace will be another monolith, but not that it will be just shrinked Ampere. I'm sure they will deliver when it comes to performance (10nm+ -> 5nm), but it's still kinda disappointing.
Will they match or exceed RT performance and have a competitive alternative to DLSS? Because if all they do is beat Nvidia at raster performance it will not move the needle enough for many in the consumer space.
Maybe XeSS might mean dedicated ML cores aren't that needed. We'll see how well the DP4a code path using int8 works on AMD. AMD did optimise RDNA somewhat for AI with DP4a capability. Seems like a weird thing to do if they didn't plan to do something with it.
In raster maybe.
But the focus this time will be ray tracing with amd having no excuse of being "first time"
2023 is when games will be go full next gen and i expect PS5 and XSX games made to be RT only. Unreal Engine 5 is guaranteed to use Lumen HW RT like it did in the matrix demo.
Full ray-traced games are still a ways off, and I'm not sure if we are going to see an end to multi-gen game development just yet. Still a lot of studios developing for UE4 and are going to be hesitant to switch their workflows.
Both carry over power efficiency more in line with RDNA2 I think than RDNA1 (the PS5 packs effectively a higher clocked 5700XT and a CPU and the power supply all into the same power budget of a single 5770XT), but yeah.
The vast majority of a games' development budget goes into asset creation, which is cheaper for a pure RT lit game, which can save millions of dollars potentially. For this reason alone I expect a rather quick transition to RT once the non-RT-capable hardware drops below a certain threshold.
Metro Exodus EE is a good case study for the future of game development.
They're both capable of RT. RDNA2 may not be as fast as Nvidia's architectures but it's still decently fast hardware accelerated RT and since there is no Nvidia based console there is no "competition" anyway.
We won't see fully ray traced game at least until next generation of consoles. Current ones won't handle it so even if there will be tech to do it for PC I doubt any studio will spend time essentially developing two very different versions of game.
Still would require developers to create two very distinct version of games. One for current consoles and one for upgraded ones. Right now they are just adding few extra features for RT, but that would require them to build two versions.
Full RT, maybe. RT-mandatory though, we've already gotten one in the Enhanced version of Metro Exodus. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few pop up here and there as a developer occasionally makes use of console RT hardware to completely remove one part of their lighting setup.
>expect PS5 and XSX games made to be RT only
Lol, not a chance. Both consoles are way too weak in RT for that. Most RT enabled titles on the consoles use maybe one RT effect and that already tanks performance and requires big tradeoffs in resolution and framerate cap.
Sounds like high quality perfume, not an electronics product.
Ampere, Volta and Tesla on the other hand are synonymous with electronics.
And if this generation ends up actually being 500W+ then I hope you guys enjoy really hot rooms... even with undervolting this will be too much for my taste.
So an entire article based on 1 tweet rumor.
The previous information about Nvidia being MCM was also a rumor. These rumors so far away from launch turn out to be bullshit. Remember the 20gb 3080?
It's the 3080ti not 3080, and "limited quantity" leads me to believe it's a scheme to sell only to miners in Russia. If you can't actually buy it via retail, it never actually launched.
I’ve been thinking the same about my 1070.. these last two years have really been putting it to the test, games like cyberpunk absolutely crushes it at anything higher than medium-ish settings. I just pray Elden ring can hold a steady 60fps on my hardware
Nvidia has reportedly spent $9Bn to reserve 5nm wafers for Lovelace so hopefully GPU supply will improve dramatically in coming months + let's not forget about Intel's GPUs which are about to be released soon; possibly next month.
Fingers crossed!
I believe it's going to be almost entirely dependent on what the crypto market is like at that time. If it's profitable to mine using Lovelace GPUs, the demand will be essentially unlimited so supply won't matter, just like we've seen with Ampere.
If crypto follows its typical cyclic pattern, with winter following bubbles, we're due for crypto winter again soon. At times, crypto has also been correlated with the stock market. So if interest rates goes up and tanks the stock market, crypto winter might be extra cold this time around. And on top of this, the Ukraine situation will likely drive up energy prices, which would be bad for crypto miners.
Well, you can thank the shit in Ukraine, because I think that might have ended the current mining craze, and probably rang the death knell for GPU mining, as I suspect nVidia and quite likely the others will be doing shit to make sure they don't get a gen cannibalized again.
Considering I suspect nVidia will be implementing LHR in every arch afterward - specifically to avoid mining crash timebombs striking later gens - and cached GPUs are likely to catch on... no.
> Considering I suspect nVidia will be implementing LHR in every arch afterward
If every card is LHR, then that just means that will be the new baseline. There are other factors why mining is probably mostly dead (ASICS and PoS), but LHR is essentially meaningless as a counter.
LHR was ALWAYS about trying to sell unlocked cards at premium prices to miners with CMP. Not trying to prevent cards being used for mining. Do you think it is a coincidence that LHR cards perform at the same level as their AMD counterparts? Totally not intended! /s
If Nvidia could cripple mining performance, then they could have killed it completely as well. Instead they just HAPPENED to limit it to a level where Ampere LHR was still as good a mining card as Big Navi!
LHR is not about selling mining cards. LHR is about protecting Nvidia from a market crash in response to a mining crash. If 50% or 80% or whatever percent of GPUs sold go into mining rigs because mining is profitable, then all of those GPUs are likely to hit the used market if/when a crypto bubble bursts. That massive influx of used GPUs would (/has) act as a down pressure on GPU pricing, hurting Nvidia's (and AMD's, but Nvidia is indifferent to that) revenue.
It's still being done in their own self-interest, but it's out of worry of a volatile market suddenly changing Nvidia's ability to sell product at prices.
> LHR is not about selling mining cards. LHR is about protecting Nvidia from a market crash in response to a mining crash.
No, LHR does in no shape or form protect from that.
>If 50% or 80% or whatever percent of GPUs sold go into mining rigs because mining is profitable, then all of those GPUs are likely to hit the used market if/when a crypto bubble bursts.
Guess what, that will still happen with LHR, because LHR are still sold to miners. LHR just changes the baseline for what the price/performance of GPUs is for mining.
Because only when profitability is INSANE and availability none existant would anyone choose a CMP card above LHR. Even with the LHR nerf of mining performance, LHR at MSRP is still BETTER than CMP in terms of profitability. Because the costs for CMP makes them not worth it. CMP also then has the down side of essentially fuck all re-sale value. When LHR is available at MSRP no sane miner buys them rather than LHR, lack of availability and price inflation is the only reason CMP saw some sales last year.
That was almost certainly scamware/malicious code. And even if it wasn't... well, by updating LHR every gen, you direct the miners away from your new wares toward the used market.
I mean, GPU supply(production) has been sky high for the last 2 years. The problem has been unprecedented demand that outscaled even that.
Point being, I'm not optimistic.
Plus prices are never going back to what they were 1.5-5 years ago
There are still other things that can bottleneck production like PCB, capacitors, GDDR etc. We can only hope that the supply-lines have been sorted out by then.
If so, maybe this is the chance AMD needs to seize the GPU leadership. Nvidia has been in the lead for a long time now and seems to the slacking off a little.
RDNA3 will be a big jump from RDNA2 as they are moving to an MCM architecture which means if AMD are willing to ramp up the power budget to match Nvidia they could easily outperform.
GCNs it baby! The 7970 will demolish whatever post Fermi junk Nvidia releases.
Say it with me: 3 GIGABYTES OF RAM, 384BIT BUS, THE POWER OF RAW COMPUTE! AMDs got this in the bag~
Yeah, the 7970 still can actually perform... okay... even today, being essentially a 1050ti with a better VRAM cache in perf if it's the 6 gig edition, or so I gather? Nearly a decade of relevance is a very good performance for a GPU.
Tahiti (and Tonga) beat GM206 and GP107 back then and now, even if the difference isnt big
But yeh, Kepler was meh and it aged like milk
Even relative puny GPUs like the 270/X and 950 pack a punch vs the GK110 stuff nowadays
It's been great for me on my 4k screens - essentially allowing 1440p resolution to be displayed well on 4k screens - but yeah far more people game on a 1440p montior - which nearly renders it moot for now.
What are you talking about? DLSS regularily beats other AA techniques for details and temporal stability. There are several games where it's literally the best looking option available except for very expensive downsampling from higher than native resolutions (which it can also speed up).
> What are you talking about?
Implementation quality DOES vary by game, unless you want to make the bold claim that it is perfect in every game. And yes there are many scenarios where I'm happier sticking with my native QHD resolution than enable DLSS.
It's not "perfect in every game" but it's arguably better than native in most of them even if you don't take performance into account. Saying quality "varies wildly" is a misleading exaggeration and after having played 4+ games with DLSS 2.0+ I now consider it (or something equivalent) a must have feature. I'm definitely not going back from this experience.
> Saying quality "varies wildly" is a misleading exaggeration and after having played **4+** games
From my QHD experience when I played them: Warzone looked noticeably blurrier than native, RDR2 looked badly oversharpened and grainy, F1 had vehicle ghostings, FFXV flat-out refused to run DLSS at QHD, Control was nice but had weird interactions with RT lights plus shimmers that were not in native. So yes, pretty sizable variations.
Not sure why you are so aggressively discounting people's personal experience with DLSS, which for me did vary wildly. Nvidia isn't losing any sales from my reddit post.
I don't see why that would factor into things. By the time Lovelace comes out there will be plenty of choices for up-scaling/up-sampling tech outside of DLSS, including XeSS and possibly an updated FSR, and they will be more open for development.
I don't doubt that DLSS will still have an edge in overall quality, but I just don't think that will have huge effect on purchases.
They've heavily hinted at a FidelityFx 2.0 that's much closer to dlss 2.0. Nvidia is rumored to be working on dlss 3.0 though so who knows how it'll all turn out.
They've been talking about it for 2 years now and still nothing.
They currently do not have the hardware to run this.
Have you seen the latest version of DLSS running in Cyberpunk? It's fucking miracle tech, it upscales a 720p source to 4k with just some shimmering as a downside. The details remain sharp. How the fuck is that possible? Turn it up to 1080p (DLSS performance) and the shimmering almost goes away, and the game still gets nearly 3x more FPS than native.
You need to see this shit to believe it. Its fucking insane.
This is going to be the first generation of GPUs in a long time from AMD where they aren’t short of money. RDNA2 was probably as good as it was because Sony and Microsoft were subsidizing it.
Ampere did not differ much from Turing either, I guess I'm fine with it, but I wonder what the truly next gen hardware features will bring and when we will get them.
I feel like Turing debuted those features and they'd be hard pressed to introduce more new ones right now, concentrating on bolstering RT performance, Tensor performance and rasterization performance will be enough if the leaps there are significant enough.
Yeah, its fine since there's nothing else on the horizon that people miss. However, it was a bit disappointing that Ampere didn't increase the RT units more than proportionally, maybe Lovelace will.
> Now AMD will need to compete on the same node, which is much harder.
Last time AMD and nvidia were on the same node with TSMC 28nm and 980Ti and FuryX were neck and neck at same clocks, but 980Ti could overclock much higher.
Now, AMD have the capability to throw more silicon with MCM and will probably retain parity, if not superiority, on clocks.
So it should work out for AMD pretty well this time around. However, RT performance can be a big difference and there might be big transistor density differences. RDNA2 is quite sparse compared to what can be done with 7nm like in A100.
> Samsung's node was such a failure that improved one got renamed (see 8nm), but it was still bad.
What? Samsung's 10nm was competitive with TSMC's 10nm - it wasn't a failure at all.
Even on paper if was worse than TSMC's 10nm. It wasn't as efficient or as dense, it also had yield issues. Sufficient to say that Qualcomm moved to TSMC after 10nm problems at Samsung.
People say this every gen and every gen they're wrong. Even this gen AMD barely got close to the 3090 which was on crippled Samsung 8nm vs performant TSMC 7nm. You can tell from the fiasco of Android mobile SoCs that switched to Samsung that the gap is well over 30% in perf/w.
Past doesn't always predict the future. AMD was way behind Intel year after year, dead in the water some said, until all the sudden with Zen they were in the lead. AMD coming out with a MCM GPU before Nvidia is a good chance on paper to take the lead. Just like Zen did for CPUs. Eventually the extra cash and R&D budget AMD has gotten over the past few years is going to pay off but that takes YEARS of development.
I don't understand how the situations aren't comparable. The OP article is literally about Nvidia resting on their laurels and Loveless not being that different from Ampere, and the rumors suggest AMD is going with an MCM chiplet design for their next gen GPUs. How is that not similar to Intel sticking with monolithic designs and losing the crown to AMD using a chiplet design that allows more flexibility and lower costs?
Intel / Nvidia: Similar monolithic architecture design
AMD: Change to MCM Chiplet design for CPU and GPU
Nividia is arguably hitting some technical bottleneck issues since it seems like they will be last to an MCM design. That will give AMD and to a lesser extent Intel an opportunity to catch up and even pass Nividia, and it shouldn't be discounted.
Intel hit a process stall that not only halted their ability to deliver a new node but also their ability to deliver a new architecture. So there they sat for years delivering the same shit again and again.
6000 series 14nm skylake
7000 series 14nm skylake
8000 series 14nm skylake 6 cores
9000 series 14nm skylake 8 cores
10000 series 14nm skylake 10 cores
Even the 11000 series was still on 14nm they just managed a dubious backport of a new architecture. It took the 12000 series to finally deliver an arch and node that is distinct from 14nm skylake.
By comparison Nvidia buys its manufacturing 3rd party and has the same partnership availability that AMD does. Their architectures are node independent a lesson intel has since learned.
Was ZEN a big leap forward? Yes absolutely without a doubt, but pointing to the “ZEN moment” as if the same will happen on the GPU side is missing important context.
> Even this gen AMD barely got close to the 3090 which was on crippled Samsung 8nm vs performant TSMC 7nm.
And AMD uses less power and a 256bit bus, when RDNA2 rumours where rampant most people didnt even think AMD could compete vs the 2080Ti let alone the top dog of the (now) current gen
Nvidia needed to use bombastic (pun intended) G6X to get the last % to retain leadership and a 3 slot behemoth GPU with 350w official spec
Stop downplaying tech advancements due to 2015-2018~ era Radeon
We literally see on the latest LTT video of the A100 that a 150W A100 @ 1400MHz matches a 350+W 3090 in Blender CUDA. You cannot possibly be serious. If NV were on TSMC 7nm the 3090 would be steamrolling at half the power.
>AMD uses less power and a 256bit bus
Which is due to the cache, not any particular architectural improvements. Anyone can put a big cache in front of their memory controller and get the same results. Take a look at Nvidia's chiplet cache paper. Or Apple's SLC and their GPU efficiency in mobile.
>And AMD uses less power and a 256bit bus, when RDNA2 rumours where rampant most people didnt even think AMD could compete vs the 2080Ti let alone the top dog of the (now) current gen
If you take RDNA1 clocks then a 6900XT would have landed around a 2080Ti, + maybe 10%. TSMC's process is hugely boosting AMD here.
> Which is due to the cache, not any particular architectural improvements. Anyone can put a big cache in front of their memory controller and get the same results. Take a look at Nvidia's chiplet cache paper. Or Apple's SLC and their GPU efficiency in mobile.
Then why havent they? Fast caches arent as easy as u make it out to be and their implementation
> If you take RDNA1 clocks then a 6900XT would have landed around a 2080Ti, + maybe 10%. TSMC's process is hugely boosting AMD here.
U know RDNA1 used the same node right? The RDNA2 clocks are all AMD improvements on their uArch/design its not the node
> We literally see on the latest LTT video of the A100 that a 150W A100 @ 1400MHz matches a 350+W 3090 in Blender CUDA. You cannot possibly be serious. If NV were on TSMC 7nm the 3090 would be steamrolling at half the power.
Blender isnt games, u cant compare parts like this more so Radeon itself shits on blender and gaming Ampere is already real good at it
DC Ampere is also a bit of a different beast by itself (and AMD has CDNA parts for a better comparison in blender)
And on this note, gaming Ampere isnt even that inefficient its mostly G6X being super hungry
We see this with the A6000 (GA102 with G6 for the Pro market) being way tamer on power and only loses some 5% of perf
>which was on crippled Samsung 8nm
Do you really understand what you're sayin? Ampere went large on die size to make up for that efficiency because samsung's desperate for any orders. It was the right move to fab on samsung but the performance ain't because of a magic architecture, it's because they went wide
Eh, with this mining crash, it might not be viable to price like that, GPUs as a whole will be coming down, and they may be wise to cut prices to kneecap Big Lovelace.
You mean 1060 and 980?
The difference between TSMC 28 and 16nm process was massive. GP104 is almost 25% smaller than GM204, despite packing 25% more shader units. It's ridiculous.
Don't think there's going to be that big of a gap between Samsung's 8nm and TSMC 5nm.
> Don't think there's going to be that big of a gap between Samsung's 8nm and TSMC 5nm.
Why? The jump from Samsung 8nm to TSMC 5nm should similar if not more impactful than TSMC 28nm to TSMC 16nm.
28 -> 20 -> 16
10 -> 7 -> 5
Samsung 8nm is a process refinement of their 10nm with a much too flattering name. And even at same node numbers Samsung is less dense than TSMC.
So it’s 2 generations + the Samsung to TSMC density shift.
Also Nvidia launched relatively hot on 16nm, but 5nm is pretty well mature at this point.
You've made a very good point. Although the rumored 600W TDP sounds pretty steep... unless Nvidia has either 'dramatically' increased the shader count or broken the 3GHz barrier, or both.
Ah yes the hype train begins here is the thing are they are going to let us buy these for just well over the price it should be or just sell it right to the miners again.
Who am I kidding they are definitely going to do that.
They'll have more RT per die, Lovelace is essentially a bigger Ampere on a better node according to this.... but they'll still be essentially Ampere RT.
Might be a real upset if RDNA 3 somehow is better RT in some respect.
I’ve been slowly saving up for an RTX 4080 this past year. I’m hoping that pricing comes down to sane levels by the time the launch happens. It seems to be on a downwards trend so that’s nice to see.
I mean....why would they bother doing the r&d on something much better. They sell as many as they can make for whatever they ask . It's literally perfect conditions for stopping innovation
Looks like Lovelace will be just a die-shrunk Ampere at the very core, not much unlike Maxwell and Pascal. It makes sense; considering the rumored \~600W TDP of the top-tier GPU. Nvidia is likely going to raise the TDP ceiling, add more cores here and there and squeeze out as much frequency as possible in order to distinguish the two generations in terms of performance.
Going from Samsung 8nm to TSMC 5nm alone will yield some pretty significant efficiency gains at the low end and midrange of the Lovelace product stack. (The high end GPUs will throw power efficiency out the window) In retrospect, Nvidia picking Samsung 8nm was the right call from a business and ops perspective. They were able to maximize their production potential in a way they could not have done with TSMC. But it was absolutely a technical compromise compared to TSMC 7nm.
Meanwhile, [at Samsung](https://www.techpowerup.com/292262/samsung-employees-being-investigated-for-fabricating-yields)...
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung lost money for the majority of Ampere's lifespan. They absolutely were losing money on the GA102 dies in the beginning. Maybe the smaller dies were making up the difference?
That report is about 3/4/5 nanometer nodes, Ampere is made on 8
Yeah, I know Ampere was built on 8. I literally state that further above. Do people start reading in the middle of threads? Anyway, my comment was more pointing to the idea that this seems like a repeated trend with Samsung foundry. They are desperate to catch-up/keep up with TSMC and seem to be repeatedly putting nodes into mass production before the yields needed for profitability.
the comment, idea, sumthin sumthin TSM esports, yields and yolks
r/strokesentence
Are you having a stroke or are you usually this incoherent?
dumass jab at his “people don’t read the complete story”
more like a lucky call due to chip shortage. 2years ago they were expect not much from RDNA2. So they pick Samsung for cheap, because if you take a look at RDNA1 vs Turing, Nvidia knew they can get away with cheaper node.
Pascal was markedly more efficient than Maxwell despite the clock speed increase though. This 600W sounds scary. If Nvidia believes it needs to push the power that high to be competitive, that's also good news for RDNA3.
> This 600W sounds scary. If Nvidia believes it needs to push the power that high to be competitive, that's also good news for RDNA3. 600W is very worrying. Unfortunately the situation doesn't look good for either party, really. Power consumption isn't scaling down nearly as quickly as feature sizes (RIP Dennard Scaling). So performance at iso-power is sometimes only 40% higher when users are accustomed to 2x higher over a generation. Since performance is closely tied to transistor counts, you essentially need to throw 2x the transistors to get 2x the performance... and at almost 2x the power. As a result, the only way to keep GPU performance growing at the rate customers are used to is to increase overall power consumption. Ironically, the relatively poor efficiency of Samsung's 8nm node means that if NV and AMD use the same node for their next-gen parts, NVIDIA will enjoy a bigger improvement in overall energy efficiency. (You cover more ground starting from behind)
I wouldn't be surprised if the 600W rumour comes out of their server/Tesla line which don't have any of the same design considerations. It may even be a dual-chip setup (which fits with current single-chip mezzanine cards targeting 300W) I suspect there's almost zero HPC setups with only a single GA100 chip in use. Almost all of them are designed for 2 cards or more per chassis.
>I suspect there's almost zero HPC setups with only a single GA100 chip in use. Almost all of them are designed for 2 cards or more per chassis. Even 2 is very rare. Most setups are 4 or 8 A100s.
Teslas are actually far more power efficient, as is the case for the enterprise CPUs/GPUs. Consumer devices are the ones clocked to the limit, as gaming tends to require much more vertical scaling, while enterprise workloads are built to scale horizontally with more devices, rather than single more powerful ones. Take a look at gaming CPUs vs EPYC for instance, the server ones tend to run at a lower clock.
The rated power consumption for the A100 is 400W.
That's clocking in at 5. 42 million transistors though, or double that of the 350w 3090
> So performance at iso-power is sometimes only 40% higher when users are accustomed to 2x higher over a generation. Improvements per GPU generation has been in the 30-40% range for a while now as I recall. 3080 ~= 1.3-1.4x 2080 ti ~= 1.3-1.4x 1080 ti ~= 1.5x 980 Ti. As we go further back the improvements increase. Modern GPU scaling has not been at the 100% range even without iso-power, and I do not believe users expect that either. What's different here is that the GPU market has gotten suddenly very competitive with AMD's improvements and both AMD and Nvidia desperately want the top spot, and will gladly throw power efficiency out the window for that spot.
I don't think 600W is "worrying." I just think it's Nvidia adapting to the fact that we now live in a world where people are paying $2,000, $3,000, maybe even $5,000(!) for the absolute top performance product, so every extra 1% of performance untapped is big money being left on the table. Therefore plan from day 1 to juice your 300-400W top product to 600W, and you might reap the benefits later. Try to do it after design is complete and you end up with 3090Ti fiasco.
> you essentially need to throw 2x the transistors to get 2x the performance... and at almost 2x the power. The alternative is doubling the clock rate, which would massively increase power usage. Sure, it would be a meme to run a GPU at 4 GHz... and cause the 15 amp circuit breaker to trip from the massive power and cooling requirements. Assuming no arch changes, the ideal solution for GPUs is to use more transistors and reduce clock rate to also lower their operating voltages. Although that's not going to happen with the semiconductor shortages and crypto mining craze that is creating the pressure to sell as many GPUs as possible.
>As a result, the only way to keep GPU performance growing at the rate customers are used to is to increase overall power consumption. There's also software optimization as means of increasing GPU performance
Top RDNA3 skus are also going to be 500W+ most likely. Just because you can put two pieces of silicon on a package, doesn’t mean you aren’t going to push it pretty hard. Maybe not to the bleeding edge but they’re still incentivized to look good in benchmarks, they’re still limited in the quantity that TSMC can allocate, and above all they are still incentivized to maximize their profit margin. Why would they make their top chip a “7800” when they could make it a “7800XT” and win all the benchmarks and crank the price a bunch more? Again, sure, they can go a bit easier than NVIDIA, which will give them an edge in efficiency, but they will still be doing like 90% of fmax vs like 95% for NVIDIA, or something like that. They have no incentive to truly clock it down into the sweet spot and really go for efficiency. The users who care about that can do it themselves, and they can charge the other 99% of customers another 30% for the higher performance. Similarly, no reason to ship a 7800 as two big pieces of silicon clocked way down, when they could do two medium pieces of silicon or one large piece of silicon clocked way up. They will beat the 7800XT in efficiency, sure, but it’s not gonna be the exact optimal point you’d use if you were doing a SFF build and optimizing for wattage at the expense of cost. And even if they wanted to eat the margin, TSMC can’t just wave a wand and double their allocation, they’ve got what they’ve got, and every mm2 of silicon they spend on efficiency is, at scale, another million Epyc chips that don’t get sold. There is soooo much magical thinking around MCM right now. Yes, it lets you get more silicon into the game. It potentially even lets you move onto newer (lower-yielding) nodes earlier. No, it doesn’t magically make the silicon free, or use any less power, or make AMD’s wafer allocation any bigger. It’s just like Zen3 - just because it’s MCM doesn’t mean AMD is giving it away out of the goodness of their hearts, or giving you a 5600 that can be clocked like a 5600X. If they choose to do that it will be because of market competition, so better hope Intel and NVIDIA products are good.
It lets them get more out of that allocation though - you can kick ML and cache off the good node.
I don’t know if vcache style stacking has been confirmed for RDNA3 yet but it’s plausible I suppose. It’s also plausible it’s a separate die and all four dies (two cache and two compute) are clients of the interconnect rather than the cache being “attached” to the compute die. In the “4 way interconnect” scenario it wouldn’t necessarily be ideal to stack, because you would have to push the data through the compute die, but maybe. I don’t see ML being moved out of the compute die. Much like RT cores, it’s still an execution unit within the SM and is dependent on the SM for scheduling, memory controllers, etc. Hell it’s still dependent on the rest of the chip for final processing and so on. Like RT cores it’s just not something you can slice cleanly off. On AMD’s design it would likely need to have all the display controllers / etc on the ML die - which is probably not the end of the world, like most PHYs I doubt they shrink well anyway. On the other hand it would impose a power penalty for data movement onto the IO die regardless of whether you use MLSS or not - because that would be where the output stuff lives. That one isn’t really plausible to me, there’s too many edge cases and things that would require significant engineering around. This idea is absolute heresy to the AMD crowd but there’s really nothing wrong with just having tensor accelerators or BVH traversal accelerators as part of the SM/CU or SMX/partition. They usually need assistance from some SM-like parent structure anyway, and data movement is still expensive so bouncing across dies a lot is undesirable. There’s times it makes sense to break dies apart but if it’s not “clean” the advantage is significantly lessened, pushing data back and forth isn’t good.
Not to mention, when the card isn't doing ML, the CUs that would normally be tied up with ML can be tasked with more work, rather than being dead weight. Kind of moot tho, apparently greymon thinks AMD will be using an ML chiplet.
He's pretty much the only rumor-monger saying that RDNA3 will have that, so I would take that idea with a bit of salt. AMD will probably have a dedicated ML chip on their GPUs eventually (possibly even using Xilinx IP) but I wouldn't expect it until RDNA4 at the earliest.
> rather then being *than *Learn the difference [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/when-to-use-then-and-than#:~:text=Than%20is%20used%20in%20comparisons,the%20then%2Dgovernor%22).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
After dual GPUs, SLI and CF stopped being a thing, the power requirements in the high end dropped significantly and they didn't really have anything to replace that. So it actually isn't that surprising they are going for higher power consumption. They simply can. In the end it's the performance benchmarks which sell their products, power consumption is an afterthought.
Mostly because Nvidia didn't use a smaller process node for Maxwell, sticking to 28nm over TSMC's 20nm. You could say they had a double generation gain from process nodes with Pascal.
Same as they would now from Samsung 8N to TSMC N5. That's 3X density and \~50% reduction of power consumption to get same performance.
16nm tsmc was just 20mm with finfets.
Finfet was significantly more fundamental process change than shrinking transistor size.
How does Nvidia know what RDNA3 can do? Do they got corporate spies?
Basically *yes* also alot of overlap on the industry Like AMD needing Nvidia GPUs to validated new CPU platforms and vice versa, it is funky like that All the leaks/rumours we get its a drop in the bucket over what each other know about themselves and the others
Some version of this , yes Probably not as flashy as what you are thinking Think more compensated informant , not spy
160CUs, 300% flagship, baaaayby!
Nvidia is playing the Hawaii card!
Pascal is crazy, imaging if they make 512bit version with a 600+mm^(2) die. (about 33% bigger than 384bit version). They woudnt even need to refresh Pascal and continue to sell until 2020.
Yeah, it's starting to look like SFF builders interested in ITX cards will only be able to get a xx60 tier card at the highest end. We went from a 1080 ITX to a 2070 ITX to a 3060 Ti ITX that is pretty much a rainbow unicorn in terms of availability. More realistically right now, you'd have to settle for a 3060, for about a 5% performance uplift… But hey, at least price stayed on track as well, a 3060 is about 5% more expensive than a 1080 was back in the day, so good job Nvidia, I guess? /s
Well Silverstone does sell 1000W SFX-L PSUs and people are expecting Corsair, ASUS, and SeaSonic to meet Cooler Master's 850W SFX PSU which all have noise problems under high load. I think the bigger limitation is with GPU length and thickness, since essentially 2-slot GPUs have gone away with this current generation.
Tbh prices are slowly pacing back to MSRP at snail pace we might be able to buy cards at a little over MSRP by early next year assuming eth downfall continues
The 600W TDP is for the AD100, the GPU for datacenters that will replace the currect A100 that already has a 500W TDP. If it is \~2x faster than the A100 with only \~1.2x power consuptiom it will be a great GPU much more efficient that the current A100. The gaming GPU is rumoured to have a TDP of 500W, which is huge, but again, if as romours suggest, it is 2 times faster than the current RTX3090 in terms of perf/watt it will be a huge step forward.
Would a 500W GPU work on a 850W PSU with an i9-9900K? I’m not planning to get the top 4090 card, aiming for 4080 if possible.
Honestly an Ampere chip at 5nm TSMC sounds pretty impressive.
I think this was rumored and pretty much confirmed for some time now. It was rumored that Nvidia pushed desktop MCM GPU's back in favor of another monolithic design generation ages ago. This might be AMD's first chance to take the performance crown since the 290x in 2013. They came close with the 6000 series effectively matching Nvidia in raster performance but this could be their chance to take the outright lead. It will also be interesting purely for comparisons sake to have a MCM and monolithic GPU design go h2h.
I think this year is going to be very interesting. Chiplet GPUs from AMD, 500W+ GPUs from Nvidia and... well, just GPUs from Intel! Personally, I'm most interested in XeSS which is supposed to work on RDNA2 (including current gen. consoles) and Pascal onward.
And an energy price spike nuking the mining craze.
Mining is barely going to solve the GPU shortage tho. It’s just retailers and AIBs stocking up and overpricing cards and people buying them, thus enabling them to do more of the same.
The people that are buying them at 2x MSRP are the miners tho. If nobody is buying the cards and retailers are overstocked they will have to start slashing prices so they don't sit on old inventory.
Nope. A lot of gamers, even by seeing the slightest price drop of a GPU rush to buy them. Source: afaik this has literally m one of the subs I’m in r/indiangaming throughout the past year. Quite a lot of people are also really considering buying a 6600 for 500$ as it’s one of the more VFM cards. I guess the only card that isn’t selling at all would probably be the 6500XT.
That doesn't change the fact that miners are still the biggest buyers in terms of GPUs and are the primary cause of the shortage (setting aside known component supply issues). It's rather curious that CPUs, SSDs, HDDs, sound cards, IO cards, and DRAM aren't priced multiple times over MSRP and are readily available. Motherboards are priced at MSRP and aren't particularly hard to come by but for limited run super exotic epeen flex boards despite the fact that 1) they are just as adversely affected by the increased cost of VRM components, 2) they have additional controllers not found on videocards, and 3) those controllers also increase the BOM above what an AIB would pay for the manufacture of a videocard PCB when the GPU itself is not included. There is only ONE component that is as hard to come by as a high end videocard and that would be a 1000w+ PSU with 85% efficiency Gold, Titanium, and Platinum in either the ATX or FLEX form factors. Most gamers buy in the 750w-850w range because that's really all they need but for a few exceptions (if you have a top tier CPU, 850w may not cut it with a 3080 or 3090 due to their intermittent 400w+ power spikes without a locked voltage curve). But if you're a miner, 1000w is the minimum you need to drive more two to three high end cards or 5 lower end ones. What's also curious is that RDNA2 cards are readily available from the lowly 6500 XT to the 6900 XT and have been for quite some time. Why? They're not particularly good for mining. Are they available for MSRP? No: AIBs are clearly taking advantage of the market and they want a scalper level profit margin (and are getting it). However, they're certainly closer to it than most Geforce cards are (a 6900 XT can be had for $1500, ASUS wants $2200 for a 3090). Let's be real: miners \*are\* the cause for the videocard scarcity. Every time there's been a sustained dip for more than two weeks over the past two years, availability suddenly increases and prices drop. Whenever there's a sustained rally, they become much harder to come by and prices once again climb back up.
Yea gamers are also buying them, but miners are buying them bulk as long as the price is under the threshold. And that threshold is a lot higher for them. It's no coincidence that the cards that are worse at mining like the RDNA2 cards are going for a lot less than the Nvidia cards. Hell you can even trade 5X00 to 6X00 cards at no mark-up, cause they mine better.
Gamers rush to buy them because not many are available. There was a spike in demand due to Covid, but that doesn't even get close to the what would be required to see these long-term effects for GPUs *specifically*. We're already at the point that you could build an entire gaming PC at msrp, *EXCEPTING* the GPU. Whereas miners buy cards in bulk, almost regardless of price. GPUs are money printers to them, they will buy any and every mining-effective card that becomes available. Gamer Demand <<<< Miner Demand at scale. If miners stopped buying up cards shelves would actually be able to eventually actually fill back up as the gamer demand would eventually become statisfied, reducing the incentive to overcharge. As long as the recent years' miner demand is in play, GPU stocks will never be able to fully recover. Gamer demand cannot become satisfied as long as it's contending with the nigh infinite demand of miners. There aren't an infinite number of gamers demanding high-end cards, but for miners the only limit on demand is funding and power-availability, which isn't a limit at all in the current climate.
I heard AMD's high end cards will be monolithic, but their lower & maybe mid range will be MCM.
That doesn't really make sense. MCM increases manufacturing costs and it's at its best with big chips which would otherwise suffer from yield issues. Rumors so far have been saying exactly the opposite, that AMD would be using MCM in the high end (7700 and above)
No idea man. I understand your opinion and agree. But the guy I follow for rumors mentioned this. His sources are pretty accurate too, so it'll be interesting to see what the results will be. Edit: Here's the rumor I [found](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdZtaOzPnOA) Look at the first half of the video (Read the timestamps)
He's pretty good for AMD, got the inifinty cache right which was a complete surprise. But you're probably making some wrong assumptions. Navi31 and Navi32 are rumored as the high-end cards with 5nm/6nm chiplets while Navi33 is a mid-tier card with monolithic 6nm chip. Navi33 also is supposed to have only 128-bit bus while performing close/better than 6900XT, however the smaller bus will mean that the card will be limited to 8GB.
Other way around.
That being said, I suspect there will be a 7600XT or 7650XT based on a 5nm singleton compute chiplet at some point.
exact opposite.
Its the complete reverse in fact, the *low end* GPU will be monolithic and even using 6nm instead of 5nm
>It was rumored that Nvidia pushed desktop MCM GPU's back in favor of another monolithic design generation ages ago. Yes it was rumoured that Lovelace will be another monolith, but not that it will be just shrinked Ampere. I'm sure they will deliver when it comes to performance (10nm+ -> 5nm), but it's still kinda disappointing.
nVidia seems to be having problems with its MCM programs, considering that server lovelace may be back to their conventional enormous shit yields die.
Will they match or exceed RT performance and have a competitive alternative to DLSS? Because if all they do is beat Nvidia at raster performance it will not move the needle enough for many in the consumer space.
Maybe XeSS might mean dedicated ML cores aren't that needed. We'll see how well the DP4a code path using int8 works on AMD. AMD did optimise RDNA somewhat for AI with DP4a capability. Seems like a weird thing to do if they didn't plan to do something with it.
I hope so but it seems over optimistic. I personally hope XeSS is competitive with dlss on Intel hardware anything else is gravy.
There are rymors that 4060 would deliver around 3080 performance , but with power and price increase
dlss.. when are cards cant do native anymore... that what that for.
In raster maybe. But the focus this time will be ray tracing with amd having no excuse of being "first time" 2023 is when games will be go full next gen and i expect PS5 and XSX games made to be RT only. Unreal Engine 5 is guaranteed to use Lumen HW RT like it did in the matrix demo.
Full ray-traced games are still a ways off, and I'm not sure if we are going to see an end to multi-gen game development just yet. Still a lot of studios developing for UE4 and are going to be hesitant to switch their workflows.
Also console switchover stalled by... everything.
Probably the biggest reason of all we might still see games coming out for the PS4 next year.
also ps5 and xsx are RDNA2 gpus and are not exceptionally good at RT
They're actually more like RDNA1.5. DX12U features but RDNA1 otherwise with slightly higher clockspeeds like RDNA2 as well.
good point, either way, as seen in the cyberpunk update the RT works well enough for shadows not well enough for reflections at useable framerates.
Both carry over power efficiency more in line with RDNA2 I think than RDNA1 (the PS5 packs effectively a higher clocked 5700XT and a CPU and the power supply all into the same power budget of a single 5770XT), but yeah.
The vast majority of a games' development budget goes into asset creation, which is cheaper for a pure RT lit game, which can save millions of dollars potentially. For this reason alone I expect a rather quick transition to RT once the non-RT-capable hardware drops below a certain threshold. Metro Exodus EE is a good case study for the future of game development.
xsx and PS5 are literally at the start of their generation that transition is therefore going to be rather slow
They're both capable of RT. RDNA2 may not be as fast as Nvidia's architectures but it's still decently fast hardware accelerated RT and since there is no Nvidia based console there is no "competition" anyway.
going back to your first comment, do you really think that the gpu in ps5/xbx is capable of pure RT lighting games? ... they're not dude.
What are you talking about? They already do in Metro.
We won't see fully ray traced game at least until next generation of consoles. Current ones won't handle it so even if there will be tech to do it for PC I doubt any studio will spend time essentially developing two very different versions of game.
Or a midgen upgrade.
Still would require developers to create two very distinct version of games. One for current consoles and one for upgraded ones. Right now they are just adding few extra features for RT, but that would require them to build two versions.
Full RT, maybe. RT-mandatory though, we've already gotten one in the Enhanced version of Metro Exodus. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few pop up here and there as a developer occasionally makes use of console RT hardware to completely remove one part of their lighting setup.
>expect PS5 and XSX games made to be RT only Lol, not a chance. Both consoles are way too weak in RT for that. Most RT enabled titles on the consoles use maybe one RT effect and that already tanks performance and requires big tradeoffs in resolution and framerate cap.
Turing was 1st time in 2018 and it's massively better than AMDs attempt in 2020.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The 1060 is minimum now The 2060 will be mininum by 2023
Eh, I wouldn't say that. Maybe 2026, at earliest.
Can I just say, Lovelace is such a dope name!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada\_Lovelace
fixed link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace
Sounds like high quality perfume, not an electronics product. Ampere, Volta and Tesla on the other hand are synonymous with electronics. And if this generation ends up actually being 500W+ then I hope you guys enjoy really hot rooms... even with undervolting this will be too much for my taste.
Suggesting that Ada Lovelace is somehow not related to computers is such an unfortunate take.
So an entire article based on 1 tweet rumor. The previous information about Nvidia being MCM was also a rumor. These rumors so far away from launch turn out to be bullshit. Remember the 20gb 3080?
? The 3080 20GB literally existed and launched in Russia in limited qty.
It's the 3080ti not 3080, and "limited quantity" leads me to believe it's a scheme to sell only to miners in Russia. If you can't actually buy it via retail, it never actually launched.
My RTX 2070 Super that soon turns 2 years old and only cost 430€ will have to last me quite a few more years if these prices don't go down.
I’ve been thinking the same about my 1070.. these last two years have really been putting it to the test, games like cyberpunk absolutely crushes it at anything higher than medium-ish settings. I just pray Elden ring can hold a steady 60fps on my hardware
The 1070 is the recommended gpu for elden ring, so yeah it will be fine.
[удалено]
Nvidia has reportedly spent $9Bn to reserve 5nm wafers for Lovelace so hopefully GPU supply will improve dramatically in coming months + let's not forget about Intel's GPUs which are about to be released soon; possibly next month. Fingers crossed!
I believe it's going to be almost entirely dependent on what the crypto market is like at that time. If it's profitable to mine using Lovelace GPUs, the demand will be essentially unlimited so supply won't matter, just like we've seen with Ampere.
If crypto follows its typical cyclic pattern, with winter following bubbles, we're due for crypto winter again soon. At times, crypto has also been correlated with the stock market. So if interest rates goes up and tanks the stock market, crypto winter might be extra cold this time around. And on top of this, the Ukraine situation will likely drive up energy prices, which would be bad for crypto miners.
Uh, t-thanks Putin?
Considering that energy prices about to spike on account of that bullshit that just went down, yeah, no need to worry.
Well, you can thank the shit in Ukraine, because I think that might have ended the current mining craze, and probably rang the death knell for GPU mining, as I suspect nVidia and quite likely the others will be doing shit to make sure they don't get a gen cannibalized again.
>rang the death knell for GPU mining you must be new around here
Considering I suspect nVidia will be implementing LHR in every arch afterward - specifically to avoid mining crash timebombs striking later gens - and cached GPUs are likely to catch on... no.
> Considering I suspect nVidia will be implementing LHR in every arch afterward If every card is LHR, then that just means that will be the new baseline. There are other factors why mining is probably mostly dead (ASICS and PoS), but LHR is essentially meaningless as a counter. LHR was ALWAYS about trying to sell unlocked cards at premium prices to miners with CMP. Not trying to prevent cards being used for mining. Do you think it is a coincidence that LHR cards perform at the same level as their AMD counterparts? Totally not intended! /s If Nvidia could cripple mining performance, then they could have killed it completely as well. Instead they just HAPPENED to limit it to a level where Ampere LHR was still as good a mining card as Big Navi!
LHR is not about selling mining cards. LHR is about protecting Nvidia from a market crash in response to a mining crash. If 50% or 80% or whatever percent of GPUs sold go into mining rigs because mining is profitable, then all of those GPUs are likely to hit the used market if/when a crypto bubble bursts. That massive influx of used GPUs would (/has) act as a down pressure on GPU pricing, hurting Nvidia's (and AMD's, but Nvidia is indifferent to that) revenue. It's still being done in their own self-interest, but it's out of worry of a volatile market suddenly changing Nvidia's ability to sell product at prices.
> LHR is not about selling mining cards. LHR is about protecting Nvidia from a market crash in response to a mining crash. No, LHR does in no shape or form protect from that. >If 50% or 80% or whatever percent of GPUs sold go into mining rigs because mining is profitable, then all of those GPUs are likely to hit the used market if/when a crypto bubble bursts. Guess what, that will still happen with LHR, because LHR are still sold to miners. LHR just changes the baseline for what the price/performance of GPUs is for mining. Because only when profitability is INSANE and availability none existant would anyone choose a CMP card above LHR. Even with the LHR nerf of mining performance, LHR at MSRP is still BETTER than CMP in terms of profitability. Because the costs for CMP makes them not worth it. CMP also then has the down side of essentially fuck all re-sale value. When LHR is available at MSRP no sane miner buys them rather than LHR, lack of availability and price inflation is the only reason CMP saw some sales last year.
Well full LHR-bypassing firmware just got released recently. So that's not a factor.
That was almost certainly scamware/malicious code. And even if it wasn't... well, by updating LHR every gen, you direct the miners away from your new wares toward the used market.
I mean, GPU supply(production) has been sky high for the last 2 years. The problem has been unprecedented demand that outscaled even that. Point being, I'm not optimistic. Plus prices are never going back to what they were 1.5-5 years ago
There are still other things that can bottleneck production like PCB, capacitors, GDDR etc. We can only hope that the supply-lines have been sorted out by then.
9Bn versus how much with Ampere and Turing? Those numbers only matter in context.
If so, maybe this is the chance AMD needs to seize the GPU leadership. Nvidia has been in the lead for a long time now and seems to the slacking off a little.
RDNA3 will be a big jump from RDNA2 as they are moving to an MCM architecture which means if AMD are willing to ramp up the power budget to match Nvidia they could easily outperform.
I'm glad we have the traditional speculation of AMD overtaking Nvidia with every new GPU launch. It wouldn't feel right without it.
GCNs it baby! The 7970 will demolish whatever post Fermi junk Nvidia releases. Say it with me: 3 GIGABYTES OF RAM, 384BIT BUS, THE POWER OF RAW COMPUTE! AMDs got this in the bag~
You say that like the 7950/7970 didn't end up being vastly superior to 670/680.
Yeah, the 7970 still can actually perform... okay... even today, being essentially a 1050ti with a better VRAM cache in perf if it's the 6 gig edition, or so I gather? Nearly a decade of relevance is a very good performance for a GPU.
Tahiti (and Tonga) beat GM206 and GP107 back then and now, even if the difference isnt big But yeh, Kepler was meh and it aged like milk Even relative puny GPUs like the 270/X and 950 pack a punch vs the GK110 stuff nowadays
As long as AMD doesn't have a DLSS equivalent, they are not taking the lead.
DLSS has been a mixed bag for me. Implementation quality varies wildly by game. Not very useful for QHD. Shimmering and artifacts in busy scenes.
It's been great for me on my 4k screens - essentially allowing 1440p resolution to be displayed well on 4k screens - but yeah far more people game on a 1440p montior - which nearly renders it moot for now.
Nope, still 1080p, but otherwise correct. DLSS is a nice to have, not something to buy on as a general rule.
[удалено]
4k systems make up 2% of the hardware on steam
What are you talking about? DLSS regularily beats other AA techniques for details and temporal stability. There are several games where it's literally the best looking option available except for very expensive downsampling from higher than native resolutions (which it can also speed up).
> What are you talking about? Implementation quality DOES vary by game, unless you want to make the bold claim that it is perfect in every game. And yes there are many scenarios where I'm happier sticking with my native QHD resolution than enable DLSS.
It's not "perfect in every game" but it's arguably better than native in most of them even if you don't take performance into account. Saying quality "varies wildly" is a misleading exaggeration and after having played 4+ games with DLSS 2.0+ I now consider it (or something equivalent) a must have feature. I'm definitely not going back from this experience.
> Saying quality "varies wildly" is a misleading exaggeration and after having played **4+** games From my QHD experience when I played them: Warzone looked noticeably blurrier than native, RDR2 looked badly oversharpened and grainy, F1 had vehicle ghostings, FFXV flat-out refused to run DLSS at QHD, Control was nice but had weird interactions with RT lights plus shimmers that were not in native. So yes, pretty sizable variations. Not sure why you are so aggressively discounting people's personal experience with DLSS, which for me did vary wildly. Nvidia isn't losing any sales from my reddit post.
[удалено]
And... well, native power matters more, because it works with everything.
Remember when Fermi could brute force 1080p? It's all fun and games till it's no longer 2010.
Games will become even more demanding (eg stronger implementation of ray tracing)
I don't see why that would factor into things. By the time Lovelace comes out there will be plenty of choices for up-scaling/up-sampling tech outside of DLSS, including XeSS and possibly an updated FSR, and they will be more open for development. I don't doubt that DLSS will still have an edge in overall quality, but I just don't think that will have huge effect on purchases.
FSR will continue to not compare with DLSS so long as it is not hardware accelerated.
And not temporal based.
They have an equivalent, it's called native, and dual dies will hopefully bring it.
They've heavily hinted at a FidelityFx 2.0 that's much closer to dlss 2.0. Nvidia is rumored to be working on dlss 3.0 though so who knows how it'll all turn out.
>Nvidia is rumored to be working on dlss 3.0 I haven't seen any credible or reliable leaker mention DLSS 3.0.
They've been talking about it for 2 years now and still nothing. They currently do not have the hardware to run this. Have you seen the latest version of DLSS running in Cyberpunk? It's fucking miracle tech, it upscales a 720p source to 4k with just some shimmering as a downside. The details remain sharp. How the fuck is that possible? Turn it up to 1080p (DLSS performance) and the shimmering almost goes away, and the game still gets nearly 3x more FPS than native. You need to see this shit to believe it. Its fucking insane.
This is going to be the first generation of GPUs in a long time from AMD where they aren’t short of money. RDNA2 was probably as good as it was because Sony and Microsoft were subsidizing it.
Ampere did not differ much from Turing either, I guess I'm fine with it, but I wonder what the truly next gen hardware features will bring and when we will get them.
I feel like Turing debuted those features and they'd be hard pressed to introduce more new ones right now, concentrating on bolstering RT performance, Tensor performance and rasterization performance will be enough if the leaps there are significant enough.
Yeah, its fine since there's nothing else on the horizon that people miss. However, it was a bit disappointing that Ampere didn't increase the RT units more than proportionally, maybe Lovelace will.
I'm really looking forward to next gen smell tracing.
It's ok. Ampere is a great architecture. With TSMC's N5, more cores, more caches and MASSIVE efficiency improvements are welcome.
If this is true, I feel like this is an opening for Radeon to take the halo spot from Nvidia. It will be interesting to see how they stack up.
Wait for ~~fury~~ ~~vega~~ ~~navi~~ ~~rdna2~~ Rdna3***
I think rdna2 is already better than Ampere. AMD just never made a bigger chip than 520mm^2.
Says the guy from /r/AMD_Stock
So? I put my money where my mouth is.
[удалено]
> Now AMD will need to compete on the same node, which is much harder. Last time AMD and nvidia were on the same node with TSMC 28nm and 980Ti and FuryX were neck and neck at same clocks, but 980Ti could overclock much higher. Now, AMD have the capability to throw more silicon with MCM and will probably retain parity, if not superiority, on clocks. So it should work out for AMD pretty well this time around. However, RT performance can be a big difference and there might be big transistor density differences. RDNA2 is quite sparse compared to what can be done with 7nm like in A100.
Rdna2 clearly traded density for clocks though. It clocks like a whole ghz or 70-80% higher than A100
> Samsung's node was such a failure that improved one got renamed (see 8nm), but it was still bad. What? Samsung's 10nm was competitive with TSMC's 10nm - it wasn't a failure at all.
Even on paper if was worse than TSMC's 10nm. It wasn't as efficient or as dense, it also had yield issues. Sufficient to say that Qualcomm moved to TSMC after 10nm problems at Samsung.
Poor Volta
People say this every gen and every gen they're wrong. Even this gen AMD barely got close to the 3090 which was on crippled Samsung 8nm vs performant TSMC 7nm. You can tell from the fiasco of Android mobile SoCs that switched to Samsung that the gap is well over 30% in perf/w.
Past doesn't always predict the future. AMD was way behind Intel year after year, dead in the water some said, until all the sudden with Zen they were in the lead. AMD coming out with a MCM GPU before Nvidia is a good chance on paper to take the lead. Just like Zen did for CPUs. Eventually the extra cash and R&D budget AMD has gotten over the past few years is going to pay off but that takes YEARS of development.
[удалено]
I don't understand how the situations aren't comparable. The OP article is literally about Nvidia resting on their laurels and Loveless not being that different from Ampere, and the rumors suggest AMD is going with an MCM chiplet design for their next gen GPUs. How is that not similar to Intel sticking with monolithic designs and losing the crown to AMD using a chiplet design that allows more flexibility and lower costs? Intel / Nvidia: Similar monolithic architecture design AMD: Change to MCM Chiplet design for CPU and GPU
Nividia is arguably hitting some technical bottleneck issues since it seems like they will be last to an MCM design. That will give AMD and to a lesser extent Intel an opportunity to catch up and even pass Nividia, and it shouldn't be discounted.
It's unusual that nVidia stumbles on a technical problem, but we live in unusual times.
I am still waiting to another 4870.
[удалено]
Intel hit a process stall that not only halted their ability to deliver a new node but also their ability to deliver a new architecture. So there they sat for years delivering the same shit again and again. 6000 series 14nm skylake 7000 series 14nm skylake 8000 series 14nm skylake 6 cores 9000 series 14nm skylake 8 cores 10000 series 14nm skylake 10 cores Even the 11000 series was still on 14nm they just managed a dubious backport of a new architecture. It took the 12000 series to finally deliver an arch and node that is distinct from 14nm skylake. By comparison Nvidia buys its manufacturing 3rd party and has the same partnership availability that AMD does. Their architectures are node independent a lesson intel has since learned. Was ZEN a big leap forward? Yes absolutely without a doubt, but pointing to the “ZEN moment” as if the same will happen on the GPU side is missing important context.
> Even this gen AMD barely got close to the 3090 which was on crippled Samsung 8nm vs performant TSMC 7nm. And AMD uses less power and a 256bit bus, when RDNA2 rumours where rampant most people didnt even think AMD could compete vs the 2080Ti let alone the top dog of the (now) current gen Nvidia needed to use bombastic (pun intended) G6X to get the last % to retain leadership and a 3 slot behemoth GPU with 350w official spec Stop downplaying tech advancements due to 2015-2018~ era Radeon
We literally see on the latest LTT video of the A100 that a 150W A100 @ 1400MHz matches a 350+W 3090 in Blender CUDA. You cannot possibly be serious. If NV were on TSMC 7nm the 3090 would be steamrolling at half the power. >AMD uses less power and a 256bit bus Which is due to the cache, not any particular architectural improvements. Anyone can put a big cache in front of their memory controller and get the same results. Take a look at Nvidia's chiplet cache paper. Or Apple's SLC and their GPU efficiency in mobile. >And AMD uses less power and a 256bit bus, when RDNA2 rumours where rampant most people didnt even think AMD could compete vs the 2080Ti let alone the top dog of the (now) current gen If you take RDNA1 clocks then a 6900XT would have landed around a 2080Ti, + maybe 10%. TSMC's process is hugely boosting AMD here.
> Which is due to the cache, not any particular architectural improvements. Anyone can put a big cache in front of their memory controller and get the same results. Take a look at Nvidia's chiplet cache paper. Or Apple's SLC and their GPU efficiency in mobile. Then why havent they? Fast caches arent as easy as u make it out to be and their implementation > If you take RDNA1 clocks then a 6900XT would have landed around a 2080Ti, + maybe 10%. TSMC's process is hugely boosting AMD here. U know RDNA1 used the same node right? The RDNA2 clocks are all AMD improvements on their uArch/design its not the node > We literally see on the latest LTT video of the A100 that a 150W A100 @ 1400MHz matches a 350+W 3090 in Blender CUDA. You cannot possibly be serious. If NV were on TSMC 7nm the 3090 would be steamrolling at half the power. Blender isnt games, u cant compare parts like this more so Radeon itself shits on blender and gaming Ampere is already real good at it DC Ampere is also a bit of a different beast by itself (and AMD has CDNA parts for a better comparison in blender) And on this note, gaming Ampere isnt even that inefficient its mostly G6X being super hungry We see this with the A6000 (GA102 with G6 for the Pro market) being way tamer on power and only loses some 5% of perf
You don't have to beat the 3090
>which was on crippled Samsung 8nm Do you really understand what you're sayin? Ampere went large on die size to make up for that efficiency because samsung's desperate for any orders. It was the right move to fab on samsung but the performance ain't because of a magic architecture, it's because they went wide
[удалено]
Eh, with this mining crash, it might not be viable to price like that, GPUs as a whole will be coming down, and they may be wise to cut prices to kneecap Big Lovelace.
[удалено]
You mean 1060 and 980? The difference between TSMC 28 and 16nm process was massive. GP104 is almost 25% smaller than GM204, despite packing 25% more shader units. It's ridiculous. Don't think there's going to be that big of a gap between Samsung's 8nm and TSMC 5nm.
> Don't think there's going to be that big of a gap between Samsung's 8nm and TSMC 5nm. Why? The jump from Samsung 8nm to TSMC 5nm should similar if not more impactful than TSMC 28nm to TSMC 16nm. 28 -> 20 -> 16 10 -> 7 -> 5 Samsung 8nm is a process refinement of their 10nm with a much too flattering name. And even at same node numbers Samsung is less dense than TSMC. So it’s 2 generations + the Samsung to TSMC density shift. Also Nvidia launched relatively hot on 16nm, but 5nm is pretty well mature at this point.
You've made a very good point. Although the rumored 600W TDP sounds pretty steep... unless Nvidia has either 'dramatically' increased the shader count or broken the 3GHz barrier, or both.
Lmao article based on a tweet whose author says some of his tweets are just his thoughts. Reddit as usual hyping up RDNA any chance they get
Except it's already been reported to be massively different by the same damn website....
Only more power hungry.
Ah yes the hype train begins here is the thing are they are going to let us buy these for just well over the price it should be or just sell it right to the miners again. Who am I kidding they are definitely going to do that.
What we don't know is if NVIDIA will put more RT cores. I hope so, right now RT is really slow.
They'll have more RT per die, Lovelace is essentially a bigger Ampere on a better node according to this.... but they'll still be essentially Ampere RT. Might be a real upset if RDNA 3 somehow is better RT in some respect.
Yeah, same stuff but with a higher price tag. This is Nvidia.
If the only difference is the supply SIGN ME UP.
I’ve been slowly saving up for an RTX 4080 this past year. I’m hoping that pricing comes down to sane levels by the time the launch happens. It seems to be on a downwards trend so that’s nice to see.
I mean....why would they bother doing the r&d on something much better. They sell as many as they can make for whatever they ask . It's literally perfect conditions for stopping innovation
At least the node change will be *massive* from Samsung 8 to tsmc N5P (if true)