No it isn't almost identical to the one shown at CES. 980MXM otoh is.
And I'm not missing the point, you don't have a bloody point.
No. You're clearly missing the point. It's weird to pretend that 2 cards with exact same TDP and bus width, necessarily need to look differently, when a completely different chip with twice the bus and much higher TDP from 5+ years ago, had only literally 2 differences. Any 2 modules from the last few years have mostly a 1-2 differences and hardly ever the same one. Everything is always in the same spot and the difference is that it's one or 2 components missing, that later appear on the next generation, where maybe a different component is missing. So far you've (all) failed to tell me why 2 cards which could probably have the exact same requirements, necessarily need to look different. If the hypothetical Pascal needs the same VRMs, same capacitors, inductors, etc, why would they arrange them differently? And why wouldn't it have the exact same requirements? There's no so many combinations actually.
I already said they're likely 980Ms, but unlike what some people here pretend, including yourself, the resemblance or number of VRMs or what have you, is hardly a proof of anything. Just like it's not a proof that, "oh well, dies appear to be roughly the same size", except closer inspection reveals that it appears to be 5% smaller. It's at least something that has me thinking.
Oh, surely. It's certainly not unthinkable that you're shilling for nvidia?
No, why? Are you shilling yourself for someone else and don't want competition? And what would Nvidia win by bringing a complete noob to a place like this, and be ripped appart? And saying that maybe GP106 is 28nm or any other thing I've said, which you think it's stupid? No. I've decided to post because it fustrates me how fast people are reaching to conclusions, while giving absolutely no reasons other than "it's imposible" and like really, Charlie is spot on? Give me a break. He couldn't even get the TFlops of the PX2 right.
What's quite stupid is hearing a complete noob spinning off yarns about how a Pascal chip supposedly ended up on 28nm and has been in production for almost a year.
I said a lot of things which fall within the realm of what's posible, regardless of how crazy or unlikely they are. Never made any claim regarding probability and certainly never made any claim about it being in production for almost a year. It doesn't even have to be 28nm for it to have been manufactured in the 3rd wek. It could be 20nm or even vanilla 16FF and that would have been posible one year ago and it would be far less useless in regards to the lessons learnt about the process.
If the issue is, for example, as I just thought about this for the first time, that only chips in full production and meant for release get that piece of code from TSMC and prototypes/test samples don't, it would have been far easier for you guys to just tell me that, instead of resorting to the equivalent of "shut up", using sarcasm and name calling. I already mentioned I am a noob, so I would appreciate to be given info instead of just dismissing everything I said without any explanation and calling me a complete noob. That's not cool and people outside the industry don't know those things.
Probably not Pascal, I already said that. That doesn't make any of the so-called evidence any more definitive tho, and that's what I've been calling.
As for the quote, they are talking about the final product which I already said it would be 16FF+. But again that doesn't mean they couldn't make 28/20nm prototypes, if they really felt that would help them get to market earlier with the Drive PX, since I trully believe they'd have more to win potentially than what they'd lose from making a 28nm Pascal chip for testing purposes. They had a lot less to win from making Tegra 4i, or the Shield family of products and they still went with it.
