There is a baseline level of circuitry that these GPUs use for things like PCI-E and display output that have nothing to do with the GPU's...
Anyway, I think he was just trying to see if he could fool a few people. There's some guys over there pumping Tegra K1 like it's the second coming...
I'm sure he'll come back saying he was playing along :wink:
Are those CPU cores actually to scale on their public "die shot," if you can even call it that? Nvidia obfuscates and doctors their Tegra die...
More units don't necessarily mean more power. If that were the case, GPUs would be few-core and run at a high frequency. Really, at least at...
That doesn't invalidate his point.
This does make sense though... they're risk, or even pre-risk production yields. Nothing out of the ordinary here. The only interesting bit this...
Aren't these typical early-life yields? They still have several months to go before volume manufacturing begins, and even then, it's going to be...
They're pretty massive at low voltage. Performance wise, Intel blows everything out of the water.
I understand that power is a problem. That's the entire point of my original post. Had you read it, you might have avoided this whole issue.
No, it did not. Let me hold your hand (again): Here, I am asking if it is necessary to expand cache sizes to support 512-bit AVX. This question...
Intel's not worried about the server market. Sorry, but that doesn't have anything to do with what I was asking.
I know that it's not their only goal, however my point is that such a move would likely take up a pretty significant portion of the transistor...
Don't the goals of 512-bit AVX run counter to creating a better mobile chip? I would think that Intel would prioritize other things with their...
I'm pretty sure he was talking about the consumer models. Man, it'd be really nice to see core counts taking off.
