I can see them holding up the 5090D/5080D designs to see how the trade restriction updates in October pan out.Wondering what the hold up is
I can see them holding up the 5090D/5080D designs to see how the trade restriction updates in October pan out.Wondering what the hold up is
Now, Wall Street appears to be front-running NVIDIA's relatively cautious guidance by going a giant step forward. To wit, Morgan Stanley has now disclosed that it expects NVIDIA to ship 450,000 Blackwell chips in the December-ending quarter, earning ~$10 billion in revenue from this architecture alone:
...
While Morgan Stanley concedes that NVIDIA is still in the process of resolving a few "technical challenges" with its GB200 server racks, the Wall Street titan posits a qualifier that such issues are a part of a "normal debugging process for new product launches."
What's more, Morgan Stanley still sees a very healthy demand profile for NVIDIA's H200 chips, courtesy of sovereign AI projects and smaller cloud service providers continuing to expand their capacity.
He’s still claiming a two slot cooler for the 5090 at 600w….Latest 5090 and 5080 specs:
I don’t know he’s been saying it for months now. Unless he’s counting 2.9 as two slot I don’t see how you can cool that without liquid or very high noise. Also - why bother keeping it so slim?Maybe it's a language thing? Two slots in addition to the slot where the GPU plugs in (eg the PCB itself?)
Just trying to read charitably into someone's statements.
i agree, though I don’t think there’s any guarantee it will beat the 4090. Worth noting that his 5080 spec would be a fully enabled chip. Also, I am still scratching my head at 32GB for a consumer card. It seems totally unnecessary for gaming and counterproductive if they’re looking to push more AI buyers towards workstation cards. If they are resigned to this being bought for AI I worry the price could reflect that.These specs looks weird, for 5080 at least. With 10K FP32 ALUs it will have to run at >4GHz to beat 4090 while consuming 50W less?
These specs looks weird, for 5080 at least. With 10K FP32 ALUs it will have to run at >4GHz to beat 4090 while consuming 50W less?
If it has a 512-bit bus, the only options are 16GB and 32GB. 16GB wouldn't fly seeing as the top spec card has been 24GB for the last two generations, and so 32GB is really the only choice. Apparently GDDR7 will have 'half step' chip sizes (24gbit in addition to 16gbit) at some point later on, but not at initial introduction.S
i agree, though I don’t think there’s any guarantee it will beat the 4090. Worth noting that his 5080 spec would be a fully enabled chip. Also, I am still scratching my head at 32GB for a consumer card. It seems totally unnecessary for gaming and counterproductive if they’re looking to push more AI buyers towards workstation cards. If they are resigned to this being bought for AI I worry the price could reflect that.
One would think that with the switch to G7 it could be fine with a cut down bus like 448 bits. The decision to keep the full bus on GB202 also seems weird in these specs. Kopite has been wrong before.If it has a 512-bit bus, the only options are 16GB and 32GB.
My thoughts exactly - no reason they couldn’t cut down the bus and have enough bandwidth, unless the die really is that much of beast that it needs it. Seems unlikely. As you say, he’s been wrong on stuff before. Also curious that they’d do a fully enabled die on the 5080 - are yields on 4N really that good?One would think that with the switch to G7 it could be fine with a cut down bus like 448 bits. The decision to keep the full bus on GB202 also seems weird in these specs. Kopite has been wrong before.
I think most sensible explanation in this situation would be that it wont beat a 4090. There was never any rule it had to.These specs looks weird, for 5080 at least. With 10K FP32 ALUs it will have to run at >4GHz to beat 4090 while consuming 50W less?
Yields on N4 should be freaking amazing by now. N5 was already yielding great years ago and there's usually no notable yield regression when moving to evolutions of the same process like here.My thoughts exactly - no reason they couldn’t cut down the bus and have enough bandwidth, unless the die really is that much of beast that it needs it. Seems unlikely. As you say, he’s been wrong on stuff before. Also curious that they’d do a fully enabled die on the 5080 - are yields on 4N really that good?
My hypothesis is that if the rumors are true, they've scaled back some of the SRAM allocated to on-die cache, choosing to use more of that area for other things, leaning on the external memory bus to do the heavy lifting, Ampere-style. Maybe GDDR7 is cheap and power efficient enough that it makes sense this generation, or maybe they're going close to the reticle limit and there simply wasn't enough room for the giant on-chip cache (for GB202 anyway), especially with how poorly SRAM scales on cutting edge processes.My thoughts exactly - no reason they couldn’t cut down the bus and have enough bandwidth, unless the die really is that much of beast that it needs it. Seems unlikely. As you say, he’s been wrong on stuff before. Also curious that they’d do a fully enabled die on the 5080 - are yields on 4N really that good?
I truly hope power consumption is not correct. 600 watt to play games is insane.Latest 5090 and 5080 specs:
I truly hope power consumption is not correct. 600 watt to play games is insane.
My thoughts exactly - no reason they couldn’t cut down the bus and have enough bandwidth, unless the die really is that much of beast that it needs it. Seems unlikely. As you say, he’s been wrong on stuff before. Also curious that they’d do a fully enabled die on the 5080 - are yields on 4N really that good?