Well the O and D can look a bit similar, but it is the just the typography used who make them look close on the upper left edge.
I know, just poking fun. First/quick glance it looked funny (especially upside-down).
Well the O and D can look a bit similar, but it is the just the typography used who make them look close on the upper left edge.
This is water cooled right?
Intel's EMIB works along those lines, where there are small bridges of high-density interconnect embedded in a package. The bridge does not need to be silicon, and if it is silicon it doesn't need vias drilled through it since it is no longer responsible for non-interconnect.The alternative is that we're talking about a GPU being mounted upon multiple independent mini interposers. e.g. 2 interposers that run the length of the long side of the GPU, yet merely wide enough to support all of the power and interconnect duties for both the GPU and the HBM modules (microbumps/TSVs should be dense enough to support the two or three hundred amps of current required by the GPU). In this scenario we'd have a GPU that is mostly mounted on some kind of underfill, with two narrow strips of interposer along the long edges, to connect to the HBM modules.
Well, now I'm shocked by how much interposer is "going to waste". Dare say it looks more like 19 x 22mm. Error margin in die area is well over 10%, I suppose, which is arguably more than the area that might be saved in PHY going from GDDR5 to HBMI just noticed a new picture when checking AMD's HBM page : http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/hbm
Nice piece to speculate about so I guess it was worth sharing here
It would be compatible with a 50x50mm packaging, 32x26mm interposer, 4 HBM modules and some ~20x24mm GPU...
Tonga, against Tahiti perhaps, is indicative of gains in transistor density per mm² - some of which would be helped though by Tonga's smaller and slower GDDR5 bus.
I was talking about the transistor density. There's something like 700 million more transistors in there.Is it? It's about as large, and a bit slower.
It seems to be faster than Tahiti in Witcher 3Granted, with the remaining CUs enabled it would probably be faster, but it's a fairly marginal improvement (unless it also has disabled memory controllers of course).
AMD suggests one to turn down the tessellation to make it run faster on all Radeons, 16x was IIRC virtually indistinguishable from the default 64x, but performance was notably better.It seems to be faster than Tahiti in Witcher 3
Hairworks, apprehensions about closed source libraries proven beyond reasonable doubt?
AMD suggests one to turn down the tessellation to make it run faster on all Radeons, 16x was IIRC virtually indistinguishable from the default 64x, but performance was notably better.
I was talking about the transistor density. There's something like 700 million more transistors in there.
It seems to be faster than Tahiti in Witcher 3
Hairworks, apprehensions about closed source libraries proven beyond reasonable doubt?
It's weird really. In Tessmark (OpenGL) Tonga is 2x faster than Tahiti, while the synthetic geometry benches from Hardware.fr point to a conclusion that Tonga is no faster during primitive rasterization.285 was doing better than 7970Ghz. However those benches are without hairworks, with them 285 falls behind 280X from the other becnhmarks I have seen. Certainly strange if the tessellation is the prime culprit.
Derp.
I feel so stupid right now..
The tweet said it was a sweet GPU.
The card's enclosure and general fit and finish indicate the shroud and heatsink assembly are intact.
I cannot give credence to that claim, when it is obvious he has not licked the GPU.
I cannot give credence to that claim, when it is obvious he has not licked the GPU.