Big Vega- ~460-520mm2
No, he hasn't.
His account is a little over a year old, and out of the blue he's claiming that he used to own a hardware website that supposedly brought those leaks, but is pretty much gone from the Internet (no google cache, no archive.org, nothing).
Quite convenient.
He also said that several websites would start breaking the news "a couple of hours" after his post... 10 hours ago.
He could be right and that would be rather depressing for AMD (although they never promised both GPUs for Summer), but that 1 year-old forum account isn't a reputable source at all.
Hum.. okay then.I know that guy from XS forums and he's an old poster there (at least Athlon 64 days). Credible guy with access to early hardware and good info sources
What is really odd is that he's claiming that Polaris 10 is being pushed back to October at practically the same time when every other news outlet is claiming that Vega is being pushed forward to October.but that doesn't make him 100% reliable as manufactures can feed fake info just to find leaks.
Well here he's simply saying some of the Pascal cards will have 10GHz memory.. a couple of hours before last friday's announcement so way after the pics of GP104 with GDDR5X being leaked all over the internet.Here is one of his posts with some info no one else published.
Some of it is miscommunication from certain publications, some not accepting the announcement and that there is something fundamentally wrong with Pascal and HBM2 (that would be semi-accurate and bits&chips), some not realising it is a multi-phase release with early 2017 being the OEM partners.Sorry, I was wrong. Something was shown running. So, why the delay till 2017?
If HBM2 is in production now, there's going to be an awful lot of it lying around this autumn.
Volumes for very large GPUs are unclear for 14/16nm, and then there's the volume for the interposer and assembly chain.Sorry, I was wrong. Something was shown running. So, why the delay till 2017?
If HBM2 is in production now, there's going to be an awful lot of it lying around this autumn.
To be honest I hope we'll never get to see 14/16FF GPUs with >500mm^2.
This last generation got unprecedentedly large chips because 20nm proved to be unprecedentedly useless and 28nm had to be used for an unprecedentedly long time.
The way I see it, If we see a 550mm^2 GPU in 14/16nm then it means 10nm failed, just like 20nm did.
If 10nm is a year late, we could see a big gpu since nvidia obviously already has gp100 which they could eventually release as a consumer card once the process ramps to really good yields and the demand for the card dies down a bit.To be honest I hope we'll never get to see 14/16FF GPUs with >500mm^2.
This last generation got unprecedentedly large chips because 20nm proved to be unprecedentedly useless and 28nm had to be used for an unprecedentedly long time.
The way I see it, If we see a 550mm^2 GPU in 14/16nm then it means 10nm failed, just like 20nm did.
If this is in reference to my post, I was addressing what could be difficult when it's not an SoC. Onion3 is still an on-die APU connection.And what speaks against basing the SoC on Onion 3, rather than the old interconnect?
The name Jaguar is limited to a rather specific implementation and node combination. The hop to Puma was not an architecturally significant one.I would actually expect "Jaguar-compatible", not an original Jaguar core. Means Puma+, aka Carizzo-L respectively its shrink.
A year late where?If 10nm is a year late, we could see a big gpu since nvidia obviously already has gp100 which they could eventually release as a consumer card once the process ramps to really good yields and the demand for the card dies down a bit.
TSMC also said they taped out ~40 designs for 16FinFet before the end of 2014.A year late where?
It would seem nVidia is using TSMC as a foundry, and AMD is probably using Global Foundries. I wouldn't take for granted that the different foundries move in perfect lock step the next couple of nodes.
TSMC 10nm won't be a year late. They have already taped out a number of 10nm designs for customers. And while snafus are certainly possible, very large delays seem unlikely.
AMD not mentioning 10nm on their 2016-2018 Radeon roadmap does not leave me hopeful.Pretty sure 10nm will be fine, the reason why 20nm failed was because the lack of finfets, 20nm planer transistors the leakage was probably uncontrollable for larger and more complex chips.