I mean Nvidia was planning a 142SM 2.95Ghz Boost 4090 Ti according to XpeaGPU on Twitter in reserve against AMD if the 7900 XTX could dethrone the 4090 even in raster. And Blackwell apparently as at least a doubling of ROPs per GPC and whatever architectural changes planned for Blackwell (I mean Lovelace is basically a souped up Ampere on TSMC Custom N5). So I can see a full 5090 Ti doing like 70-ish% faster raster or so.
Frenetic Pony
Veteran
We can judge by arch and available bandwidth: 384bit bus for power/heat island reasons. 32/21 = 1.52. 32gbps is the fastest "standard" and thus likely, GDDR7 available anytime soon, though Samsung's "we can totally achieve (?deliver though?) 36gbps is indeed 71% faster than the 4090's.
So 50% is likely, 70% as an outside chance. Not much room to get around bandwidth otherwise that's available by early next year so that feels like a pretty good prediction.
Either way I'll go with "Blackwell is a massively scaled up/monolithic arch, again, because all Nvidia cares about at the moment is AI so that's where 99% of the engineering goes". Meaning that ludicrous 128mb SRAM cache leak might be true.
So 50% is likely, 70% as an outside chance. Not much room to get around bandwidth otherwise that's available by early next year so that feels like a pretty good prediction.
Either way I'll go with "Blackwell is a massively scaled up/monolithic arch, again, because all Nvidia cares about at the moment is AI so that's where 99% of the engineering goes". Meaning that ludicrous 128mb SRAM cache leak might be true.
Guess I'll have to move the 4090 to my folding rig and upgrade to a 5090 next year 
What would be the need for a doubling of ROPs?
DegustatoR
Legend
We really don't know much about Blackwell yet. Any SM numbers are thus completely pointless to suggest because we don't know the extent of changes inside these SMs.
Quick comparison:
AD107 - 24SM, 128 bit | +4 SM, +17%
AD106 - 36 SM, 128 bit | +8 SM, +22%
AD104 - 60SM, 192 bit | +12 SM, +20%
AD103 - 80 SM, 256 bit | +28 SM, +35%
AD102 - 144SM, 384 bit | +48 SM, +33%
They seem like reasonable guesstimates at first glance
Depends if it's really pcie5 x8 only, Samsung did just SSD that does pcie5 x2 or x4 on lower speeds
So it would be 5.0x8 or 4.0x16? To do all the work to connect 16 lanes only to disable half of them on most systems would be odd.
Well a full GB202 being 70% faster raster than a 4090. Defintely don't a full die 5090 Ti having 70+ percent faster raster than the canned 4090 Ti.
Increase raster peformance, I get the impression Blackwell is kinda similar to Maxwell in some respects; focusing potentially on "real world" performance over just simpy raw compute, like compare GTX 980 Vs GTX 680 (basicallly GM204 Vs GK104) and you see architecture to architecture a quite large leap on the same process (70% raster jump according to Techpowerup GTX 680 page: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-gtx-680.c342). And since GB202 & 203 are likely to be on 3nm which is a singificant shrink then I can see a pretty good performance jump even if RT & PT get more of a focus. Like if RGT is right and die to die is basically 60% from AD102/103 to GB202/203 in raster with RT & PT way higher then that's a great jump (hell even 50% raster with 100% PT would be great apples to apples i.e. a 5080 Ti/Super with full GB203 die over the 4080 Super).
Yeah, which makes me think 202 & 203 use N3E while the other three use N4P which despite being small shrink from N5 is probablyy good enough, like if a full 18GB G7 (3GB modules) GB205 config is on par with a 4080 Super with less power consumption like 250W then that's good enough if priced appropriately.
I thought ROPs were of little use now and never a bottleneck in practice.
Same here since we seem to be "stuck" in 4K for the foreseeable future.
It’s almost guaranteed to be monolithic given chiplets haven’t been shown to provide any advantages for gaming GPUs. Not yet at least.
Bigger caches would be nice. Bigger register files too. Higher clocks would make it a trifecta.
Frenetic Pony
Veteran
RDNA3 costs less to build than RDNA2, chiplets are all about lowering cost, there's no performance advantage and never will be.
Well, at some point it's going to be less expensive to build chiplets versus a monolithic die with the same capacities. AD102 is already 75 billion transistors, which is along the same lines as a full Threadripper 7995wx, which is 96 hardware cores, 192 hardware threads, 486MB of total cache, an octal-channel memory controller, and a 128-lane PCIe Gen5 root complex. Sure, we have a little more room to continue cramming hojillions of transistors into a single die, but we're getting awfully close to the end of the road appearing on the horizon.
It already is cheaper according to the post you quoted? In fact the whole post was about it being cheaper to do RDNA3 (chiplets) vs RDNA2 (mono)
Is that an official statement from AMD including packaging costs? There’s no guarantee the economics are the same for Nvidia.
Sorry, Trinibwoy is where my thoughts were going. I'm not sure if it's objectively true that monolithic dies are cheaper (for now), but I wager there's a point in time where it's literally not possible to create a bigger chip any longer. Somewhere around that point, it won't even be a matter of economics, it will be a matter of physical necessity.
Of course N5 is more expensive. That's why they use less of it and N6 for rest. N33 being so small chiplets weren't feasible so they went N6 only.