Graphics AMD RADEON R9 390X (unboxing)

I disagree as the chart explicitly starts with:

NVIDIA Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU Specifications:

then lists the Maxwell gpu part as 20nm

 

Well to be pedantic it actual says "Tegra X1 (Maxwell GPU)" With the Maxwell GPU part being in brackets so I would consider to mean the wording in the brackets are aside from the main point, that main point being the stats in the chart.

Maybe someone else can clarify things as everything I've read says the Tegra X1 uses ARM Cortex A57 & A53 CPU built on 20nm, paired with a Maxwell 2 GPU built on 28nm, I'm no expect in SOC design so would be interested if your right and the Maxwell 2 GPU inside the Tegra X1 is indeed fabricated using 20nm.

 

whereas to me it would be incredibly inefficient to build one part of the SoC for 1 fab process and another part on a different process.

imagine the cost of merging 1 SoC from 2 different wafers!

I think you`ll find the whole lot is on a single wafer and its all 20nm

 

Well strictly speaking not many (if any) chips use a single node size, when we refer to AMD & Nvidia using 28nm that's only talking about the actual transistors, other parts of the chips may well be using a larger fabrication technique.

 

TBH, we're discussing the 390 and PC hardware. While I get that Nvidia may be at 20nm, does this really mean that they can produce a much higher power drawing PC part on a process designed for small, low power products. Probably not. The rumours for Pascal are 14nm, and while they are rumours, I've seen nothing about 20nm Pascal. I suppose only time will tell.

 

Where did this come from?
Is this actually legit info?

 

Well that news is confusing.

R9 Fury X ($649)
R9 Fury ($549)
R9 Nano
R9 Fury Dual GPU

The latter two are due summer and beyond, but all the Fury branded cards use HBM (4GB limit) and are apparently more power efficient (though AMD don't want to share numbers). The R9 300 series then seem to slot in underneath these cards, entirely made up of re-brands.

 

Probably from PCPer, Linus and the other one I can't remember, who threw a few twitter comments out about it. I believe Guru3D said that they will be getting one after the announcement/release. Seemed like a storm in a teacup mixed with sour grapes from the first 3 tbh, I've not heard any other sites confirm or deny they'll be getting one.

@Cei They gave us a the Nano stating it was 2x perf/watt then saying it used half the power of the 290x - so think 970. And for the others, I'm fairly sure I caught 275W average for one of the Fury/ Fury X. I missed the 300 series part, so no idea what's going on there.

 

I got 1.5x performance per watt, but hey, lets wait for the real numbers. It does look like it's aiming for the same market as the 970 Mini.

 

1.5x was the Fury/x , Nano hit 2x. Though what is weird is in the Video Dr Su actually mentions "significantly more performance than a 290x" with half the power and 2x perf/watt so who knows! Good stuff either way. I liked what I saw of Quantum too, looked rather interesting.

 

source: https://twitter.com/anshelsag/status/610879971532386304

 

thats a small dual GPU card.

 

Corky

https://twitter.com/hms1193/status/610879657454489600

reply from the man who broke the news regarding Tegra X1.

and it was from PCPer regarding FuryX

 

Yea, sorry to say I'm not willing to take his word as gospel on the subject, even if he is the senior editor at WCCFTech, his wording is ambiguous and it seems he's only repeating what the marketing blurb says.

Maybe we should start a new thread as we seem to be taking this one a little OT.