vulcan1978
https://youtu.be/tXb-8feWoOE
 

I'll watch it later but do you have cliff notes please?

Man, Now That 1/2 hour clip explains a lot that I wanted to know about Nvidia.

Interesting breakdown.  Makes sense.

arestavo
"because with the higher sized node there is no room for a larger more powerful die than the 3090"

Tell that to the quadro version. Granted the leaks show only about 6% more Cuda cores - but it's still more.

Did he say that in the video? I must have missed that quote.

Near the end he concluded that there isn't room for a Titan version because the efficiency and noise is not good enough to make a marketable Titan.  To have similar power consumption and noise levels to previous Titans, the performance would be worse than a 3080. Having no room in the product stack isn't the same as having no room on the die.
 
Do we know that the Quadro version uses the same process, node size, and Samsung? If the reported inefficiency is true, the Quadro must be using something different.

hallowen
I was particularly interested in Igors Lab analysis concerning the extra amount of heat that will be generated by the air-cooled Ampere 30xx series due to the higher voltage / wattage Nvidia is implementing.
Looks like if you don't need an extra heater in your room, You had better use a water block for cooling these cards.

Heat is Heat, you are pump it out of the room. 

crazyst888

hallowen
I was particularly interested in Igors Lab analysis concerning the extra amount of heat that will be generated by the air-cooled Ampere 30xx series due to the higher voltage / wattage Nvidia is implementing.
Looks like if you don't need an extra heater in your room, You had better use a water block for cooling these cards.

Heat is Heat, you are pump it out of the room. 

No Problem, I'll be using Chilled Water Cooling with Hydro Coppers to be sure.

My A/C Conversion Chiller Exhausts the Heat outside my room.
Back atcha

He keeps talking about why all of a sudden Nvidia massively increased Cuda cores with Amphere (10496 - 3090) from the normal increase from generation to generation. 10496 is not the true Cuda core count for Amphere 3090. It is half that. Nvidia is using it as a marketing gimmick. The 3090 has 5248 true Cuda cores that can do two instructions per clock cycle so Nvidia markets it as 10496 Cuda cores.

"The RTX 3000 cards are built on an architecture NVIDIA calls "Ampere," and its SM, in some ways, takes both the Pascal and the Turing approach. Ampere keeps the 64 FP32 cores as before, but the 64 other cores are now designated as "FP32 and INT32.” So, half the Ampere cores are dedicated to floating-point, but the other half can perform either floating-point or integer math, just like in Pascal.
With this switch, NVIDIA is now counting each SM as containing 128 FP32 cores, rather than the 64 that Turing had. The 3070's "5,888 cuda cores" are perhaps better described as "2,944 cuda cores, and 2,944 cores that can be cuda.""

https://www.engadget.com/...LwfJ8-uW2Sbp49C3qZNm-R|

The truth is more interesting and nuanced. And none of those biased sources are accurately reporting what the core count actually is and what that actually means.

vulcan1978

kevinc313

vulcan1978
https://youtu.be/tXb-8feWoOE
 

I'll watch it later but do you have cliff notes please?

Basically NV went with Samsung 8nm EUV over TSMC 7nm because of wafer cost (~$3000 per AdoredTV's estimation vs $8000) but when you break down the yields with a 425mm2 chip (7nm equivalent to GA-102-200) the savings work out to being roughly $75 vs $47 or around $26 per yield but having made this decision NV has had to run the 8nm chips at much higher voltage and wattage (given the increased die size) and spend $155 on the FE cooler to mitigate the heat (per Igors Lab analysis) and they also have no Titan card this time around (because with the higher sized node there is no room for a larger more powerful die than the 3090) so they lost money on selling Titan cards and they will struggle to cool the mobile variants of this node in the laptops next year. They also pass the cost onto the consumer in the form of much higher electricity costs. 
 
Jim also points out that the 3090 is essentially a rebranded $1500 80 Ti (it's clearly not a Titan card, irrespective of their allusion to the Titan in their marketing), so yes, they are basically shafting everyone again with ridiculous prices. 

Ultimately they didn't save anything and this was a really stupid decision. 
 
The video is absolutely worth a watch, you can turn on closed captioning if you struggle with Jim's thick Irish accent. 
 
This is 100% spot on journalism here, there is no error prone speculating, it's very factual. 
 
I tried to post this over at r/Nvidia and the mods took it down within 5 minutes. 
 
 

Hot damn. 14 hours till the FE 3080 review drops.

hallowen

crazyst888

hallowen
I was particularly interested in Igors Lab analysis concerning the extra amount of heat that will be generated by the air-cooled Ampere 30xx series due to the higher voltage / wattage Nvidia is implementing.
Looks like if you don't need an extra heater in your room, You had better use a water block for cooling these cards.

Heat is Heat, you are pump it out of the room. 

No Problem, I'll be using Chilled Water Cooling with Hydro Coppers to be sure.

going the same route, minus the Chiller......winters coming.

My 1080Ti's have had EK Blocks on em since day 1......been running at 2050 Mhz with no issues....although I have since dialed back to 2035 .....no added voltage ...no BIOS Mods.....never get to much more than 42c under full load.......really hoping the 3080 with Block can reach somewhere around the same....we'll see soon.
 
Been a very long time since I'll have had only 1 Card in my Case !

flyingtoaster85

rjbarker
My 1080Ti's have had EK Blocks on em since day 1......been running at 2050 Mhz with no issues....although I have since dialed back to 2035 .....no added voltage ...no BIOS Mods.....never get to much more than 42c under full load.......really hoping the 3080 with Block can reach somewhere around the same....we'll see soon.
 
Been a very long time since I'll have had only 1 Card in my Case !

Was the 15 mhz loss due to degradation?

No not at all.....was doing some bench runs and sniffing around for 5.3 Ghz 9900K and decided to drop my GPU's down from 2050 to 2035 Mhz ......left em there...I havent run many Benchmarks since building this 9900K System and gaming sees miniscule gains from 2000 Mhz to 2050 Mhz.......I actually had both cards running at 2065 Mhz for quite awhile when I first got em........anything more not stable.
They literally have never seen more than 42c / 43c ..............its a pretty decent size .. Loop ;)

kevinc313

vulcan1978

kevinc313

vulcan1978
https://youtu.be/tXb-8feWoOE
 

I'll watch it later but do you have cliff notes please?

Basically NV went with Samsung 8nm EUV over TSMC 7nm because of wafer cost (~$3000 per AdoredTV's estimation vs $8000) but when you break down the yields with a 425mm2 chip (7nm equivalent to GA-102-200) the savings work out to being roughly $75 vs $47 or around $26 per yield but having made this decision NV has had to run the 8nm chips at much higher voltage and wattage (given the increased die size) and spend $155 on the FE cooler to mitigate the heat (per Igors Lab analysis) and they also have no Titan card this time around (because with the higher sized node there is no room for a larger more powerful die than the 3090) so they lost money on selling Titan cards and they will struggle to cool the mobile variants of this node in the laptops next year. They also pass the cost onto the consumer in the form of much higher electricity costs. 
 
Jim also points out that the 3090 is essentially a rebranded $1500 80 Ti (it's clearly not a Titan card, irrespective of their allusion to the Titan in their marketing), so yes, they are basically shafting everyone again with ridiculous prices. 

Ultimately they didn't save anything and this was a really stupid decision. 
 
The video is absolutely worth a watch, you can turn on closed captioning if you struggle with Jim's thick Irish accent. 
 
This is 100% spot on journalism here, there is no error prone speculating, it's very factual. 
 
I tried to post this over at r/Nvidia and the mods took it down within 5 minutes. 
 
 

Hot damn. 14 hours till the FE 3080 review drops.

You would like my replies over at the sister thread on OC.net (Vulcan1978): 
 
https://www.overclock.net/threads/nvidias-dumbest-decision-adoredtv.1773304/
 

I'm not active here, if you want to see my thoughts and replies to similar comments go here, here's my last update though:
 
Here's my comment from last night, before the reviews even went live: 
 
"
And basically, yeah Jim from AdoredTV is correct, the 3090 is ultimately the 2080 Ti all over again, this time +300 on top of $1200, and at 375 with a 450-500w maximum power draw on the efficiency curve it wont overclock like TU-102 (from 260w to 475w). You might get another 20% out of it at 450w whereas TU-102 @ 2200 MHz is like a 31% overclock (17,500-17,750 Timespy GPU). Basically NV had to pre-overclock the cards from the factory in order for Samsung 8nm EUV GA-102-300 to have a ~25% gap on TU-102 and for GA-102-200 to have a ~45% gap on it but when you overclock both cards reduce the final figure by 10% because TU-102 can overclock higher more (~30% vs ~20%). Again, 260w to 475w = 83% increase in power320 to 475w = ~48.3% increase in power Non-overclocked / shunted, top tier AIB (i.e. Kingpin): 260-320w =23% increase in power320-350 = 9% in power ("reference")320-370 = 15% in power (FE, limited run)   Overclocked 2080 Ti will be 15% slower than overclocked 3080 and 35% slower than the 3090 in rasterization. RT is a different story (leaked bench shows the 3080 doing Port Royal 45% faster than 2080 Ti, but we may as well reduce this amount by 10% at least comparing overclocked 2080 Ti to the 3080 considering that Samsung B-Die can do +1000 MHz whereas Micron runs too hot / requires more voltage and doesn't clock as high. I picked up 1k points in Port Royal solely from a memory overclock of +1000 MHz. That's fairly massive just from a memory overclock. 10,369: https://www.3dmark.com/pr/251502 vs the 3080 @ 11,412" And follow up this morning:  "Well well well, the 3080 does not clock higher just like I stated, and those leaked benches? Yeah those were legit, making the 3080 only 25% faster than the 2080 Ti in rasterization. Oh and hey, how about that non-existent overclock, a whopping +25 MHz on the core! Look at that 500 point increase in Timespy! What is this, 18,300 with an
overclock? 
 
Look at those screaming clocks! "1950-2000 MHz" OOOH YEAH, IT'S CLOCKING WAY HIGHER THAN TURING.
 
https://www.guru3d.com/ar...founder_review,31.html "Absolute Hype Disappoints Absolutely" - LTT 
 
https://youtu.be/AG_ZHi3tuyk
 
https://www.overclock.net/threads/nvidias-dumbest-decision-adoredtv.1773304/page-2