Only if you produce number of Vega II cards that fit exactly the MI50/60 sales.Every Radeon VII and hypothetical Vega II Nano is one less MI50 sold, period.
Vega 10 die size is 495mm2RX Vega 64 went through the same issue irrespective of the mining craze. There is a reason why it took so long to bring a considerable supply of Vegas to the consumer market at reasonable prices. Sure, you can get one today for less than $400. It's because they're finally obsolete! If you want AMD to be able to comfortable sell Vega II Nanos you would have to wait until 2020/2021 or so.
Um, no? There is no "exact" level of sales. Whatever they produce, they'll sell, at least between now and maybe late 2019/early 2020. Then sales will taper off in anticipation of new products. AI/deep learning is that hot.Only if you produce number of Vega II cards that fit exactly the MI50/60 sales.
You might think that mattered, but it really didn't, for the same reasons listed above. AMD was able to sell every Vega10 they made up through mid 2018 or so. Shortages were not related to die size or wafer availability.Vega 10 die size is 495mm2
I don't think that's quite the case. I believe that some of the early specs were misreported and Radeon VII doesn't have the same absurdly good FP64 rate as AMD's Radeon Instinct cards.Every Radeon VII and hypothetical Vega II Nano is one less MI50 sold, period.
That seems optimistic unless you mean that the yields are 70% if you factor in dies that can be salvaged.331mm2 is not that big of a die and yes I believe yields should be around 70% or better today at those sizes.
I don't think he meant disabling FP64 entirely, but disabling some of the FP64 related hardware so that the performance is lower than that of the Mi50. Although I am unsure as to if this is even an option.When have we ever seen a GPU die sold that had FP64 disabled due to defects?
He actually did.I don't think he meant disabling FP64 entirely, but disabling some of the FP64 related hardware so that the performance is lower than that of the Mi50. Although I am unsure as to if this is even an option.
I don't know if it's even that likely to occur. There's certainly some part of the silicon that's necessary for the chip to process FP64 instructions, but unless it's a large enough part of the circuitry, the odds of any defect occurring in those locations becomes incredibly small. With the rumors of 20,000 Radeon VII cards being available, they would have had to produce hundreds of thousands or even millions of Vega 20 dies just to get 20,000 that happen to fail as MI50/MI60 products, but could still make a useful consumer GPU.He actually did.
The issue at hand is this: AMD can sell ridiculous amounts of Vega20 dice as pro/AI cards for over $1k. So they have no financial incentive to sell any of them in consumer cards, except to keep the iron hot for their next gen consumer product (Navi). @Mopetar raised the possibility that AMD had some Vega20s with defects that made full FP64 performance unworkable (for whatever reason). Personally I've never heard of that happening before.
That's fine, and it can be instructive to follow such trains of thought. I agree that it is unlikely that the tiny silicon defects that would make FP64 unworkable at 1/2 rate while leaving the rest of the card functional would be probable or even possible.I just find it useful when examining something to break down all of the different possibilities, even if some of them are really unlikely.
For AMD's sake, I hope you are right. There is also the possibility that Navi will be slower than RX Vega 64 at launch, making it a $100-$200 midrange card as an upgrade for Polaris. I would rather not see a Navi product that is that slow. There is still the "tile" rumor that AMD will be able to launch faster Navi products by just adding tiles, meaning that eventually Navi would catch up to and surpass Vega20 in gaming performance. But we know so little about Navi that it is impossible to speculate about that now.[/quote][/QUOTE]One other theory (based on a lot of rumor and speculation) was that prior to getting initial Navi silicon back, AMD had started ramping up Vega 20 to compete with Turing so that they'd have something. Navi was reported to be better performing than AMD had expected (and later Turing being released with more focus on ray tracing than really driving traditional performance) so they decided to shift away from using an Vega 20 dies in consumer products, but still had some extra dies they had in anticipation of needing Vega for a consumer card.
It should be possible, or rather is almost certainly has to be possible. If it weren't AMD wouldn't be able to disable performance for Radeon VII except through software, and there would be a massive incentive to patch the functionality back in since it's worth several thousands of dollars per card if you can do that.That's fine, and it can be instructive to follow such trains of thought. I agree that it is unlikely that the tiny silicon defects that would make FP64 unworkable at 1/2 rate while leaving the rest of the card functional would be probable or even possible.
[Fudzilla] Radeon VII production cost $650+I would very much like you to analyse the BOM cost of the Radeon 7 card that drove you to the conclusion they already sell them at a loss.
Pretty sure they took the story that said Vega56/64 8GB of memory cost $160, so obviously double that would cost $320, right?This article doesnt provide any source of its claim that 16GB of HBM 2 cost $320 to AMD.
Heh, next year if AMD will release a 32GB HBM 2 card they will release a new article claiming the price of the memory will be $640Pretty sure they took the story that said Vega56/64 8GB of memory cost $160, so obviously double that would cost $320, right?
Vega64 cost: https://www.fudzilla.com/news/graphics/43731-vega-hbm-2-8gb-memory-stack-cost-160
Vega VII cost: https://www.fudzilla.com/news/graphics/48019-radeon-vii-16gb-hbm-2-memory-cost-around-320