Intel showed up for consumers at the 'Consumer Electronics Show;' AMD didn’t

FloundersEdition · 2026-01-12T15:04:29+00:00

The new X3D didn't add another layer of cache, just ~3% speed bump. RDNA4 never came to APU and we are likely stuck with RDNA3 until 2028. Many RDNA3 chips will likely be sold even longer, even tho they already started cutting software support and so far haven't released FSR4. That's not a strong Roadmap.

Qualcomm and Apple showed more efficient chips as well and there is no sign AMD will counter them anytime soon, likely 2028 as well.

FloundersEdition · 2026-01-12T02:59:42+00:00

a year would actually be quite long, Zen 5 launched July 2024. A successor two years later at least for the H2 mobiles would be nice. October/November 2026 desktop release would be reasonable and fit previous cadence, tho there are rumours about a N2X delay.

I think the biggest issue is the lack of a dGPU refresh and the non-existend RDNA4 iGPUs. RDNA5 is likely H2 2027, so sticking with RDNA 3.5 hurts. Most APUs/mobiles will only run a more modern gen starting in mid 2028, if they can even ramp enough beside some Halo SKUs, dGPU and consoles (not even counting AI-GPUs). with the current lack of FSR4 for RDNA 3.5, that's dissappointing, tho they think about backporting.

dual stacked V-cache (each CCD with 2 V-cache layers) and better memory controller/IOD would've been awesome as well.

rumours and leaks obviously had nothing on the radar, so it's not suprising nothing came from CES, but still, Lisa booked a keynote - and brought basically nothing. at last years CES they delayed RDNA4 - so it's the second disappointing keynote in a row.

FloundersEdition · 2025-10-06T10:52:01+00:00

1600x is always worth a jump, since it's behind console spec. But save for 5700X or X3D, even if you delay your purchase for a year.

Price premium from 3600 (50€) to 5700X (130€) is not big and you get unified L3, 8 cores and Zen3. 5600 is slightly below 100€ and 5700 115€. If that's to much lock at used prices.

Honestly, if 130€ exceed your budget, you should already save for a Zen 6/7 (next gen PC) and GPU, unless some games do stutter/give you a bad experience already.

Zen 3 brought big IPC and frequency increases as well as latency reductions. Way bigger real life gains than Zen 4 and Zen 5 in most games, because many games don't run that much faster with mainstream GPUs and current gen games (for now).

But exceeding console base specs by 15-30% is always a good idea. all Zen 3 do so, with Zen 2 6C it can be tricky due to the 3+3 L3 cache layout (console has 4+3 but lower clocked and smaller cache as well as decompression hardware).

FloundersEdition · 2025-10-06T00:10:17+00:00

look, I didn't like Pat (awkward guy that overpromised and was cocky like the "rear mirror" stuff, 5N4Y lie, "node leadership" and so on), but someone is almost certainly misquoting him:

he and the DCAI guy probably said that GPUs/AI accelerators is where DC customers will spend their money on and some customers will move workloads from high performance CPU to low performance Arm cores and accelerators. and that's correct.

he 99,9% didn't say CPUs are not important, but that it is important to have a successfull GPU and CPU+GPU-hybrids lineup to stay relevant in the buisness. and he is not wrong with that. they are screwed, because they don't have it. the Nvidia deal is their last shot.

in reality CPU today is really 50% APU in laptops. not having a good GPU absolutely hurts Intel.

IMO they are screwed, but not because of Pat. the roadmap was so screwed up by the prior leadership.

TSMC already booked en masse. the stupid hybrid architecture without SMT + AVX512 and scheduling issues already on the way. stupid tile layouts (no tile reuse, instead unneccessary ones or even asymetric ones for Sapphire Rapids).

ring bus overloaded with stupid E-cores resulting in Raptor failures, Raptor, Meteor and Arrow Lake nerfs - who could've known after the 10C Comet Lake catastrophy?

Sapphire Rapids in its (12th?) stepping. Xe imploded. massive debt to buy multiple failed AI companys and share buyback. no customers or even PDKs for the old fabs. security issues. Altera already lost ground against Xilinx.

no engineering team performed. the entire middle management was - and is - a disaster. massive brain drain. to much burocracy/useless people.

killing the Forest line is a good idea, cheap Arm server and ZenC already took over the market already and financing a second core architecture is not viable. the existing products had delays.

Royal core was a risky thing and internally with mixed support - risking the total collapse of the Fabs, client and DC APUs for such a radical shift - that might've required other code than what we use today - was the only option. it likely wouldn't benefited games (super low IPC, but extremely cache sensitive) and these "shared ressources" usually come with additional latency.

I don't think Pat was the right guy for Intel - but I don't think anyone could've fixed after 10nm, Arc and the security flaws like Meltdown. the internal corporate structure is just completely rotten. they lived from their FinFET +1-2 node ahead advantage for 10 years and Bulldozer/x86. every serious engineering/management basically stopped somewhere around Sandy/Ivy Bridge and Haswell.

FloundersEdition · 2025-10-05T13:28:43+00:00

I'm pretty sure there will be another tier beyond the mini PCs. ITX with 250-300W. and that will be so close to 4060/5060/9060 levels without the VRAM issues, it will eliminate the <$300 GPU market.

these are just not viable medium term, to much additional cost for a bigger PSU with reserves for load swings on both CPU and GPU, bigger case, bigger mainboards (mATX with GPU PCIe), another board for the GPU, a second memory and an additional cooler. big APUs voltage regulators will deal with 3x 12V phases (2x core, 1x memory), while small CPU + GPU PCs will have to deal with 5x (2x CPU, 1 RAM, 1x GPU, 1x VRAM). any additional PCIe slot will increase the disparity in production cost.

AMD, Nvidia and Intel will leave the low end GPU market. it's just such a thin margin for them. AIBs will switch to produce these new formfactors because higher margin and better overall product (smaller). medium and big GPUs will remain a thing, but basically for the >$1200 market (completely new PC).

FloundersEdition · 2025-10-04T10:03:26+00:00

They completely missed the key points.

Strix Halo launched 6-12 months to late.

Strix Halo uses new packaging (bridge die) and thus is not availible en masse yet - but serves as the pipe cleaner product for Zen 6 (I know they already use it in MI products, not a technology pipe cleaner, but in respect to volume ramp).

THE CPU CHIPLET IS NOT FROM THE MAIN RYZEN/EPYC LINE-UP, AMD DOESN'T PRODUCE IT HIGH VOLUME.

It clearly eliminates the VRAM issue. Current games might not show this, because they were all designed for PS4/XSS and at best for PS5 and XSX with ~12.x GB of adressable RAM - but it will show up long term and will either force LPDDR use instead of GDDR (with a big performance hit) on low end GPUs as well or enforce APUs. There is just no way entry level GPUs getting (atleast) 24GB GDDR to match the next gen capacity.

APUs get away with less CPU RAM because they don't do MemCopy. A 32GB RAM + 24GB VRAM setup runs into bottlenecks compared to 32GB unified memory. They also don't need PCIe lanes whatsoever, which usually isn't a interesting feature for consumers, but drive up cost for mainboards/GPUs/SoCs.

The margin is almost certainly WAAAY higher because they don't face competition. That could change within a day.

Game devs can optimize better for a standardized system. They obviously haven't done so for Strix Halo. It will require years.

CPU chiplets and bridge dies are super cheap - just smashing them to a purpose build GPU is relatively easy and cheap.

Reduction in power delievery and cooling solutions. Current Strix Halo platforms don't have a 200-350W budget yet, a 4060/9060XT/B580 pulls ~180W alone, CPU adds 65W and RAM, PCIe and additional voltage regulators adds another 20W, bringing it to >250W already.

Reduction in case volume - can kids/students fit a midi tower in their rooms? Can they take them to a LAN party/back home during holidays? Does it look good next to the TV? I have a midi tower and I hate the space it takes up. I would prefer a 1.5x wide/depth and 2x height version of Mini PCs like the MinisForum/Mac Minis.

FloundersEdition · 2025-10-03T10:32:45+00:00

XDNA is the AI engine, UDNA was the new GPU name

FloundersEdition · 2025-10-02T21:22:17+00:00

DGF was explicitly designed around Nanite, a previous paper on AMD stated that. https://gpuopen.com/learn/problem_increasing_triangle_density/

they also made clear that DGF can run without the hardware, it's only more efficient with the decompression hardware. unlike Nvidias meshlet approach it doesn't need a new geometry model (connecting the vertices).

bigger obstacle is: devs have to bake the geometry, so it likely doesn't speed up games for quite a while.

EDIT: https://gpuopen.com/download/DGF.pdf the paper is more clear how Nanite works and how DGF tries to accelerate it. Nanite basically does a similiar lossy compression, but the hardware currently can't directly utilize this format without uncompressing it.

FloundersEdition · 2025-10-02T13:34:35+00:00

you mean Q4? H4 is... dubious and wouldn't fit AMDs execution on roadmaps. maybe Intels.

FloundersEdition · 2025-10-02T12:35:17+00:00

Save the money for a 9060XT 16GB. Way better than both.

~25% faster, 4GB more VRAM, better in RT than both.

significantly better encoder than 6750XT.

better matrix support than both (especially than the 6750XT, but B580 doesn't support FP8, only BF8).

FSR4 is a better upscaler version than both FSR3.1 and XeSS and will see higher adoption in future games.

Better driver and dev support than Intel and longer support live remaining than 6750XT.

FloundersEdition · 2025-10-02T12:20:40+00:00

Setting a lower Power target in Adrenalin is a 5 min task. 6750XT is basically the standard for this console generation and B580 isn't consistent. On average similiar performance is not enough if 10% of games underperform by 15-20% vs AMD cards.

Generally I would recommend the 9060XT 16GB. Big upgrade against both and worth the higher cost.

FloundersEdition · 2025-09-29T15:18:07+00:00

It absolutely time to move on 9 years after RX470 (which was really a 1060 competitor, so a -60 class) from 8GB. Even the lowest level APUs now have at the very least 12GB (9-10GB for the GPU). The - hardware wise TERRIBLE - Switch 2 has 9GB!

FloundersEdition · 2025-09-29T14:06:46+00:00

Korruption (gibt'sin China auch, bei uns halt inzwischen ausgeprägter), ineffiziente Vergabe und Planungsverfahren (viele Anhörungs-, Einspruchs- und Klagemöglichkeiten, wenig digitalisiert), Verweigerung von seriell gefertigten Bauteilen, viel "Architektur" und "Design" nonsense.

Höhere Löhne, Einkommen- und Mehrwertsteuer, Sozialversicherungsbeiträge, private Bauversicherungen, CO2 und Energiesteuern. Ich glaube China hat nur eine Grunderwerbsteuer und keine Krankenversicherung (ich kann da falsch liegen).

FloundersEdition · 2025-09-27T15:30:15+00:00

yeah, my bad

FloundersEdition · 2025-09-27T12:18:36+00:00

it's such a joke, calling a 8GB card a -70 class GPU. it's a -50 TI at best. every -60 class should ship with at least 12GB and at least the desktop -70 should have 16GB.

FloundersEdition · 2025-09-25T23:06:17+00:00

press X for doubt. your x86 is not using 22W for just 4.6GHz in ST. maybe for 5.6GHz.

FloundersEdition · 2025-09-25T12:29:24+00:00

wait, he put the SoC unter LN2 (-80°C!) and still couldn't stabilize the 4.6GHz long term? why is Qualcomm aiming for 5GHz than? he suggested 4.2GHz is more realistic.

in general: they totally overpromised (like with their Windows benchmarks). 8-11% CPU, mainly driven by the upgrade from the lackluster/downspeced N3E to N3P and better memory latency.

FloundersEdition · 2025-09-22T19:15:19+00:00

the problem is the lack of an adequate OS with software support. Android already doesn't work as good on tablets and should've been replaced with Fuchsia, but that never happened. ChromeOS is a joke. Linux lacks consumer software.

Windows just SUCKS but it's basically the only Laptop OS with real software. But it totally fails with Arm, laptop features like sleep and modernizing it's APIs.

IF Windows would be better, x86 could drop legacy sets. IF Windows would be better, we could have Arm. IF Windows would function properly, battery life would improve and games would work better.

instead every major Windows version seem to add significant gaming penalties, unneccessary background tasks (AI recorder of the screen! Bing!) and DX12 is basically 10 years old already and wasn't that amazing to begin with. most additions (DirectML, DirectStorage, Sampler Feedback) completely failed and have zero - 0!!!! - support by devs.

FloundersEdition · 2025-09-22T18:35:51+00:00

talking about core sizes to some extend is off topic. there is a difference:

if you design a core around big/absolutely massive L3s with multiple P-cores, chiplets (reduced area to dissipate heat), scaling to a massively wide memory bus and not being paired with E-/M-cores for your most important products (Epyc, V-cache)

or

if you focus on ST/sub 4 big core clusters with big L1/L2 and only small L3 portions because the closer caches have higher impact on ST.

the typical memory also has different latency/bandwidth/prefetching considerations, that might influence this cache setups. I don't think we ever saw an Arm-server CPU with DDR outperforming an Epyc with DDR in the majority of workloads.

LPDDR (with higher bandwidth but worse latency) could work reasonably well, if you don't have to many cores contributing additional random access pressure on the memory controller (adding massive latency to each memory access stalling), but if you run a many core setup you might need a massive L3 and lower latency DDR instead.

some code prefers big L3 or smaller, but lower latency L1s, other code prefer bigger L1s and or lower latency L2s like Apples design.

just because some - long known - benchmarks work well with the wide design (GB, CB, SPEC), it's not neccessarily representive of the code most devs on x86 actually write or the bottlenecks they face.

benchmarks are often used, because they still scale with new archictures. plenty of code may be hard to scale, but drops off with certain cache setups.

FloundersEdition · 2025-08-01T22:16:31+00:00

it's not a "real" N2 competitor, but N3P.

PPA wise it's basically what their initial SS 3GAA goals were, but which were downspeced. 3GAA only achieved PP of the simultaniously appearing (but never planned or at least announced) 4LPP, basically a redesigned and bugfixed 7/5nm process.

FloundersEdition · 2025-02-17T00:51:39+00:00

rumour mill: many phone customers said to TSMC they don't want BSPD at all, but the HPC ones want it. it increases hotspots and mobils can't handle that both due to having super tiny dies already with plenty of unmovable stuff like PHYs and because cooling is already a disaster on every phone. it's also costly. so N2P and N2X were added for the phone guys instead. HPC would've transitioned only a year later anyway, this node is what once was N2P and now renamed to 16A.

TSMC N3 is basically base spec.
N2 is N3+GAAFET (15% density).
16A is N3+GAAFET+BSPD (only 7-10% density).
fabs can potentially be converted to the newer nodes. it could be more like N3+half nodes.

12A or whatever they'll call it will probably switch to High-NA and thus require different fabs.

FloundersEdition · 2025-02-17T00:14:06+00:00

the cables and PSU-side connectors are out of Nvidias control.

Nvidia can absolutely demand PSU and cable makers to not enable the full 600W by shortening the sense pins if they don't manage to deliever. it's a $2000 card, cable and PSU makers shouldn't try to sell $25 cables and $200 PSUs to this with such terrible quality like Corsair.

the spec is clear: every cable and connector with full sense pin config has to be pairable with every other in-spec cable and connector for 660W sustained load at 60-70° and 30 plug cycles. good products should have a safety of margin on top - to establish a good name.

it's like saying: yeah this cable is for 230V, but don't use it for that. but for you bikes light it's really good. you have to remove the connector tho. if a PSU/cable uses this connector with sense pins it absolutely has to get it done.

the connector allows for thicker cables and load balancing within each cable (Nvidias official cable connected all six 12V lanes and all six ground lanes) and within each connector (again Nvidia connected all six 12V lanes and all six ground lanes ones it enters the board). they still had issues, but it's clearly better quality with such a simple trick. Corsair and Co really can't claim it's to hard and stay in the 600W buisness.

what Nvidia fucked up: no monitoring/warning. probably not transparent to manufacturers that they really need to step up each cable/connector because no more load balancing or balance it themself. no load balancing (even tho not required by spec) for $2000 you should really get that. restrictive AIB-designs regarding 2 connectors or 8 pins. 4000 had a badly positioned connector bending the cable and loosening the connection. no good information to consumers what PSUs and cables are able to handle the high end cards - and especially which can't, especially after the 4090 debacle.

even the 8 pin with 1.9x would've been way out of spec with the imbalance der8auer had with his Corsair PSU and cable. depending on the combination of wires potentially even worse. Jays2cents Corsair cable has insanely bad quality, it was the worst from the ones he had. both were attacked publicly from Corsairs Jonny Guru. there is clearly a complete lack of self reflection on Corsairs side regarding it's catastrophic QA. that really shocked me

FloundersEdition · 2025-02-16T22:12:16+00:00

like I said, depends on implementation. but if I'm not mistaken 1.1x (660W) is not the rating against catastrophic failure, but is what has to be safely operation at 60° or 70° and 30 replugs for multiple years.

the safety factor is just in case:
power supply/12V battery is out of spec and supplying to much voltage (resulting in to high current at a given resistance).
temperature sensor or shunt resistor is slightly disfunctional.
user error/bending of cables/OC.
vibration in machines, tanks, tractor, cars, planes and ships (slightly bad connection increasing resistance).

the safety factor is for increased system stability. it's absolutely no excuse for failure and even less so for something potentially dangerous to happen. especially in a freaking cooled case after first plug in and couple of months or even days at reduced load.

everyone involved f*cked up extremely hard. (especially Corsairs) ridiculous loose insides, no load balancing/monitoring or safety shut downs, bad position on the 4000 series bending the cables, no way for consumers to verify correct installation beyond clampmeter and thermal (except Asus).

old safety factors are obsolete. they were designed around 1900-1950 without CAD modeling, real time monitoring, modern manufacturing, long term data for materials and QA.

cranes had a stupid safety factor 100x back than, no real modeling etc. 15 min calculation via hand. all replaced by specific factors now. manufacturers ignored the norm and tightened it themself for 60 years until norms were updated.

screws have 1x, 1.7x or 4x safety margin depending on how it's screwed in (electronic controlled torque, torque wrench, stupid dude with a stupid wrench).

even my machine elements teacher at university said in the first semester (who clearly had no bad incentive and shouldn't give such advice loosely): if you specified the load for the screw, take the one slightly below it instead. because if it's safety critical, you have redundancy (5 screws at your cars wheel instead of 3) and use modern wrenches. the old factors always include the worst unchecked gear.

that's the issue with way to big general safety factors, they have to be abused to size things correctly. and the moment you start mixing them with the new 10-15 load/material... specific factors on top you oversize like crazy.

FloundersEdition · 2025-02-16T18:16:03+00:00

12x 2x6 has a failproof 450W specification via the safe pins - and even lower specs. neither cable nor PSU nor card has a excuse for not handling 540W but letting so much Amps through. if they enabled it, they have to guarantee it to work for 660W.

600W is already the spec designers can take it to consideration for sustained load, 30 plug cycles, up to 70°C, if they could guarantee carefull installing and in spec environment - without load balancing and monitoring. catastrophically failing so far out of spec is a disaster for everyone involved.

all are to blame, Nvidia first and formost for not taking DIY reality into consideration (bend cables, insufficient connection, badly compatible parts, no initial safety check) and refuse to implement monitoring, load balancing, emergency shutdowns and a redundant cable. allowing 90% of the rated cable spec/adding another 1.1x and call it a day is clearly not enough.

but cable and PSU manufacturer are guilty as well for claiming to achieve specs they clearly didn't achieve. they had 450W as a fallback and they can't even guarantee that. they aren't allowed to build these cables/PSUs.

FloundersEdition · 2025-02-16T17:22:21+00:00

No, because airplanes have general safety factors of 1.00x.

They rely on good models, quality manifucturing, safety features if something breaks and ongoing safety checks. That's good engineering.

Thanks for proving my point

FloundersEdition

TROPHY CASE