That would be really promising for Intel...if the TR-2950X was AMD's best processor. It isn't even from their current gen.
CUDA support. A very large portion of their discrete GPU relevance is built around it.
I mean, they have AMD cards only in new Mac Pro's? They cannot into CUDA, right?
No, AMD GPUs don't have CUDA cores. This is one of the primary things that attracts photo editors and other graphic artists who work with software that benefits from CUDA acceleration, and obviously Mac is more geared towards those users than it is towards gamers.
Damn it, Mick, I know what CUDA is for.
Just because they didn't put those in the latest iteration doesn't mean the competition wouldn't be good for the future. They renew their laptop lines much more frequently, and they also have the iMac line.
Yes. Exactly. They dont put nvidia products in their new stuff, and dont want to waste resourses to support it. However, getting rid of MacOS is quite a task. We'll see how they proceed with that. I think they wanted to get rid of x86 on desktop as well?
Eventually, yeah, I think that's where they want to go. ARM is more power efficient, and right now the rails are pointed towards greater parallel processing (i.e. more GPUs) if one doesn't require mobility. This is one of the reasons some are pausing at the drop in support for NVIDIA, I believe. As it mentions in the article, without concern for CUDA, they have maintained OpenGL support for NVIDIA (since it also operates on that) for external GPUs such as when a professional wants to connect to an external GPU rack using the lightning port, for example, and with little effort since NVIDIA does so much on its side to provide support on the OpenGL standard. This ends that.
Silicon Lottery finally released actual binning data on these chipsets (it's already disappeared from their website, btw, but WCCF Tech recorded it above). Practically speaking, with a 4.3 GHz ceiling observed even among the best 1/5th of 3800X chips, if you're lucky enough to get one, like all the other Matisse chips, you still won't eclipse the PBO+Max performance of the same chip in games, and in fact, one wouldn't expect the best-overclocking 3800X chips to beat the 3700X in most games (due to the 4.3GHz-4.4GHz turbo spikes on the 3700X's top cores).WCCFTech said:Silicon Lottery recently released some Ryzen 3000 binning data and this suggests the better quality silicon has been reserved for the 3800X. The top 20% of all 3800X processors tested passed their 4.3 GHz AVX2 stress test, whereas the top 21% of all 3700X processors were only stable at 4.15 GHz. Also, all 3800X processors passed the test at 4.2 GHz, while 3700X processors were only good at 4.05 GHz, meaning the 3800X has about 150 MHz more headroom when it comes to overclocking.
Silicon Lottery AMD Ryzen 3000 Binning Results
In other words, the average 3800X should overclock better than the best 3700X processors, but it's still a minor 6% frequency difference we’re talking about between the absolute worst 3700X and the absolute best 3800X per their testing. For more casual overclockers like us the difference will likely be even smaller. Our 3700X appears stable in our in-house stress test and to date hasn’t crashed once at 4.3 GHz. This is the same frequency limit for the retail 3800X we got. As for the TDP, that’s confusing to say the least, but we'll go over some performance numbers first and then we’ll discuss what we think is going on.
Yes AND No
At this point I think most would tell you the greatest advantage has nothing to do with graphics or hardware, but the ability to play pretty much any game ever made in history-- including specifically the most loved ones-- outside a few dozen blocked behind Sony's PS4 and Nintendo's Switch/Wii-U exclusive walls.
