Rumored TDP listed in the article for the 3080 is 150W, not 250W.On paper, the 3080 doesn't sound bad, but I'm wondering about the power consumption. Looks like this will be another generation of hot cards. Not that it's a deal breaker or anything, but at 250W being "mid-range" is a hard sell for the expected performance of the high end
Yep Nvidia has the performance crown but most that buy GPUs are looking for cards in the $200 to $300 range that is where the majority spend their money. If AMD wins that segment they will be doing great.If the specs and pricing is true, Nvidia will be scrambling to lower prices. They'll still hold the performance crown, but price/performance could sway towards AMD.
I read a leak the other day for Linux drivers that seems to point Navi as being just another iteration of GCN. If thats the case then they are basically just shrinking and improving GCN to 7nm. The benefits will mostly be the power draw from 7nm but I don't know if performance will be much better, or at least enough to compete evenly model for model with nVidia.If the 3060 uses the same die as the 3070, then it means the 3070 is down to 128bits-wide bus. I hope AMD pulled a small memory efficiency miracle to make it work out fine. I was hoping for a 192bits bump and 6GB baseline for the lower-midrange as 4GB seems too low for RX580-class performance on the 3060.
I don't care which manufacturer, Intel or AMD they are both stupid when it comes to motherboard namingI do hope the rumored names are not correct though but considering AMD took similar Intel chipset names only one gen ahead I would not be surprised if they are planning on doing the same in the GPU market.
Why? If all your chipsets have a base model of Axx0, the 0 is superfluous and could be used for revisions which would make more sense than changing the letter which typically stands for product line.No need to change the letter, eg A320, A350, A370 - this makes so much more sense, then the revision would be the LETTER going up....