Originally Posted by lutjens
The 1080 was known to be the small Pascal GPU and it was a well-known fact that the Titan version would be following. It's why many people held out for the Titan version of Pascal. So yes, it was a known "weaker and crappier part." As for the i7-5960X, it was an improvement over the 6-core crap from the past that Intel had the balls to call an "Extreme Edition", but still grossly inferior to what they are capable of making. It's why myself and many others have been nagging all levels of Intel to produce a better unlocked chip or to unlock the top SKU of Xeon. It's why I flew to IDF2015 to ask Genevieve Bell and the Intel fellows directly why Intel refuses to unlock the Xeon and was met with a deer-in-the-headlights look as she deferred the question. Efforts by myself and others (who want and need an unlocked processor with a higher core count) to convince Intel to release a more powerful Extreme Edition are one of the reasons why the i7-6950X exists at all.
So yes, I considered the i7-5960X a "weaker and crappier part" prior to the i7-6950X.
The current Tesla P100 uses GP100 which is a 610mm² chip with a 2:1 FP32:FP64 ratio and comes with 16GB HBM2. No matter how you slice it, the new Titan X is still a cut below that, so does that mean the new Titan X is still weaker and crappier part?
In any case that's certainly your prerogative of course, but also why I said the elitism was seeping through. The part in bold just adds to that. Excuse my bluntness but unless you're a prominent figure in the tech industry or you have a great amount of clout or really good PR value, are you really that self-conceited to think Intel would change its marketing strategy to cater to small minority?
A Quadro offers many professional features such as that Technical Support that are very useful during the day when one is using it to earn the bread and butter. At night, when using a card like that to game, those features aren't a concern, but being able to support SLi on a homebuilt system would be. It's being able to use the Quadro for both professional applications and still do occasional gaming that would make it a "best of both worlds" part. You don't have to take advantage of its feature all the time in order for it to perform both roles.
I didn't say you had to take advantage of the features "all the time", simply that if you didn't (ie not at all
), a Quadro would be a complete waste of money.
An E5-2699 V4 would not require a custom loop to keep it cool, but a custom loop would allow someone to fully maximize the chip's potential. A good AIO like the H110i would be fine to allow someone to get most of the performance potential from the chip. You could overclock 6-cores to 4.2GHz to handle the single-threaded tasks and then overclock the remaining cores to 3.2GHz and keep increasing the clocks slowly until thermals start to climb to uncomfortable levels. People paying a high price for such a chip are incredibly unlikely to abuse it and would just use whatever headroom the processor comfortably has under water cooling. Whatever the final clock speed ends up being, it ends up being. The point is that there is a great deal of performance being left on the table and if it were able to be used, it would attract many users who've disregarded the chip as a solution due to it's drawbacks at stock clock speeds and TDP.
If you're paying $4K for a CPU, it would be mind-boggling to leave potentially a lot of performance on the table simply because you couldn't keep thermals under control. And unless you overclock two cores to 4.7 or thereabouts, you're still compromising somewhat on single threaded performance. IIRC you mentioned that Intel's response to why they didn't unlock the top Xeon SKU was "because games don't need that many cores". Yes they equated "enthusiast" with "gamer", but it also shows they either didn't consider the market significant enough for such a product to warrant its release, or they simply didn't care period. I think it's fair to assume that Intel of all companies would not give up a lucrative market segment to increase their margins if the opportunity presented itself, so they must have other reasons for such a decision.
And as I mentioned in my earlier post, the $4K price alone would act as a huge deterrent for most, regardless of the performance potential. So no I still disagree it would attract "many" users.
Are there a lot of people who'd use the Quadro and Xeon in this way? Probably not a huge amount, but some would. The very high margin nature of these parts makes any additional sales worth big additional profits to these companies.
Well I don't disagree that a small minority would, but minority =/= some, and some definitely =/= many. Edited by magnek - 7/24/16 at 11:26am