Samsung claimed a SRAM size of 0.030 um², CCP of 44 nm and MMP of 36 nm on their proposed roadmap. Intel's 10 nm has a SRAM size of 0.031 um², CCP of 54 nm and MMP of 36 nm. It's unknown if they will even come close to these since we know their newer, proposed 5 nm demoed alongside IBM a few weeks back has a CCP of 48 nm (coupled possibly with a rather agressive gate scaling).

Obviously no upcoming technology and the ones sponsoring it are going to make a presentation claiming it's going to be worse. EUV has a couple of theoretical advantages, but it's extremely complex and expensive to get it right - so, time and time again, for years now, another lithographic technology was preferred over implementing EUV.

Both TSMC's 10 nm and GloFo's 7 nm are denser than Samsung's 10 nm. It's just a question of whether GloFo can get it to the market before Samsung's 8-7 nm manage to do on H2 2019 at earliest. GloFo had 32 nm and 28 nm ready before Samsung, anyway, not to mention Samsung is following a different path this time around, improving their 10 nm design, so I'm not sure why you are so offended by the possibility GloFo manages to have a denser node for a year or so.

Besides, do try to do with less teenage internet slang and passive-agressiveness and more arguments the next time around, otherwise I'm going to assume you don't know much about what you are talking about, and not even bother to discuss.

Here are the Steam stats for June.

The RX 500-series and the GTX 1080 Ti are still missing :(

The GTX 1060 is the new popularity king with 5% of the 236 million (SteamSpy estimate) Steam accounts.

What other lithographic technology ? The only other lithography technology we used was 193nm ArF immersion lithography which we used for over a decade. Scanner technology has lagged for years until EUV came around ... 

Kind of funny that you're pitting GloFo with Samsung at the time when the latter only entered high end chip manufacturing in a little over half a decade ago whereas the former started as a spinoff from AMD's foundry unit with chartered semiconductor. Samsung had 32nm ready with the Exynos 4 at the same time as GloFo did with Bulldozer despite only having one year of experience in chip manufacturing. What you said about who offered 28nm first wasn't true either as just after 3 years of experience, Samsung went on to humiliate GloFo by offering 28nm first with the Exynos 5 6 months before GloFo was ready with Steamroller ... 

GloFo had to cancel 20nm which resulted in AMD cancelling project SkyBridge and then GloFo went on to cancel their own 14nm technology so that they could license 14nm from Samsung and they still failed hard with that one since they couldn't meet orders for the Apple A9 ... 

In that timeframe just after licensing Samsung's technology, GloFo was faced with taking in another failing chip manufacturing unit from IBM by being paid $1.5B and before that GloFo had joined the IBM reseach alliance so what does all this have to say about GloFo as a supplier for their customers ? 

I've never once seen GloFo having an advantage in terms of density or time to market and LOL for you implicating that I'm offended about GloFo beating Samsung to the punch when I'm just laying down facts and the realistic scenario considering GloFo is created from a bunch of rejects ... 

It's hilarious that you assume that I don't know much because of temperament but that doesn't get in the way from addressing your points ... 

So all the recent vega news continues to be disappointing considering their current Vega gpu is between a 1070 and a 1080. Although granted that this is a workstation series card but man... Unless they got a Titan killer for like the price of a 1070 or something between a 1070/1080. This is gonna be zzz worthy.,.. Cause at this rate, even if AMD undercuts Nvidia's prices of a 1080's current price, Nvidia can cut the price of a 1080.

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Radeon-Vega-Frontier-Edition-16GB-Air-Cooled-Review/Rise-Tomb-Raider

Amd has struck gold in CPU with Ryzen as intel continues to fumble but now they need to find a way to do something with their GPU division. Although with the amount of bank Nvidia is making with it's entrance into Ai and cars as well it's dominance into GPUs, maybe that task is a bit too much for little old AMD. We shall see though.

http://wccftech.com/amd-takes-10-4-cpu-share-intel-q2-2017-largest-single-quarter-share-gain-history/

The x60 cards have always been the most popular Nvidia cards, except the rare ocasions when the x70 was well priced.

A shame we still don't have numbers from all the cards.

Taking back 10.4% of the market in just one quarter is... too good to be good? I mean, Ryzen CPUs are proving to be worth purchasing, but gaining so much ground is very, very surprising.

Vega... well, let's see how the consumer products fare before we judge them a failure (tho I've been saying that they would perform between a 1070 and a 1080 since they were first announced)

Yeah surely he's under warranty although maybe it's more then 2 years old and not covered.  If something I pay big money for breaks though it always annoys me.  I bought a pair of astro a50 headphones a few months ago and recently they broke for no reason.  Just stopped working.  I can get them replaced but the inconvenience is annoying. 

Well, PassMark’s "market share data" is based on benchmark submissions, and of course there will be a lot more benchmarking for a new CPU architecture (which gets a lot of optimization in the first months) than for an established CPU architecture with no big performance surprises.

So far the AMD gain in the Steam survey ain't that impressive:

But most gamers probably aren't that eager to replace their CPUs (plus mainboard plus RAM) as long as their old CPU/mainboard/RAM combination is still fast enough for 60 fps in most games with the right GPU. A graphic card is much easier to replace and delivers higher performance differences.

And thanks to the slow CPUs in consoles and the shift to higher resolutions most multiplatform games will have their focus on GPU performance while the needed CPU-power stagnates the next years.

It depends on the games you are trying to play and the resolution you are targetting. For example, if you are targetting 1080p, than you can play most if not all games at max settings at 60fps with a 1060. If you are targetting 1440p, then you are gonna need a 1070 or higher. Now Civ 6 and Total War aren't very GPU intensive games since they rely much more on cpu. So depending on the setup you have, I'd check where the bottleneck is before upgrading but all in all, I'd suggest a minimum of a 1060 assuming your current gpu is a 960 or lower. The one caveat is if you were to buy a gpu right now, the gpus are currently overpriced because the miners which do cryptomining are buying all the gpus in droves so the supply is very limited for most gpus and thus, the price increase. A 1060 generally costs about $250 but right now if you buy one, it will cost $350-500 due to supply shortages.

Changing gpus is fairly easy. So if you want to remove the GPU, first unplug any cables attached to the GPU itself, then remove the screws that is attaches the GPU to the computer case:

And then just push down on the lever while pulling out your gpu. 

You can find tons of 1-2 minute videos that can help you too if you need a better guide.

Before installing a new GPU, you need to first see how much power your power supply provides. If it's say 500Watts or more, usually it will be more than fine with a 1060. If it provides under 500W, then I'd be careful cause it will depend on the quaily of your psu and what GPU you are getting.

You also need to think about if you have enough 6+2 pin connectors avaliable for the GPU you are getting. They look like this:

When you are buying a GPU, it will tell you in the specifications how many 6+2 pin it needs and how much power it recommends.

Installing it is easy, most of the time, you can just push the gpu into the pci-e slot and it will work. Sometimes, you do need to push down the lever though. But there are tons of videos showing you how to do it.

Hope that helps.

Looking at the provided graph, it's more than just benchmarking

As for Steam not showing any differences, I agree that replacing a GPU is a lot easier than a CPU, but there's also the "poor" performance of Ryzen compared to Intel when gaming at 1080p.

Loading times in those two games will depend mostly on your CPU, because that's what calculates the AI routines and all that, a new GPU won't do much to improve loading times. A fast Hard Disk or an SSD will also help a lot with them, but replacing them can be more complicated.

As for cables and power consumption, a GTX 1060 uses around 120W and requires only 1 cable, so you should be able to install it on most PCs without problems.

My Steam games are installed on a 500GB SSD since 2012, worth every penny of it. I won't ever put my games on a HDD .