Navi Made in Colab with sony, MS still Using it?

[Bofferbrauer2]

Trumpstyle said:

Pemalite said:

I never mentioned the Playstation 5.
I was comparing Vega 7/Navi/2080Ti.

Navi isn't going to match a Geforce RTX 2080Ti. Simple as that... Regardless if it's PC or Console, it's Polaris's successor not Vega's.

The leak is based from the youtuber adoredtv which I deemed fake long ago, here's the full lineup:

Funny thing about this lineup it matches the next-gen consoles very nicely. Take the R5 3500g and disable 2CU's for better yields and clock it at 1,8ghz and you get 4,1 Teraflops which is a very good fit for Xbox lockhart, Navi 12 with 4CU's disable clocked at 1,8ghz adds to 8,3TF and matches the rumored PS5. And than the last Navi 10 at 48CU's clocked at 1,95ghz gives 12TF which is a nice fit for Xbox anaconda.

Now the clock-speed is based on the leaked gonzalo which indicates a Cpu clocked at 3,2ghz and GPU clocked at 1,8ghz for the PS5, since consoles usually have lower clock-speed than desktop parts I assume Navi can hit 2-2,1GHz without much issue.

About navi hitting geforce 2080Ti performance, I don't think it's impossible, Vega 7 is close to geforce 2080 and assume Navi can hit 2-2.1ghz then a 64CU gpu with maybe 5% per/TF increase from architecture and it's very close to geforce 2080Ti about 10% under which this leak suggest. And a 64CU Navi gpu should have the die size around 300mm2+ so even the price is not out of whack with gddr6 ofc.

Even though I still think this is a fake leak the rumored next-gen consoles gives it some credibility.

It doesn't, neither with the lineup or the price. It just doesn't hold up at all if you look close enough:

1.  Navi 12 having so many different core counts. GCN4 had Polaris 10 with 36CU, Polaris 11 with 16CU and Polaris 12 with 8CU; add to that Polaris 22 with 24 CU in the RX Vega M, which is paired to an Intel CPU. In other words, every different CU count on the chip also resulted in a different Polaris version name. Having Navi 12 range from 15 to 40 CU is thus patently wrong.
2. R3 3300G/R5 3500G. So much wrong with those. First, AMD retired the R3/5/7/9 naming scheme with Polaris already, there's no reason to bring it back, especially not if the top end isn't going to be R7/R9, but still RX. Unless that's meant to stand for Ryzen 3/5, of course. Then, the CU counts are impossibly high. There's no way they could be fed through DDR4 without choking on the bandwith. Even with DDR4-3200, efficiently feeding more than 12 CU is next to impossible. Having so many CU would just bloat the chip size, making them more expensive for AMD to produce.
3. Those prices are unbelievably, impossibly low. While it's clear that AMD will want to undercut NVidias prices to gain market share, they wouldn't undercut them by such a massive amount. I mean, the RTX 2080 is over 1000€, and the proposed RX 3080 would already come close with less than a quarter of the price? No can't do. They would be even cheaper than their own predecessors, which are already on bargain bin prices due to the end of the cryptomining boom and thus high stocks that need to be cleared out. Not only would AMD not make money with those prices, but would rather ensure, that the rest of the Polaris and Vega cards would become instantly unsellable. In other words, AMD would lose money with those prices - and the goodwill of their board partner who build the actual graphics cards along with it.
4. The TDP values: AMD was trailing behind NVidia by a lot, and with that, they would surpass NVidia again, and not just marginally so. The recently released 1650 for instance trails an RX 570 by over 20% if locked to 75W, and an RX 3060 is supposed to be on par with an 580? More power than a Vega 64 LCU for less than half the TDP? That's simply not realistic.
5. The VRAM sizes. RX 36060 having around RX 580 power but only half the memory? Really don't think so. And Vega 64 could already have used more than 8GB, so the 3080 being stuck with it while being more powerful, while not impossible, would still be a major disappointment.

So no, nothing realistic about the leak at all.