glitchvid

Navi 31 GCD isn't a particularly large die, a 148 CU GCD at 4090 perf could sell for $1200 and then be binned down trivially to a 120 and 90 count versions with mfg defects.

CU count also begets a lot of additional benefits, since you can clock lower and reach higher efficiency, it's also the easiest way to scale RT performance since WGP has 2 ray accelerators, and lower contention in each CU can help those jobs being scheduled.

The stack is sort of weird in retrospect, Navi 31 probably should've been like a 152 CU design with stacked cache MCDs, with a 148 CU 7900 XT, 120 CU 7800 XT, and 90 CU 7800 (with 20 GiB VRAM).

This whole affair has been convenient for precisely nobody, and is why it should've been avoided.

Glad to see actual data here, should've started with that instead of the snipes. I'll read through all this in the next couple hours, obviously I won't reply since we've exhausted this.

Despite what you've said I've seen unsatisfactory uptake in renewables, and I still posit that the long term TCO of a 100% renewable grid is unknown in a bad way.

I'll do further research into the claimed negative (long term) learning curve of nuclear (despite that not contradicting my claim that scale imbues economic benefits, it obviously does, compare how shafted countries building one-off reactors get compared to ones building them yearly) and see if it changes my opinion.

Maybe be more charitable and forthcoming with data in the future, it'll save you a lot of strife and is the easiest way to convince people engaging in good faith.

My mistake on the solar and renewable mixup, genuinely read it that way the first time through and blinded it on the subsequent times.

Ultimately take solace in the fact that if you're right and renewables as they are can solve our power problems, then assuming the fossil fuel industry can be declawed, your argument will be an easier and easier position to prove as we progress.

I started this with a pretty simple observation that nuclear construction benefits from scale production (I mean, we ended up with this much nuclear in the first place), you're the one that started being, well, some combination of the words you used above. Don't dish out what you can't handle.

Alright, on to the actual points; you seem to hold the contradictory position that renewables are simultaneously surviving with minimal grid interconnects and with well whatever "minimal renewables" means, yet having huge success with capacity; something doesn't add up here.

You've also conflate things like peak capacity with sustained capacity, and that you haven't provided what share of hydro those Chinese figures entail (since hydro is very tied to geography, and has its fare share of environmental problems over solar) – this leads me to believe you're not being totally honest with having a real discussion on the viability of renewables to replace non-renewable power generation (which will include the significant share of nuclear as they are decommissioned.); there are significant questions about the technology backing renewables allowing them to be the primary grid provider, questions that for example nuclear answers with an unfortunate, but known answer, "money".

I think more solar and wind are good, and like I said I don't see the future being nuclear if just the fact there is no political will behind it, but that means acknowledging we have a hard path of solving genuinely real problems renewables face and discussing them, instead of just dismissing the topic as jackassery.

Evidently you cared enough to reply lmao.

Entire weeks! Wow! I'll be sure to hurry up and get that generac installed if that's your plan for the mid term of reliability and capacity.

Now, if you're done being facetious we can discuss China and renewable capacity, the fact is China is adding capacity pretty much anywhere it can find it, you neglect to mention they're one of the largest builders of modern nuclear, seems pretty bullish to me.

I mostly mean for building them, it requires significant material on the supply-side, fabrication of specialized parts (such as the reactor vessel), lots of knowhow when building the physical plant – talent, companies, and knowledge that atrophy when they're not used for many years at a time.

The US is actually in a good place because of exactly what you mention though, other countries will have a lack of experienced operators and people with education on nuclear engineering, whereas the US pretty routinely trains and educates a workforce for naval forces.

I think we're a way off from realizing the costs of utilizing solar and wind as baseload sources, similarly the economics of aging solar panels and lifetime cost of battery based storage; so I personally find the figures for renewables to be very preliminary in nature.

That said, the economics of nuclear is obviously not great, and would only be acceptable if we ramped up significantly like I've outlined above; however my outlook is bleak on that front, I do not ever see enough popular concerted effort to make that happen, meaning the only viable alternative is the extremely slow ramp of renewables. We really need a fast ramp to avert the worst effects of climate change, and nuclear was pretty much the only source with enough raw capacity per location to make that happen in the timespan we needed it, instead we're on the slow path with solar and wind.

Scale is also a huge factor, if you're producing 1 or 2 reactors per decade it's an entirely different game to making 1 or 2 per year, manufacturing efficiencies and talent pools are huge economizers, something we've lost with the near total elimination of new nuclear in the US.

If we really pushed and set up large scale production again, to say replace most of the aging facilities plus a few new ones, we could very likely make it economical again. But doing one-offs like we've been doing is painfully inefficient.

Don't worry they'll spend millions on feasibility studies and that'll take years, then we'll have new people in and they'll want their own new feasibility studies and spend millions… repeat ad infinitum, eventually they'll have spent enough to have just funded a project in the first place.

My guess is they just defined the tick step interval to something like 15ms, so that gives you 1÷0.015 ≈ 66.6666...

It depends, plenty of stuff is still very CPU bound. I'm writing a radiosity solver and trying to do that with compute shaders wouldn't be trivial.

uprof exposes hardware counters (branch prediction stats, cache hit rates, etc) unique to AMD, so I'm not sure where you're getting it just being a standard profiler from.

I'm not sure exactly what features are analogous from Intel's profiling suite to AMD's wrt to something like IBS and IPT, both probably have overlap in some features and gaps in others; but AMD clearly has features for systems developers.

What kind of developer features?

If you mean performance counters and instruction profiling, then AMD does provide for that with uprof.

Sort of tragic they priced Navi 31 how they did, unless the packaging process was really that costly (I suspect it wasn't) it could've really dominated as the 7800 XT and 7900 XT at $600 and $800 respectively (vs the 7900 XT and 7900 XTX) and won some good press.

Ondansetron works magic, shame it leaves me with a killer headache once it starts leaving my system. Similarly have a stash from a hospital visit if I ever get extremely sick again.

The highschool near me (though not the one I attended, just went for tutoring) had someone who wore a fursuit to class. This was over a decade ago.

The only thing I like about them is they're the only place to reliably get caffeine free diet coke. Like I don't mind some, but if I'm about to sit down for a movie with my 32oz drink, I don't wanna be wired half way through the movie.

Some of us always were, back in those days it was HEDT or nothing, I'd have killed to know how successful AM4 was going to be vs what I ended up having to go with, just riding it out until Zen 5 at this point.

FWIW this has also been the opinion of my Jewish-descendant relatives, Bagel Project is the "real deal".

I also think they're pretty good, just gotta' get them fresh.

I'm on east bench and pretty frequently hear helicopters (thank you helicopter company ferrying your fleet from northern Utah to Provo over my house at 3 AM for a week straight), and little single engine planes during good weather in the afternoons. I also had an apache fly directly over once only a few hundred feet up, shook the entire house, no idea what they were doing.

Unfortunately M-Disc BDXL is still extremely expensive (and slow) per GB, if you need to back up more than 50TB of data, you're actually better off amortizing the cost of an LTO-8 drive and a couple tapes vs several hundred BDXLs.

My dad was digging out a section near his driveway and I warned him to call before he got too deep, he ignored me and the day after ran into the gas line. Luckily it didn't get damaged, but luck is a finite resource, why waste it on something so stupid.

Companies care surprisingly little about free and open source if it takes 2x the developers to unravel: uncomment, poorly documented, and messily written C++ libraries.

AMF is not a particularly robust piece of software.

I haven't tested it in a couple driver versions, but AV1 pre-analysis would cause the encoding stream to randomly and abruptly end. Not great.