In my country a RTX 4060 and Ryzen 7800x3d costs basically the same. But why?Ryzen 7800x3d>11,270 million transistors>71 mm2 6nm CCU die>122 mm2 14nm IO die RTX 4060>22,900 million transistors>188 mm2 5nm GPU die>8gb Vram>Cooler>Power deliverySo the die on the GPU is bigger, has double the transistors, you get a whole power delivery/Vram/cooler package yet pricing for the GPU and CPU is similar.Is it a lot more complex to manifacture CPU dies? What is the reason that the GPU costs the same, although it seems to have the more complex die and has more hardware included you have to buy seperatly for a CPU?
CPU instruction sets and therefore silicon are far more complex and generally capable. GPU wins through mass parallelism of much simpler cores.So in short: GPU die is indeed less complex to manufacture.
>>100181612less branching logic, overall simpler, more scalable, higher yields, people expect to buy a new GPU every 1-2 years but you replace your CPU only once a decade
>>100181612>much simpler cores>>100181652>overall simplerIf you have a die that is fully activated, doesn't every transistor have to function correctly which means more transistors = more complexity?
>>100181856It's not exactly more complex, it's just more dense. You have more units doing the same thing at the same time, it's just Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V
>>100181856if transistors fail to the point one of the tiles is compromised, they just rebin the die as a lower-cost part
>>100181545its an RTXnota RTX
>>100182291>its
>>100181652GPU's come out every 2 years, maybe every 4 years for CPU/GPU change. But it's still alright for the buy/sell value to change it every 2 years over 4 years.
>>100182291>correcting grammar>random newlines instead of using double-quotes or greentexts>makes a grammatical error
>>100182323>>100182472please tell me howitsis pronounced differently thanit'snow pronounce "a RTX" and realize you sound like an retard
>>100182491I'm glad to educate you.it's - a contraction of "it" and "is", meaning "it is"its - possessive form of it, corollary to "his" or "hers"
>>100182439>4 years for CPU/GPU5-10. What you're saying held true in the 90s and 2000s when tech was advancing rapidly but now there's little difference between a 2024 i5 and i5 2500k from 10-15y ago (too lazy to check)
>>100182491"It's" and "its" are two different things, moron. If you don't know how to write, then refrain from being a grammar nazi.
>>100182520>>100182590thanks for confirming theres no difference in pronunciation. Your entire argument is therefore worthless.
>>100182520>>100182590He's right in the sense that mixing up its/it's is a native speaker mistake, while mixing up a/an is an ESL mistake.t. ESL
>>100182647I'm glad to hear that you're retarded. It makes it much easier to dismiss your argument. >>100182656The basic rule (with exceptions) for "a" vs "an" is weather the next sound is a vowel. "an" if it is, and "a" otherwise. Of course, there are many exceptions sprinkled around, but this will make most speech sound natural.
>>100182690>The basic rule (with exceptions) for "a" vs "an" is weather the next sound is a vowel. >"an" if it is, and "a" otherwise.Which is why saying "an RTX" is an ESL tier mistake. ESLs mainly learn English by reading, while EFLs mainly learn English by listening. By the time EFLs start learning how to read, they are already competent English speakers. In terms of phonetics, they have pretty much mastered it.
>>100182647>>100182656>so stupid he reduces writing to pronunciation despite English not even being a phonetic language
>>100182728*a RTXlol
>>100182728No need for all those words, we get it. You're a dumb nigger.
>>100182740I'm a different anon, faggot and I speak 4 languages. I know what I'm talking about. Native-like mistakes are less serious than non-native-like mistakes.
>>100182762>I'm a different anon, faggot and I speak 4 languagesCongratulations on your coming out post. Now kill yourself
>>100182690>"an" if it is, and "a" otherwise.Sorry, this sentence is not properly structured and incomplete. I guess you are just a complete moron who knows nothing about English. Thanks, I can now dismiss everything you say on the subject.
>>100182780If you ever attempt to learn a foreign language and make actual progress, which I seriously doubt, because you are a low IQ mutt, you'll know what I'm talking about.
>>100182728Most letter names start with a vowel sound. An Arr Tee Ex.
>>100182762If by "speaking" you mean "so illiterate that I can't understand the very basics of grammar, writing, and what 'phonetic language' means," then sure, you know a gorillion languages, monkey.
>>100182780No period at the end of your sentence. Go back to your australian aboriginal tribe you savage subhuman monkey
>>100182797>but I did have breakfast>>100182805>t. monolingual seething
>>100182792>seriously doubt, because
>>100182805"a RTX" and "an RTX" are phonetically the samek
>>100182786Subject-verb is a valid sentence structure. In fact, all you need is a subject and a verb.I ran, he came, you are [retarded]. The fact I included an object at all is icing on the cake.Let me break it down for youSubject: "a"Verb: iscomma to separate clausesSubject: "an"Verb: is [not]
>Examples of native-like mistakes:Mixing up its and it's.Mixing up your and you're.Mixing up principal and principle.>Examples of non-native like mistakes:How is it called?We are in the train.I have 25 years old.An European.A RTX GPU.
>>100182838Pprevious sentence needed to end with a semi colon for the next to be valid.>Let me break it down for youand here you would need to end with a colon.You are incompetent.
/g/ - grammar
>>100182911Audibly keked.
>>100182911Grammars are programming and programming is /g/.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context-free_grammar
>>100182811>>but I did have breakfastI don't understand what you mean by this, but in English letters aren't named solely after the sounds they make like in some phonetic alphabets. If you want to say my name contains one letter z, you would say>I have a "z" in my namebecause "z" is pronounced "zee," which starts with a consonant sound. If you want to say it includes one letter r, you should say >I have an "r" in my namebecause "r" is pronounced "arr," starting with a vowel sound.>>100182901>Pp> double space>quote> single space>no caps> double space>capsAt least have consistent formatting, my ESL friend.
>>100182899>some types of ignorance are superior because they consist of mistakes made by native idiots instead of foreign idiots
>>100182934Midwit mental breakdown.
>>100182957Your hands are shaking, and you're retarded. There is no way that your "friends," should anyone claim to hold that tile with you, don't laugh at you behind their backs. They're all out to get you, and you know it. It's no surprise that the small laughter takes its toll on you, so of course you ended up on 4chan.A grammarian would be much better off on /lit/, but I do only post on /g/, so I take the time where I can.
>>100182944>omissions are mistakespathetic>complains about someone not using apostrophes>doesnt even use periods, colons, or semi-colons when required
>>100182934>I don't understand what you mean by this, but in English letters aren't named solely after the sounds they make like in some phonetic alphabets.The point was that you can't put yourself in the shoes of an ESL. It really doesn't matter what sounds a letter or letter combinations make, because ESLs conceptualize a letter as a symbol first and as a sound second, whereas for EFLs it's the exact opposite.>>100182944Yes. Like I said, if you ever learned a foreign language, you'd wish you made native-like mistakes instead of non-native-like mistakes. Especially in highly inflected languages, non-native-like mistakes make you sound like a literal retard.
>>100183008>because ESLs conceptualize a letter as a symbol first and as a sound secondThis is probably true. At the same time, there's no reason that if they were able to learn the language they wouldn't be able to also learn a few basic tricks.
>>100182984>tiletry harder next timeIm sorry you cant see the different between a casual typing style and blatant misuse of a literally 1 letter long word
>>100183028Damn, and I double checked too. I guess even the best of us can make mistakes, no?>typing style means grammatical mistakes are okI'm not a language prescriptivist, but that's because a language changes over time. There is no "best language," but there are rules to forms of language, and you are bad at following them.
>>100182728>an RTXThis is literally the correct form, in English.
>>100183024The biggest issue with English is that the official certifications are a joke. This is considered the hardest English exam an ESL can take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-zh_rPNaqUI'm pretty sure most native 8 year olds would be able to pass the oral section and almost all 10 year olds would ace it.
>>100182551>but now there's little difference between a 2024 i5 and i5 2500k from 10-15y agook poorfag
>>100183083Yes, see below: >>100182739
show english, the language of whores, fags and niggers, all the respect is deserves
you must be correct says fucking retard defending a language that considers "octopi" correctyes really https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/octopi
>>100183060>a language changes over timeSo youre saying "a RTX" is just the new way to speak and we should all accept it.i think you need to re-take your hooked-on-phonics class
>>100183129Octopi is incorrect, octopuses or octopodes is acceptable. The -i ending on some plurals is a crossover of Latin, and octopus isn't a word derived from Latin, so it doesn't get the Latin derived ending.
>>100183147take it up with M-W, the foremost guiding authority, retard fuckface. english is a retarded language for gay idiots
Hello Hans
>>100183145No, I think you're a retard for trying to push it. If, however, in the future, we totally drop the use of "an" (as the language seems to be moving towards dropping whom, an, and a few other words), continuing to use it would be wrong.So you're wrong now and will be wrong in the future. >>100183154All the leaders in your country learn English as a pipe-dream hope of coming closer to the international power that the United States held over the world for many decades.
>>100183154>english is a retarded language for gay idiotsYet you speak it. Curious.
they even have a fucking pronounciation guide lmaohttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/octopi?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=o&file=octopu02>>100183166and with my horse, german
oh look another /g/ thread that is actually an English lesson for ESLs
>>100183195I like to discuss grammar. See also >>100182911 and >>100182921
>>100183008>>100183024>>100183085>my overreliance on speaking and listening to the detriment of my writing and reading is superior to your overreliance on writing and reading to the detriment of your speaking and listening skills
>>100183256Perhaps; dey (should of)...red moar, books?!
>>100183256>detriment of my writing and readingHaha, do you actually believe this? Native speakers will also be native readers and writers, they're more likely to write more correctly and read quicker than ESLs are.
pokemon is more of an RPG than it is a side-scroller game.now try to use "a RPG". you'll sound like a retard AND I also bet you (EFLs) probably use "should of been" a lot also. oh and FR FR is considered correct grammar if you're claiming "language is le zoomspeak 2024" nah you just retard. all of these "grammatical nuances" are just mental gymnastics.
>>100183297>writers, they're>comma spliceHaha, yes, I actually believe that.
>>100183360Parenthetical comma.
>>100183370Yes, you set off parenthetical expressions with commas. You'd know that if you'd read more books.
>>100183418I think you might be retarded, (especially if you write like this). Notice how that looks gay and stupid.Parenthetical commas replace parentheses, not add to them. Notice how this is clean, and efficient.
>>100183433No, you don't use a comma before an open parenthesis. Being a cute little native nigger isn't a substitute for intelligence and practice; otherwise, Tyrone Washington would be writing novels and philosophical treatises in his free time.
>>100183347>you just retardWhat did he mean by this?
>>100183478>No, you don't use a comma before an open parenthesis.>>100183418>you set off parenthetical expressions with commas.Your inexact language was your downfall, and if you spoke more eloquently you'd have figured out the better way to state your intent would have been >Yes, you can use commas in place of parenthetical expressions.To "set off" with a comma means you're adding a comma to differentiate the existing structure, rather than replacing the structure.
>>100183505Google the difference between "parenthetical text" and "open parenthesis." I'll wait, Tyrone.
>>100183550I'm glad you failed to notice my frequent use of parenthetical commas while correcting you. If you would like good examples of parenthetical commas, see my previous comments in this thread.If you'd like to try and insult me again, please start by explaining how you came to think "set off" means "replace with."
>>100183572>If you'd like to try and insult me again, please start by explaining how you came to think "set off" means "replace with."
>>100183572Its simple; u should of red moar buks, retort.
>>100183610Set off these words by brackets means to add brackets to the existing wordTo set off parentheses with commas would imply to add commas to a phrase that already exists in parentheses.You used the phrase "to set off" wrong, you meant to use the phrase "to replace with"
>>100183754No, I didn't. If you're so narcissistic as to reject a reference to the dictionary, then this conversation is over.
>>100183845>you set off parenthetical expressions with commasTo analyze the logic of your sentence structure:1. You already have a parenthetical expression (as it's what you're setting off)2. You imply that it doesn't already have commas (because you're setting it off WITH commas, the action comes after the existence of the parenthetical expression)3. By (1) and (2), you have an expression already in parentheses, because by (2) it has something other than commas and by (1) it's already parenthetical.4. You claim to set off this expression with commas5. By (3) and (4), you have an expression already in parentheses which you then add commas to.
>moba phoun
>>100183881>>100183881Why mention parenthetical statements if you don't even understand what "parenthetical" means? >1. You already have a parenthetical expression (as it's what you're setting off)>2. You imply that it doesn't already have commas (because you're setting it off WITH commas, the action comes after the existence of the parenthetical expression)See the picture for the definition of "parenthetical." You enclose parenthetical statements using commas, parentheses (round brackets), or em-dashes. Commas are the most common in this case.>3. By (1) and (2), you have an expression already in parentheses, because by (2) it has something other than commas and by (1) it's already parenthetical.You don't understand what "parenthetical" means. It isn't already in parentheses. Again, look up its definition:>A parenthetical remark is said in addition to the main part of what you are saying or writing. Also, extra, and in addition. added. additional. additionally.>4. You claim to set off this expression with commasYes, that's because you can use either commas, parentheses, or em-dashes.>5. By (3) and (4), you have an expression already in parentheses which you then add commas to.No. You do not understand what you're talking about.Just because it's called "parenthetical" doesn't mean you must use parentheses or that it already has them.
>>100184450So you agree with 1.And you agree with 2, but don't realize it, because it's already a parenthetical statement it's already offset with commas, parentheses, or em-dashes. For it to be parenthetical, it must be surrounded by one of the markers already, otherwise it's not yet a parenthetical statement.Therefore, to offset a parenthetical statement with commas, you add commas to an already otherwise parenthetical statement.Here's a literal example, you go from this:>hello Bob (or Robert).to this:>hello Bob, (or Robert).You are "setting off the parenthetical with commas"You intend to go from this:>hello Bob or Robertto this:>hello Bob, or RobertIn this case you are adding parenthetical commas to a statement, thereby setting off the statement and not the parenthetical.
>>100184450>>100184523To be explicitly clear, my argument is purely semantic in the sense of you phrased your words in a way I could nitpick, but the general idea you were attempting to convey was sound.My only argument here is that you could have phrased your sentence in a way I couldn't deliberately misinterpret and argue against.
>>100184523>>100184535No, you still don't understand what "parenthetical" means.
>>100184621Allow me to do an example without parentheses, because they are very confusing for you. Anything in CAPS I'm trying to draw your attention to.Starting with>hello Bob or Robertyou can make the STATEMENT "or Robert" and turn it into a PARENTHETICAL>hello Bob—or Robert.you have SET OFF the STATEMENT via an em-dash.>hello Bob, —or Robert.you have SET OFF the PARENTHETICAL with a comma. As you can see, setting off the parenthetical implies there already was a parenthetical, where setting off a statement means you created a parenthetical. This is my whole argument—which is, again, just a nitpick of your word choice.
>>100184690You still do not understand what "parenthetical" means.
>>100184782a parenthetical statement is one which is offset by a use of a parenthetical device, such as commas, em-dashes, or even parentheses. The fact you can't follow my argument even when laid out so clearly shows a lacking on your part, and has no bearing on the weight of my argument. Do try and keep up, my friend. Glad to have been of service, and goodbye.
>>100184810
>>100184879Luckily for my argument, I never used the phrase "the Coach said" so this is meaningless.
>>100184925Are you ok?
>>100181612there is no difference in manufacturing, wafer cost the same regardless of complexity.
>>100181545You get less mileage out of a gpu so it's worth less. Has nothing to do with cost to manufacture.
>>100185039Wrong... what are yields?!
>>100185136So demand is lower but offer is the same?
it's called surprise and danang nigga
>>100185039if you have a whole bunch of bits on a chip that are all the same, it's not a big deal if some of them go bad since it still has the same functionality just slightly worse performanceif you have many different types of things on a chip and only a few of each type, it's much more likely that a random number of them going bad will cause an actual loss of functionality and you'll have to toss the chip or disable parts of it and sell it as a lower tier product
>>100181545Because AMD is even worse than Nvidia.
>>100182786>>100182728>>100182690>an hero:^)
GPUs are way more expensive to make. You make a CPU and ship it that's it. The more expensive CPUs mean you get even less because they don't even bother giving you a cooler. GPUs are basically a computer themselves.
>>100181545You should be asking yourself why AMD is selling the shitty 8 core version for as much as the GPU
>>100182656Only if you're retarded, you just have to look up the rules once and you're set for life>t. ESL (German)
>>100187839"h" is a consonant sound.
>>100181545I doubt it's as simple as just counting transistors. I would guess there have to be some differences in manufacturing a part that generally runs at "low" clock frequency, like a big GPU running like 3GHz at most and a CPU running in the 5-6GHz range and pushing the process and design up to the limits of what can currently be made. The logic in a CPU is generally much more complicated too, since they need to run complex instruction sets with a lot of branching and so on, while GPUs are basically huge arrays of much simpler computer cores which are geared to just doing lots of math rather than running complex instruction sequences as fast as possible (with reordering, branch prediction, determining which instructions can run in parallel, etc.). In practice this would at the very least affect yields I imagine, if a part of a GPU die is bad then you'll likely just losing a bunch of simple cores which just means you sell it as a GPU with fewer active cores. The same can be done with CPU cores of course, but since those are full of different and complex parts so if one such part comes out as bad you lose a lot more. For a 7800X3D in particular, that has a fully enabled CCD so that part cannot have broken components, plus beyond that I imagine it has to be a pretty good bin (in terms of voltage) because it needs to take the cache die on top, so that will drive up costs since making a 7800X3D requires using the better dies, not the mediocre or shit ones.Also I think your 7800X3D transistor and die size numbers are likely wrong, they don't seem to include the cache die that's placed on top of the CCD since the numbers you've posted match a 7800X, the variant without the V-cache.
Yield rates, which are probably worse when stacking chipsSupply and demand for whatever country you live in, 7800X3D is popular, 4060 is a midrange gpu
>>100190407The 4060 is the absolute lowest in the stack nvidia goes. Just because it has a 6 in the name doesn't mean it's mid range. It's low end.
