Quote Originally Posted by Solus Corvus View Post
These guys are being rude about it, but they are right. Architecture and process are two separate things. Architecture is the number and type of units in the core, their arrangement and connections, and other such details. Process is the physical implementation of an architecture onto a chip. An architecture could be implemented on different processes. And a particular process could be used to produce very different architectures. But a new generation requires a new architecture, not a new process as the examples already presented to you show. Are you saying G71 to G80 wasn't a new generation?

Saying that we should call something on the same process a new generation because it will confuse people is a logical fallacy called an Appeal to Consequences. Words have meaning, even if we don't like the results of that meaning.
We don't know what kind of architectural changes we are going to get with upcoming high-end GPUs. I'm afraid we are going to see the same mess as G92 in this round, form both AMD and nVidia. (just as a speculation for now, but just wait and watch).

I've been trying to raise the question, where does the line go for a architectural changes to become a new generation? But nobody has given a clear answer. Could you cast some light on it?

Architectural-changes is a trickery term, and when I look at 68xx, it's smaller, cooler and cheaper, but is it a new generation? In case why does it perform less that the last gen with exact same name?
We must have a clear definition to define a new generation (with new number at first digit), and I'm open to see what else could be used as a clear definition, but these kids are taking it personal.


It's the nature of these GPU-treads, they have tendency to get, funny, rude, aggressive, and finally to childish fights. But it doesn't scare me, those who are trying can just eat it.