Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Performance & Power Improvement Of Steam Deck OLED's 6nm APU

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • schmidtbag
    replied
    Unless you play in bright conditions (and therefore need to increase screen brightness), I think an OLED is perfectly fine for mobile devices. There are two key takeaways about the Deck:
    1. It's hardware is bound to get rapidly obsoleted. That means by the time the OLED gets any appreciable degradation, the device might be good to be replaced anyway.
    2. It's user-maintainable. If for some reason your OLED is degraded and you don't feel the need to upgrade the whole system, it shouldn't be that great of an expense to swap out the display. I'm not sure how much it costs to replace the panel but I imagine in a few years (when people are likely to replace it), it shouldn't cost more than $50. You can get an external touchscreen of the same size and resolution for about $80.

    Leave a comment:


  • drakonas777
    replied
    Originally posted by catpig View Post



    ​See the links - "6nm" N6 and "7nm" N7+ have virtually identical transistor density, whilst "7nm" N7 and N7P have quite a bit less. Don't ask me why TSMC's marketing chose to label them in this fashion, I'm sure they had their reasons. In the end the "7nm" and "6nm" processes are usually grouped together anyway, I suppose (and same with "5nm" and "4nm").

    As for the reduction in area - maybe I should've been clearer, I didn't say there's no improvements between them. There's many ways to improve production process - and chip design - other than making things smaller.
    However, the end result in terms of perf and power is, as the benchmarks have shown, only marginally different. Whether 131mm² at "6nm" is cheaper than 163mm² at "7nm" we'll probably never know, and since the OLED deck has many other changes the retail price of the overall device can't help either. I'm assuming you quoted the chip sizes correctly.

    Edit: I forgot, our host DID write "die shrink" Although it's noteworthy that the shrink on this chip has been quite a lot greater than what would be expected solely by the change in process, going by the numbers cited on wiki. But then, of course, there's a lot more to average density than production process alone.
    N6 provides around 20% better density than N7 and original SoC die size was reduces around that much. So I really don't understand WTF are you trying to prove here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anux
    replied
    Originally posted by Mathias View Post
    So going to N6 should result in 12% more density.
    But we have actually 25% more density, might be more advanced high density librarys (see Zen 4c).

    Leave a comment:


  • Mathias
    replied
    Originally posted by catpig View Post
    See the links - "6nm" N6 and "7nm" N7+ have virtually identical transistor density, whilst "7nm" N7 and N7P have quite a bit less.
    What makes you think Deck LCD uses N7+ Process? I did a quick search and found N7+ was supposed to be used from Zen3, so Zen2 should use normal N7 process. So going to N6 should result in 12% more density.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anux
    replied
    Originally posted by catpig View Post
    ​See the links - "6nm" N6 and "7nm" N7+ have virtually identical transistor density
    N7+ is their first EUV version, N6 is the second EUV version of N7. Just ignore the naming and compare Steam Deck with process X vs Steam Deck with process Y.

    Also don't give too much about any gate/fin pitch distance values because they clearly have nothing to do with real world density. Just look at the values of intels 10 nm process and then compare sram size.

    There's many ways to improve production process - and chip design - other than making things smaller.
    But don't we agree that they only made it smaller here?

    However, the end result in terms of perf and power is, as the benchmarks have shown, only marginally different.
    I would say it's the same with some error tolerance. But if they are running the same frequencies with the same voltages it is to be expected.

    Whether 131mm² at "6nm" is cheaper than 163mm² at "7nm" we'll probably never know
    Well why else would they go through the trouble of changing the chip? Its harder to cool and it's surface area smaller, so a redesign of the cooler was likely needed. That would all be wasted money compared to using the old design.
    PlayStation does it all the time with their slim versions.

    I'm assuming you quoted the chip sizes correctly.
    https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-spec...deck-gpu.c3897 https://www.techpowerup.com/cpu-spec...cpu-oled.c3398

    Leave a comment:


  • Anux
    replied
    Originally posted by Weasel View Post
    My friend had to replace his OLED after 2 years.
    That sounds more like a manufacturing defect than dying of old age. With LCDs you have brightness loss and often a yellow tint, most people wont recognize it because it happens gradually and they have no reference. Also LCDs that displayed the same picture over very long periods will show burn in.

    With oleds you have the problem of the first few generations, that is to be expected. LG gives 5 years burn in warranty on their newer TVs.
    It will take some time till we know for sure how burn in behaves on newer panels.

    What I do with my oled monitor is:
    activating all those pixel shift and refresh features
    always use lowest brightness
    have a short display off/standby time
    use dark themes

    As long as you don't display the same picture for days it should be fine. I played already > 100 h Baldurs Gate 3 on it (has UI elements always at same position) and don't notice the slightest burn in.

    Leave a comment:


  • catpig
    replied
    Originally posted by Anux View Post
    How do you explain the die size 163 mm² vs 131 mm² if not from a shrink (both have same amount of transistors)? On 6nm they use EUV which should lead to density improvements vs quad-patterning.
    Originally posted by drakonas777 View Post

    N6 has a higher average density, ergo it's an effective shrink. Perhaps a "die shrink" would be more accurate term for those who are anal about details.
    ​See the links - "6nm" N6 and "7nm" N7+ have virtually identical transistor density, whilst "7nm" N7 and N7P have quite a bit less. Don't ask me why TSMC's marketing chose to label them in this fashion, I'm sure they had their reasons. In the end the "7nm" and "6nm" processes are usually grouped together anyway, I suppose (and same with "5nm" and "4nm").

    As for the reduction in area - maybe I should've been clearer, I didn't say there's no improvements between them. There's many ways to improve production process - and chip design - other than making things smaller.
    However, the end result in terms of perf and power is, as the benchmarks have shown, only marginally different. Whether 131mm² at "6nm" is cheaper than 163mm² at "7nm" we'll probably never know, and since the OLED deck has many other changes the retail price of the overall device can't help either. I'm assuming you quoted the chip sizes correctly.

    Edit: I forgot, our host DID write "die shrink" Although it's noteworthy that the shrink on this chip has been quite a lot greater than what would be expected solely by the change in process, going by the numbers cited on wiki. But then, of course, there's a lot more to average density than production process alone.
    Last edited by catpig; 06 December 2023, 09:08 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Weasel
    replied
    Originally posted by Namelesswonder View Post
    LCDs aren't impervious either, the progression of time affects all, and consumer goods are not built with longevity in mind. Take a look at your stored devices that are 15 to 20 years old, like him you might find that they did not fare so well even with no usage. You will also find that your devices that are currently 10 years old may suffer the same fates in a few years too.
    I have a 17 years old 27" LCD monitor that's been used daily (averaging ~16 hours per day) that is still in pristine condition and works as on day 1.

    My friend had to replace his OLED after 2 years.

    I simply don't care about theory. This will remain a fact for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anux
    replied
    Originally posted by catpig View Post
    Just a small note: "6nm" is not a shrink compared to "7nm".
    How do you explain the die size 163 mm² vs 131 mm² if not from a shrink (both have same amount of transistors)? On 6nm they use EUV which should lead to density improvements vs quad-patterning.

    Leave a comment:


  • cj.wijtmans
    replied
    OLED burn in would have been less of a problem if we could buy the panels new and replace them. My samsung s7 edge has a bit of a burn in but still going strong. Needs refurbishing though but no battery nor screen to buy new to do it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X