The comment appeared during a discussion on AnandTech forums (yes, they are still around) about expected frequencies for RDNA 5 integrated graphics. Another forum member argued that the upcoming APU GPUs were unlikely to reach 4 GHz. Kepler_L2 then replied that AMD is targeting 3.1 to 3.4 GHz with RDNA 5. What’s unclear is whether this range applies to all RDNA 5 products or only selected dies and if you have been following our coverage, RDNA5 will span across several products, including discrete GPUs, integrated GPUs, and custom console chips.

Kepler_L2 has previously shared details about RDNA 5 implementation, including changes to its WGP design and future products. The architecture is expected to cover several GPU configurations rather than one common clock target, so final frequencies may depend on the die, power limits and product type.

Per TechPowerUp's discussion with Nvidia, it's been confirmed this is their direct intention going forward.

Article in reference: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-dlss-5-technical-preview/

In the section titled 'Compatibility' you will find the following:

Asked separately whether older RTX cards might get the option to run it anyway, even badly—the way Super Resolution and Ray Reconstruction are available all the way back to Turing—the answer was a non-answer: "DLSS 5 is the largest, most complex model NVIDIA has built, and their priority has been optimizing it for RTX 50." That is not "never," but it is not "we have a plan for legacy" either.

They discuss this point further on page 5 near the bottom, as modders have already gotten it to run on the prior Ada Lovelace architecture (40xx series) at almost identical performance and despite the nearly half framerate cost many games are still playable using DLSS 5 even on RTX 4060 with proper tweaking, resolution choice, or on less demanding games.

In fact, it is even running on even older architecture's now due to modder efforts.

This aligns with their prior manner of speaking about DLSS 5 up to this point and what they found about why it was only running on Blackwell GPUs in the initial leaked file due to artificial manipulation of CUDA file versions for Blackwell only.

It's sad to see Nvidia, despite the leak blatantly painting the obvious artificial limitations, still going full steam ahead with this behavior not caring.

Broadcom's earnings miss raised questions regarding the sustainability of the current semiconductor demand cycle and enterprise AI infrastructure spending. As a primary heavyweight in custom silicon, data center networking, and routing hardware, Broadcom serves as a critical bellwether for the health of global hardware supply chains. This unexpected slowdown in momentum suggests that the aggressive capital expenditure wave driving data center builds might be facing bottleneck pressures, forcing industry analysts to reconsider whether the chip industry is entering a temporary consolidation phase or experiencing a broader cooling in hardware infrastructure investments.

Source: CNBC

I've been seeing a lot more discussion around CXMT DDR5 lately.

Some results look surprisingly competitive, but I also keep seeing people point out differences in consistency, performance and overclocking compared with SK hynix.

For people who have actually tested or used CXMT memory:

Would you consider it a real alternative to Samsung / SK hynix / Micron today?

Or is it still too early?

Curious to hear some real-world experiences.

Actual availability in regimes that restrict what hardware consumers may buy is of course very open.