Even AMD is only splitting off IO dies this generation. That's an advantage for sure, because you can push 20% or so of your die off to separate chiplets, whic

Even AMD is only splitting off IO dies this generation. That's an advantage for sure, because you can push 20% or so of your die off to separate chiplets, which means you can go 25% larger than you otherwise could with a purely monolithic design. (and in particular you can also push them off to N6 or some other super-cheap node and save your super-expensive N5 allocation for the GCD... at the cost of some power for infinity fabric to send a TB/s of data around between chiplets) But so far nobody seems to have progressed on splitting the GCD itself... which has always been the actual goal here. Multiple chiplets computing together like one, transparently without software needing to be catered to like SLI. AMD's general approach seems to be "big cache-coherent interconnect between GCD chiplets", which is generally unsurprising on multiple levels (it's how infinity fabric already works in their CPUs, and it's how SMP generally works in general today almost everywhere) but there still seems to be some barrier to making it work with graphics. There are of course a lot of gotchas - like temporal data or needing access to other parts of the frame that may be in another GPU - but cache-coherent interconnects generally solve this. But yeah, NVIDIA isn't avoiding some silver bullet here, they've actually been on the forefront of this with NVSwitch since Pascal, that was the first serious "multi-GPU that acts like one" attempt. I don't know why they're not doing it, or at least the "split the IO dies off" thing. edit: thinking about this a bit more, one reason they may not be doing the MCD/io die idea is because they're doing L2 instead of L3. L3 can be pushed off to a separate die... L2 is really part of the SM, it's a lot "closer". Again, they may have engineering reasons to favor L2 over L3, or it may be a patent thing.