News AMD Announces Radeon VII

[Hitman928]

More info to come. . .

 

[PeterScott]

For sure and that makes sense. So why were were people feeling that they were deliberate in making it clear that Vega 20 was not for gamers? That's the issue. I couldn't care less if they did or didn't make it a consumer card (honestly if they're making money from it, awesome for them, and great for the people that this is a good product for, including well to do gamers that could use the extra performance it has but didn't want to go with Nvidia for whatever reason).

The same reason people believe conspiracy theories. Jumping to conclusions on no evidence just like you did. The FACTS are:

1) AMD has NEVER done a pro only GPU chip.
2) AMD is the king of squeezing every niche out of a single die. Just look at Ryzen, everything from lowly quad cores to 32 core enterprise on a single die.
3) Lisa Su has stated publicly that it was always intended to be a consumer gaming GPU, you know like every GPU AMD has ever made.

OTOH we have "feelings" because AMD reps didn't state the obvious that their GPU chip would also be used in gaming card, like every single other GPU chip they ever made, that for some unknown reason, they would limit this GPU chip to a limited niche and not release it as a gaming card.

 

[DrMrLordX]

looks like some benches got leaked ahead of launch.

https://videocardz.com/79870/amd-radeon-vii-benchmarks-leak-ahead-of-launch

FWIW that leak shows graphics scores 17% higher in FireStrike and 12% higher in Time Spy than my OCed VegaFE (undervolt to 1.1v, 50% power limit). My card stays pretty close to 1585 MHz during benchmarks, so that performance increase roughly corresponds to VegaFE running at 1775-1854 MHz.

1) AMD has NEVER done a pro only GPU chip.

Until recently, Vega20 was a pro-only GPU chip. Nobody expected Radeon VII.

 

[PeterScott]

Until recently, Vega20 was a pro-only GPU chip. Nobody expected Radeon VII.

This is what is being discussed, so the point is that until people jumped to conclusions about Vega20, there had never been a Pro-only chip (and there still isn't today).

Also you can't say nobody expected a gaming card based on Vega20. I did, and I am certain many others did as well.

 

[Dribble]

The same reason people believe conspiracy theories. Jumping to conclusions on no evidence just like you did. The FACTS are:

1) AMD has NEVER done a pro only GPU chip.
2) AMD is the king of squeezing every niche out of a single die. Just look at Ryzen, everything from lowly quad cores to 32 core enterprise on a single die.
3) Lisa Su has stated publicly that it was always intended to be a consumer gaming GPU, you know like every GPU AMD has ever made.

OTOH we have "feelings" because AMD reps didn't state the obvious that their GPU chip would also be used in gaming card, like every single other GPU chip they ever made, that for some unknown reason, they would limit this GPU chip to a limited niche and not release it as a gaming card.

Clearly the cards were designed for a much more expensive pro market with their very expensive 7nm and 16GB HBM design. Obviously you can use a pro card like that for gaming too - it works. The question is more whether it's cost efficient to do so, which the Vega 7 is not. If it was designed as a gaming card it would be cheaper and not have 16GB of HBM. If it was a gaming chip they'd be looking to sell lots of them, which they know they won't at $700.

The logical conclusion is they had a some MI50's that weren't selling, and/or they needed to do something to raise their presence in the gpu market. Hence they re-purpose a few chips, make a bit of a splash. The reviewers all get one so AMD at least has something faster then a Vega 64 to put in the charts, and as soon as the next big thing arrives the Vega 7 is rapidly forgotten, just some minor footnote in AMD's gpu history like the Frontier editions a year or two ago.

 

[PeterScott]

Clearly the cards were designed for a much more expensive pro market with their very expensive 7nm and 16GB HBM design. Obviously you can use a pro card like that for gaming too - it works. The question is more whether it's cost efficient to do so, which the Vega 7 is not. If it was designed as a gaming card it would be cheaper and not have 16GB of HBM. If it was a gaming chip they'd be looking to sell lots of them, which they know they won't at $700.

It's not that expensive unless you believe recent nonsense about HBM pricing.

While cost/area of silicon increases at each process node shrink, the costs/transistor DOES NOT. In fact it generally continues downward.

So with similar transistor count to TU104 it should have similar costs, or lower, especially as time goes by.

IF HBM is really that expensive they could do cheaper 12GB or 8GB model (though with the loss of memory bandwidth), by simply leaving out an HBM stack or two. A two stack Vega7 shouldn't really cost much more to build than Vega 64.

 

[beginner99]

IF HBM is really that expensive they could do cheaper 12GB or 8GB model (though with the loss of memory bandwidth), by simply leaving out an HBM stack or two. A two stack Vega7 shouldn't really cost much more to build than Vega 64.

It's not just the HBM itself but also the interposer and putting it together (and there are failures here as well).

Assuming it's even technically possible to run it with only 2 stacks, AMD probably aren't offering a 8gb version because it would mean to have a separate production/packaging line just for this card with smaller interposer and only 2 stacks. Not worth it.

 

[PeterScott]

It's not just the HBM itself but also the interposer and putting it together (and there are failures here as well).

AMD has been selling HBM consumer cards since 2015, Vega 56 and Vega 64 had launch prices of $399 and $499.

If AMD can make money on an HBM consumer card with two stacks of HBM for $399, they can certain make it on $699 card with 4 stacks, especially since as time goes by the cost of HBM is almost certainly declining.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

looks like some benches got leaked ahead of launch.

https://videocardz.com/79870/amd-radeon-vii-benchmarks-leak-ahead-of-launch

I thought Vega VII was supposed to be faster then the 1080 and 2080 yet in those benches its not even beating a 1070.
I want to get one but only if in fact it is faster then the 1080 and 2080.
I feel those benches are wrong cause the vega 64 is faster most the time then a 1080 and since the Vega VII is supposed to be faster then the Vega 64 then for sure it should be faster then the 1080 and 2080 right??

 

[EXCellR8]

I think the general consensus, if those benchmarks are valid, is that VII is slower than 2080 @ 1080P but outrenders the 2080 @ 4K.

Keep in mind this is with RT off during 1080p benchmarks, or at least I assume so.

 

[mattiasnyc]

My impression of why there even is a Radeon VII is that AMD wanted to have a presence in that segment in the market for their own "fans". As always it ends up being a matter of if the performance is enough for what you want to do and how much a card costs. As long as the card is competitive at whatever price point it ends up being and is enough for the buyer then it's a good product for the consumer, regardless of whether or not there's a better one from Nvidia.

I would also guess this card could be good for some people in content creation where plenty of high-bandwidth memory is beneficial. Probably something like color correction at 4k and above.

 

[PISTON1246]

I remember when NVIDIA did something I thought was not very good which was release the 9800GTX which was the same as the 8800GTX.

AMD or ATI if you want to call them that relesed the 8000 series Radeon which was basically the same as the 7000 series Radeon GPU. Similar move that NVIDIA did. Same product with different name. Then AMD released the 500 series Radeon thatwas the same as the 400 series.

NVIDIA started that and AMD continued that tradition.

ATI is not the same people as AMD.

I always wanted ATI and AMD put in my build.

The Radeon name is still being sold but the people behind the brand have changed and it shows with how they market their products.

They did not bother making a new 9000 series Radeon. I think I am a bigger fan of the ATI 9800 Radeon than I would have been a fan of an AMD Radeon that might have been called 9870.

I am not sure I like either NVIDIA or AMD better than ATI. Yes the AMD Radeons having more processing capability than the ATI Radeons but I think PC gaming was cooler in the past. We have more graphics today but I would not say better gameplay. Crysis is a game where you have the option of attacking people while they can not see you. Who likes the sniper role? I do not.

 

[zinfamous]

I remember when NVIDIA did something I thought was not very good which was release the 9800GTX which was the same as the 8800GTX.

AMD or ATI if you want to call them that relesed the 8000 series Radeon which was basically the same as the 7000 series Radeon GPU. Similar move that NVIDIA did. Same product with different name. Then AMD released the 500 series Radeon thatwas the same as the 400 series.

NVIDIA started that and AMD continued that tradition.

ATI is not the same people as AMD.

I always wanted ATI and AMD put in my build.

The Radeon name is still being sold but the people behind the brand have changed and it shows with how they market their products.

They did not bother making a new 9000 series Radeon. I think I am a bigger fan of the ATI 9800 Radeon than I would have been a fan of an AMD Radeon that might have been called 9870.

I am not sure I like either NVIDIA or AMD better than ATI. Yes the AMD Radeons having more processing capability than the ATI Radeons but I think PC gaming was cooler in the past. We have more graphics today but I would not say better gameplay. Crysis is a game where you have the option of attacking people while they can not see you. Who likes the sniper role? I do not.

I'm getting a bit of an (text-based) Uncanny Valley vibe from this post....

 

[EXCellR8]

Yea plenty of people like "stealth" and sniper games... myself included. It calls for smarter and more methodical gaming--but that's a completely unrelated discussion.

As for the VII (btw is it Vega 2, or Radeon 7?) I don't think it's bad per say but it's also not what I think we wanted either.

 

[DrMrLordX]

This is what is being discussed, so the point is that until people jumped to conclusions about Vega20, there had never been a Pro-only chip (and there still isn't today).

Also you can't say nobody expected a gaming card based on Vega20. I did, and I am certain many others did as well.

Do you downvote everyone with whom you have disagreement? What is wrong with you? Leave those buttons alone if you don't know what to do with them.

AMD practically said that they had no plans to release Vega20 to the public, and that Navi was their consumer-facing card.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-vega-20-7nm-graphics-cards/

https://www.techpowerup.com/247006/amd-7nm-vega-by-december-not-a-die-shrink-of-vega-10

AMD at its Computex event confirmed that "Vega 20" will build Radeon Instinct and Radeon Pro graphics cards, and that it has no plans to bring it to the client-segment. That distinction will be reserved for "Navi," which could only debut in 2019, if not later.

All the roadmaps they released before announcing Radeon VII - ALL of them! - had Vega20 as a pro-only product. Your "expectations" flew in the face of everything AMD corporate released to the public.

I thought Vega VII was supposed to be faster then the 1080 and 2080 yet in those benches its not even beating a 1070.

If you are referring to the FFXV benchmarks, then yes, it looks pretty bad. The TimeSpy results are also not that impressive versus a 2080. But FireStrike is okay.

 

[zinfamous]

Do you downvote everyone with whom you have disagreement? What is wrong with you? Leave those buttons alone if you don't know what to do with them.

AMD practically said that they had no plans to release Vega20 to the public, and that Navi was their consumer-facing card.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-vega-20-7nm-graphics-cards/

https://www.techpowerup.com/247006/amd-7nm-vega-by-december-not-a-die-shrink-of-vega-10



All the roadmaps they released before announcing Radeon VII - ALL of them! - had Vega20 as a pro-only product. Your "expectations" flew in the face of everything AMD corporate released to the public.

right, that's how I recall it. It really seems that keeping Vega20 in the pro market was all about reasonable pricing, so it never made sense to consider otherwise. Then RTX happened, and I guess AMD went "lol, so why not try, I guess?"

So now we have this thing.

But then, after looking at NVidia reporting its 4Q losses, maybe this really wasn't a good idea?

 

[DrMrLordX]

But then, after looking at NVidia reporting its 4Q losses, maybe this really wasn't a good idea?

One way to find out. Full disclosure, I'm in for one as soon as they come on sale, but few others will follow (and possibly for good reason). My greater fear is that Navi will take a long time to get faster than Radeon VII.

 

[mattiasnyc]

AMD practically said that they had no plans to release Vega20 to the public, and that Navi was their consumer-facing card.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-vega-20-7nm-graphics-cards/

https://www.techpowerup.com/247006/amd-7nm-vega-by-december-not-a-die-shrink-of-vega-10

All the roadmaps they released before announcing Radeon VII - ALL of them! - had Vega20 as a pro-only product. Your "expectations" flew in the face of everything AMD corporate released to the public.

I kind'a have to agree with Peter here though.

First of all, the quote isn't a quote of what AMD said officially, but rather what a reporter thought AMD was planning (or not planning). Huge difference. And the other article talks about the cards, not the actual GPUs.

So Peter has a point here when he says AMD has been pretty consistent recently with reusing the same architecture up and down the product lines, from server/compute down to consumer. Because of that consistency it's not a far-fetched guess that they'd eventually roll out 7nm Vega "below" the Instinct line.

Of course it's also possible that it is as (ironically) I think Jim @ AdoredTV said...

 

[PeterScott]

AMD practically said that they had no plans to release Vega20 to the public, and that Navi was their consumer-facing card.

Show me one single quote where AMD said this.

You are just looking at some blogs interpretation of AMD computex events and assuming there would never be a gaming card.

This is exactly how the meme got started. Everyone read interpretations of AMD's silence, and assumed. There was no statement.

 

[Stuka87]

Not even sure why its such a big deal if AMD said they would or would not release a consumer version.

There is any number of reasons they would, even if they had explicitly said that they would not. Maybe yields are better, so costs are lower, maybe Mi50's arent selling as well, maybe they just saw an opportunity with the RTX shenanigans.

Does it really matter though? They built one, it goes on sale in a week, and gives consumers another choice.

 

[amenx]

I remember when NVIDIA did something I thought was not very good which was release the 9800GTX which was the same as the 8800GTX..

Quite different cards.
8800gtx = 384bit bus, 768mb vram, 90nm process, G80 uarch - Launch price around $650
9800gtx = 256bit bus, 512 vram, 65nm, G92 - Launch price $349

p.s. you must have been thinking 8800gt vs 9800gt. Yes these I believe were the same.

 

[PeterScott]

Quite different cards.
8800gtx = 384bit bus, 768mb vram, 90nm process, G80 uarch - Launch price around $650
9800gtx = 256bit bus, 512 vram, 65nm, G92 - Launch price $349

p.s. you must have been thinking 8800gt vs 9800gt. Yes these I believe were the same.

A little off topic, but that G92(a|b) die really got around.

It was the 8800GT, 9800GT, GTS 150, GTS 240

That is 4 product generations in name, that are essentially running on the same die.

 

[PeterScott]

Of course it's also possible that it is as (ironically) I think Jim @ AdoredTV said...

I was just thinking a while ago, that I should have made a "leak" video back in August when I was arguing that a consumer Vega 20 7nm, would probably come in around RTX 2080 performance even if it was just 64 CUs with no gaming enhancements.

 

[kawi6rr]

Not even sure why its such a big deal if AMD said they would or would not release a consumer version.

It's only a big deal to certain individuals. I for one like a market with options but it seems some people on this forum don't.

 

[mattiasnyc]

It's only a big deal to certain individuals. I for one like a market with options but it seems some people on this forum don't.

I think the keyword was "if AMD said"...

Also, if what Jim was saying (pulling from memory here) was true then the plan changed back and forth, but regardless there would have been something on the market. If not Navi then Vega. I could remember that incorrectly, but that's what I recall.

 

[maddie]

If Nvidia had released the RTX cards with a normal pricing structure, I don't think AMD would have released a card tying the 2080 for a couple hundred additional $. The implication is that the higher than expected prices allowed this to happen. It's not like they have a large ability to cut prices with a 4 HBM2 stack 7nm die.