@railven I don't think GCN has a future beyond Vega20. So maybe IP blocks can be recycled in Navi, or maybe not. But as a larger part of Navi's future design, I do not think that AMD will specifically be building on anything GCN.
I'm assuming that Navi is still pretty heavily based on GCN, but it's pretty clear that they need a new architecture or that what they have would need some major overhauls because it has some clear limitations....
Yea that's why I said I don't think Navi is coming this year, it will be Vega on 7nm.
It looks like Navi vs the Nvidia 3000 series both on 7nm at the end of 2020 at best.
Navi could start at the lower segments than Vega II ($699) , for example a 200mm2 navi at 7nm could be the foundation for sub $499 cards within 2019.
Lisa Su
As we entered 2019, we are preparing to launch our strongest product portfolio ever. In gaming, we will launch our high end Radeon 7 GPU in February, followed by our next generation Navi GPUs later in the year.
I also expect Navi to be another GCN tweak.
I think AMD has a decent general purpose GPU architecture, but NVidia really has step up on efficiency tricks. Better culling of triangles or things like that, then they work with Devs to implement things that work well with their efficiency tweaks.
In games where the efficiency tweaks don't work as well, AMD pulls ahead on brute force, as in competing products (rx580vs1060, Vega64vs1080) AMD usually has more transistor than NVidia, and does better at raw compute.
I also got the impression the first time a saw that architecture roadmap, that Navi was pretty much and extension of Vega, and Next-Gen was the big change.
But basically I think AMD needs some efficiency tricks that work, and that should work with a GCN architecture. It will be interesting to see what Navi brings.
Because she is right. Just look at the latest earnings report, highest datacenter GPU revenue of all time for AMD. How is that a disaster?In the latest q&a with Lisa with among other AT she gets away with saying Vega is a success because the technology is used in many places.
She shouldn't get away with that nonsense but should be confronted. Yes it got the name Vega but it's hardly any different from Polaris. It's just spin. Vega works but it's slow and inefficient and as a project evolved over 4-5 years it was a disaster.
Because she is right. Just look at the latest earnings report, highest datacenter GPU revenue of all time for AMD. How is that a disaster?
But no actual GPU datacenter numbers.
In the latest q&a with Lisa with among other AT she gets away with saying Vega is a success because the technology is used in many places.
She shouldn't get away with that nonsense but should be confronted. Yes it got the name Vega but it's hardly any different from Polaris. It's just spin. Vega works but it's slow and inefficient and as a project evolved over 4-5 years it was a disaster.
That's a third just to cover 7nm port for vega. Only upfront fixed process cost for single die. Fixed process cost. You really haven't started covering fixed cost...AMD line item reports by sector, not product line. In the Q&A Lisa Su did give a rough estimate of 7.5% of quarterly revenue came from GPU data center which works out to ~$100M.
Who oem wanted Vega?4-5 years?? Vega launched on August 14, 2017. And its not inefficient at all if its run the way it was designed to be run. AMD has stated that both Polaris and Vega were designed based on request from specific customers. And those customers wanted very low power GPU's. When both Polaris and Vega are run at lower clocks, their efficiency goes WAY up. But, in their non-OEM guise, their power usage is high because AMD cranks the clocks up, and runs the core voltage higher so that they don't have to bin every GPU (Which is why undervolting AMD GPU's works so well). But to AMD, performance is more important than power usage, which makes sense. Because power usage does not matter to the vast majority of buyers. Using less power doesn't make your game run better. And even nVidia's power consumption has gone way up with their RTX cards.
Vega and Polaris are very different. Yes both are GCN based GPU's, but saying its hardly different is hyperbole. The two GPU's are very different, compare the dies side by side and its readily apparent.
That's a third just to cover 7nm port for vega. Only upfront fixed process cost for single die. Fixed process cost. You really haven't started covering fixed cost...
Who oem wanted Vega?
Its 5 years since Maxwell launched.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/7764/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-ti-and-gtx-750-review-maxwell
We get Radeon 7 excactly 5 years after. Can it do some of the same tricks or does Radeon 7 mean we have to wait 7 years?
Nv had tricks that made Maxwel arch far more efficient and also faster than prior gens. Some of the same tricks was in Vega hardware but never was made to work. They worked out the gate on Maxwell.The 750 "Maxwell" is not the same as the 'Maxwell" that made up cards like the 980Ti. Not sure what you mean by tricks, but the Vega 64 was already faster than a 980Ti. I am not sure what your point of Vega II coming five years after the 750 means? Yes nVidia had faster cards out two and a half years ago, but they were Pascal, not Maxwell.
GCN came out like 2012, so it's like 7 years old. Damn that makes me sad. Yet another bulldozer from AMD. Will they ever learn to make new architecture every 5 years? Probably not.
It's going to lose to the 2080 @1440p, and barely ties it @4K.That down clocking thing is kind of half true. The power draw gap is obviously exaggerated by AMD shipping cards at frankly dumb clocks in order to try and keep up better performance wise.
That down clocking thing is kind of half true. The power draw gap is obviously exaggerated by AMD shipping cards at frankly dumb clocks in order to try and keep up better performance wise.
That doesn’t mean they’re actually perf/watt competitive - look at what happens in gaming notebooks. That’s a realy lucrative market and AMD essentially nowhere.