Discussion RDNA 5 / UDNA (CDNA Next) speculation

[luro]

They intend to drop support of rdna2 while those GPUs still on shelf and all the rdna lines that should support ROCm still has serious issues running it

It's actually a lot worse than that.

AMD dropped support for RDNA3/3.5 which is an architecture coming in future products like Gorgon Halo.

At the moment, there's hardly any reason to trust AMD's GPU support at all.
Buyers of recent RDNA4 GPUs are likely to regret their decision in a couple of years when RDNA5 is out there.

Their latest driver literaly has a bunch of fixes for RNDA2 and RDNA3. I dont know how this is not supporting.

 

[ToTTenTranz]

I don't know about ROCm, but at least the driver thing AMD somewhat backtracked from was "only" about RDNA1+2, and more about Day 1 support + optimizations for new games, rather than total droppage.

RDNA3 is in "maintenance mode" just as much as RDNA1+2. FSR4 and Redstone were exclusive to RDNA4 and there's zero sign of this changing.

Their latest driver literaly has a bunch of fixes for RNDA2 and RDNA3. I dont know how this is not supporting.

Yes, fixes means "maintenance mode". Support should mean game optimization and support for newly launched software features.

 

[gdansk]

The RTX 4080 is now faster than a 7900xtx and the gap between a 7900 xtx vs 4090 is nearly 39. percent(where it used to be 29%). The 4070 regular is now beating a 7800xt where it previously lost.

The test suite changed. Even something as simple as using a different, faster CPU will favor Nvidia's CPU heavy drivers.

And other test suites disagree with that assessment.

Go spread your multivariable schlockbenches/FUD in another (non-vendor) thread. RDNA3.x isn't in maintenance mode despite not having all features. Much like Ampere isn't in maintenance mode despite not having MFG.

 

[Win2012R2]

Yes, fixes means "maintenance mode". Support should mean game optimization and support for newly launched software features.

It's unrealistic to expect any of the following:
1) new software features like FSR4 that rely on new hardware added
2) doing anything other than maintenance mode for product lined that EOL-ed
3) doing game optimisation in drivers - drivers should have never done that, it's the job for devs to optimise their games that they sell: driver should just be driver that complies with the spec and does it as fast as possible.

 

[gdansk]

it means AMD is just doing the bare minimum to ensure compatibility and stability

No, it doesn't. Your multivariable tests show nothing of the sort.

You can easily look at AMD commits to llvm forks and linux in the last year to show it isn't in maintenance mode. They had made changes to their compilers that we can see in public for older architectures. Your worthless theory crafting ignoring architectural differences, testing setup variation and game selection is falsified easily by looking at real, shipping code which improves performance on e.g. gfx11.

 

[marees]

RDNA 5 (AT2 — 10070xt) & Xbox Magnus ready to go by Q3 2027 — an MLID source who has never been wrong

 

[basix]

The test suite changed. Even something as simple as using a different, faster CPU will favor Nvidia's CPU heavy drivers.

And other test suites disagree with that assessment.

If you look at the raytracing test suite of Computerbase, the 7900XTX gained ground against the 4080. We now can argue that Nvidia has worse support for raytracing games

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Go spread your multivariable schlockbenches/FUD in another (non-vendor) thread.

Precisely. The deleted posts would have been fine in any vendors thread, except for AMD.

Apologies for the interruption.

 

[ToTTenTranz]

It's unrealistic to expect any of the following:
1) new software features like FSR4 that rely on new hardware added

This goes out the window the moment you know AMD has a working version of FSR4 using INT8 that is a lot better than FSR3.x and runs fine on RDNA3 and even RDNA2.

2) doing anything other than maintenance mode for product lined that EOL-ed

FSR1 was officially supported by all GCN1 GPUs (released 8 years prior). FSR3 is officially supported by Vega GPUs (released 6 years prior) for upscaling.
FSR4 isn't supported by RDNA3.x GPUs that released 2 years prior. Some of the RDNA3.5 iGPUs released last month and some of them are still yet to release.

This level of planned obsolescence from AMD, considering the fact that the hardware is capable, is unprecedented.

3) doing game optimisation in drivers - drivers should have never done that, it's the job for devs to optimise their games that they sell: driver should just be driver that complies with the spec and does it as fast as possible.

Wanting this to happen doesn't make it happen, though.

 

[jpiniero]

This goes out the window the moment you know AMD has a working version of FSR4 using INT8 that is a lot better than FSR3.x and runs fine on RDNA3 and even RDNA2.

That's a lot slower that AMD decided wasn't worth it.

 

[adroc_thurston]

That's a lot slower that AMD decided wasn't worth it.

New DLSS update is also horribly slow on non-FP8-capable GPUs.
It's whatever at this point.

 

[luro]

Yes, fixes means "maintenance mode". Support should mean game optimization and support for newly launched software features.

No, means they are still supporting it. Its just that they are not prioritizing them anymore. Oh, and Nvidia does the same, they just dont't make it clear.

Edit: Won't discuss semantics. If we are going that way, Nvidia also dropped support for older generations by not providing FG.

 

[tsamolotoff]

even RDNA2.

If we imagine that AMD actually cared about GPUs, there was a rationale for AMD not to launch FSR4 for older GPUs performance wise. FSR4 takes a bit of time even at 1080p with full blown N21, more than 1ms and that rises to 4ms ish at 4K. This means the cards that would 'benefit' (I'm against all forms of TAA cancer, so i don't care if it works or not) from this upsmear technology the most (like 6600xt) would also be severely capped by max fps they can provide with FSR4 enabled (multiply my numbers by 2-3x). This would naturally be meticulously 'researched' by nV foundry and its likes, so that would be a bad press for AMD (and there were enough of it because of the MSRP price tricks and launch rebates for the vendors)



1 / (3.8ms) = 263 fps, which is actually below what my monitor can do (if i was an avid fan of what TAA does with image and movement clarity, i'd be terribly disappointed)