• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Question Speculation: RDNA2 + CDNA Architectures thread

Page 32 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
TESKATLIPOKA said:
BTW I have to wonder when AMD finally fixes the high power consumption using two monitors, because this was not fixed for many years and It doesn't make a good impression.
Click to expand...
That's a tricky one. iGPU is by far the best at running multiple monitors sipping a few watts at most, and that's same whether Intel or AMD AFAIK.
With dGPUs, for dual monitors, AMD ramp up the memory clocks to gaming levels AFAIK. While Nvidia only do that for three monitors (which TPU don't test - so must have seen those results elsewhere).
Think some people have set the multi-monitor memory clocks lower themselves with AMD cards and that mostly works, so it really looks like the drivers are just playing safe most of the time. Which would imply an embarrassing driver issue which hasn't been fixed for years.
 
TESKATLIPOKA said:
I can understand why some people are pessimistic about RDNA2 considering the past, but we know big Navi has 80CU so I find It unreasonable when someone says It will perform between RTX 3060-3070. We know RTX 3090 has "only" 5248 Cuda so RTX 3070 will probably have 3072 Cuda cores and It's not possible that a 5120 core RDNA2 GPU performs the same as Ampere with 3072 cores. Ampere would need to have much better IPC and clockspeed compared to Turing or RDNA1(2) to erase the difference in the number of execution units between Big Navi and RTX3070.
Click to expand...

Compare the shader counts for Fury/Vega against the NVidia cards at the time and it looks suspiciously like the same argument. And yet the results spoke for themselves.

Obviously the argument is that RDNA allows AMD to get around GCN limitations that made the additional shaders they had over the competition rather ineffectual, but AMD has had a history of more shaders that didn't perform as well as NVidia's fewer shaders.

It's easy to see why some people may be being overly pessimistic if they weren't spending a lot of time trying to understand why the past results were the way that they were.
 
But in this case Ampere most likely won't be significantly different than Turing, so I don't expect significant IPC gain or much higher clockspeed to offset the difference in execution units.
It's possible I have a biassed view in this considering I have followed gpu architectures for some time now in comparison to some who may have started not so long ago or just weren't interested in them to such an extend.
 
Last edited:
Mopetar said:
Compare the shader counts for Fury/Vega against the NVidia cards at the time and it looks suspiciously like the same argument. And yet the results spoke for themselves.

Obviously the argument is that RDNA allows AMD to get around GCN limitations that made the additional shaders they had over the competition rather ineffectual, but AMD has had a history of more shaders that didn't perform as well as NVidia's fewer shaders.

It's easy to see why some people may be being overly pessimistic if they weren't spending a lot of time trying to understand why the past results were the way that they were.
Click to expand...

This is partly because the chips were compute heavy cards. And at launch this did nothing. The cards supported features that would not be used for years. Which did give the cards long lives. A 7970 for instance performed significantly better than a GTX 680 5 years down the road. But that was/is kind of a moot point.

RDNA seems to offer much better performance for a given shader count than GCN did, which is partly due to AMD making RDNA less compute heavy, and leaving that for CDNA where it belongs.
 
Zotac's leaked Twin Edge 3070 with dual fan and no bling looks awesome. How are Zotac cards these days? It also looks really compact.

Stuka87 said:
RDNA seems to offer much better performance for a given shader count than GCN did, which is partly due to AMD making RDNA less compute heavy, and leaving that for CDNA where it belongs.
Click to expand...

I learned this a few months ago when I looked into it myself. I wasn't sure why AMD were still relying on GCN/CDNA cards almost a year into RDNA. The more you know!
 
A/// said:
I learned this a few months ago when I looked into it myself. I wasn't sure why AMD were still relying on GCN/CDNA cards almost a year into RDNA. The more you know!
Click to expand...

Possibly due to 7nm supply. They can only get so many wafers from TSMC, better to use them on high margin Epyc than on an RX590 replacement.
 
All of this is nice and all but I want to see a product from AMD before the end of the year. Don't care about rumors. I want to see products.
 
A/// said:
All of this is nice and all but I want to see a product from AMD before the end of the year. Don't care about rumors. I want to see products.
Click to expand...
FFS AMD have said that's happening multiple times already.

Navi21 will launch this year.
 
Qwertilot said:
If they've genuinely got anything like a 50% perf/watt improvement then you have to imagine that with the money from Zen coming in they'll fund a top to bottom refresh of their GPU's.
Click to expand...
Been saying for a while now, Zen's physical optimisation team found their way over to RTG and have been working some magic.
 
DDH said:
What is a physical optimisation team?
Click to expand...
Somebody else can probably give you a real explanation as I'm really bad at it, but so your modern chip is dozens if not hundreds of different IPs pieced together. Often you'll use a program to put these together for the final layout of your design. A physical optimisation team is a team that will go and make small tweaks here and there to try and tweak and tune different areas of the chip by hand effectively. The end result is usually improved V/f properties in some way or another, depends on what the aim of said physical optimisation team was.
 
uzzi38 said:
ody else can probably give you a real explanation as I'm really bad at it, but so your modern chip is dozens if not hundreds of different IPs pieced together. Often you'll use a program to put these together for the final layout of your design. A physical optimisation team is a team that will go and make small tweaks here and there to try and tweak and tune different areas of the chip by hand effectively. The end result is usually improved V/f properties in some way or another, depends on what the aim of said physical optimisation team was.
Click to expand...
Back in the days, very much was done like this at Intel, while AMD took the cheaper approach going through software. Good to hear they have people in place squeezing out the last percents as well now a days!
 
uzzi38 said:
My guess is that all RDNA 2 GPUs this time around will have 5WGPs per SA.

So it'll be a simple 80/60/40/20 in the order of the codenames.
Click to expand...
It look simple at first, 20CU more for each tier, but there will be an uneven performance difference between each tier.
20 -> 40CU 100% increase
40 -> 60CU 50% increase
60 -> 80CU 33% increase
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top