Question Speculation: RDNA3 + CDNA2 Architectures Thread

Page 159 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

uzzi38

Platinum Member
Oct 16, 2019
2,705
6,427
146

Kaluan

Senior member
Jan 4, 2022
504
1,074
106
Propose this to AMD lol. There is a difference in TDP range AND clock speed though (game clocks are different between the 7600M XT and the 7700S, and between the 7600M and 7600S). So while similar in specs, they are not the same. Also, in AMD's case one can have a rough estimation of the specs (exact TDP apart) only from the name.
Interestingly, based on their data, 7700S (up to 100W) seems to perform exactly like the (up to 120W) 7600M XT.
I suppose 7xxxS SKU have extra binning.

Either way, based on the current silicon revision (that we'll see in N33 mobile), I don't think we'll see much past MAYBE near 6700XT raster and MAYBE near 6800 raytracing for a 160W+ desktop part (7600 XT?).
Drivers being the wildcard, but I wouldn't base anything around that hopium.
Nothing to talk about it without knowing how much power it needs for that and under what workloads it's achievable.

In the right workloads you can see the 7900XTX briefly touch 4GHz after all. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter when it comes to real world performance.
They didn't ADVERTISE 4GHz, hell not even 3GHz for the 7900XTX now, did they? They do for top bin 780M.

So not exactly sound logic you're using there.

Phoneix RDNA3 is also a different revision than N31 and a different node. Highly doubt they behave exactly the same.


Anyway, for reference, 2,4GHz 680M (Ryzen 9) seems to be able to sustain those clocks at 45/54W PL setting (assuming adequate cooling is a given). 2,2GHz (Ryzen 7) likely needs a bit less.

This is stock, without forcing the x86 side to use less so more can go towards the IGP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lodix

TESKATLIPOKA

Platinum Member
May 1, 2020
2,523
3,038
136

7700S Geekbench OpenCL score. About 12% faster than the average 6700S.
Actually, It's only 3.5% faster.
I don't understand why they compared It to a cutdown 6700s with only 80W max.

RX 7700S is full N33 with 32CU 75-100W and 8GB 18gbps memory
Game frequency is 2200 MHz.

RX 6800S is full N23 with 32CU 100W and 8GB 16gbps memory
Game frequency is 1975 MHz.

OpenCL
81145(103.5%) vs 78332(100%)
 

insertcarehere

Senior member
Jan 17, 2013
639
607
136
Actually, It's only 3.5% faster.
I don't understand why they compared It to a cutdown 6700s with only 80W max.

Because that's what AMD compared the 7700s with, which is not "wrong" from a product perspective (assuming 7700s replaces 6700s and there's something above it) but does inherently make inferring comparisons between N33 and N23 architecture flawed (more than it already would be using what AMD presents).
 

Aapje

Golden Member
Mar 21, 2022
1,515
2,065
106
But that might be because they are going to do a respin of N32. Which would line up with the idea that it will be 6+ months from now before you see it in any fashion.

No, the idea is that they do a respin of N31, but that N32 doesn't have the bug, so it's actually too good and would cannibalize the top tier. So they have to wait with the release of N32 until they fix N31.

Of course, this is all speculation.
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
15,223
5,768
136
No, the idea is that they do a respin of N31, but that N32 doesn't have the bug, so it's actually too good and would cannibalize the top tier. So they have to wait with the release of N32 until they fix N31.

Of course, this is all speculation.

Don't you think they would have at least announced N32 mobile if that wasn't the case though?
 

Timorous

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2008
1,748
3,240
136
No, the idea is that they do a respin of N31, but that N32 doesn't have the bug, so it's actually too good and would cannibalize the top tier. So they have to wait with the release of N32 until they fix N31.

Of course, this is all speculation.

Not quite. I just don't think N32 is ready yet.

Even if it clocks higher it won't match the 7900XTX so the only part under threat would be the 7900XT but the BOM cost of the top N32 part will be less than the 7900XT so selling a part that is close in performance (around 4070Ti or a bit faster maybe) for $650-700 would be a great play. At that price it would absolutely mop up and margins would be really healthy.
 

TESKATLIPOKA

Platinum Member
May 1, 2020
2,523
3,038
136
Don't you think they would have at least announced N32 mobile if that wasn't the case though?
But then based on mobile N32 we will know what to expect from "fixed" N31. If there is really a significant performance increase, then the current N31 won't be interesting for the buyers.
 
Last edited:

Aapje

Golden Member
Mar 21, 2022
1,515
2,065
106
Don't you think they would have at least announced N32 mobile if that wasn't the case though?

N33 is supposed to be the big seller for mobile, so they might not want to present it as a lower tier laptop solution right now. Also what TESKA said, it would divulge a lot about desktop.

It's different for AMD than for Nvidia, because all of Nvidia's mobile chips are small monolithic chips, including the mobile '4090' (which is really a 4080 desktop chip, which is really a x070 tier chip). N32 is not a great chip for laptops, I don't think.

@Timorous

If a $650 7800 XT gets close to a 7900 XT, then it will not just cannibalize that card, but a lot of people will probably get it over the 7900 XTX that is nearly twice as expensive. Ultimately, the 7900 XTX is not a halo product and needs to provide value, which it won't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TESKATLIPOKA

insertcarehere

Senior member
Jan 17, 2013
639
607
136
N33 is supposed to be the big seller for mobile, so they might not want to present it as a lower tier laptop solution right now. Also what TESKA said, it would divulge a lot about desktop.

It's different for AMD than for Nvidia, because all of Nvidia's mobile chips are small monolithic chips, including the mobile '4090' (which is really a 4080 desktop chip, which is really a x070 tier chip). N32 is not a great chip for laptops, I don't think.

@Timorous

If a $650 7800 XT gets close to a 7900 XT, then it will not just cannibalize that card, but a lot of people will probably get it over the 7900 XTX that is nearly twice as expensive. Ultimately, the 7900 XTX is not a halo product and needs to provide value, which it won't.

I don't buy that N32 is ready and being deliberately held back here given that:
- It gives Nvidia first-mover advantage in any high-end gaming/productivity laptops and further continues the problem of AMD not getting their designs into OEMs. Navi 33 looks poised to primarily compete with AD107, and Nvidia has 3 GPUs above that in mobile.
- it makes no business sense to delay a more efficient, more economical product (hypothetical N32) for the sake of selling and producing more of a less efficient, higher cost product (current N31).

There is little reason that N32 *has* to be priced to undercut N31 in value (the XT certainly doesn't undercut the XTX), it's not hard to see a N32 that performs close to N31 XT also be priced close enough to said XT, at least initially until AMD puts out a hypothetically fixed N31.

But then based on mobile N32 we will know what to expect from "fixed" N31. If there is really a significant performance increase, then the current N31 won't be interesting for the buyers.

Unless Mobile N32 is an absolute rockstar (IE matches 7900xt in a laptop), most people aren't going to be able to extrapolate well between GPU family A with <150w TGP and GPU family B with >300 TGP.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TESKATLIPOKA

Timorous

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2008
1,748
3,240
136
N33 is supposed to be the big seller for mobile, so they might not want to present it as a lower tier laptop solution right now. Also what TESKA said, it would divulge a lot about desktop.

It's different for AMD than for Nvidia, because all of Nvidia's mobile chips are small monolithic chips, including the mobile '4090' (which is really a 4080 desktop chip, which is really a x070 tier chip). N32 is not a great chip for laptops, I don't think.

@Timorous

If a $650 7800 XT gets close to a 7900 XT, then it will not just cannibalize that card, but a lot of people will probably get it over the 7900 XTX that is nearly twice as expensive. Ultimately, the 7900 XTX is not a halo product and needs to provide value, which it won't.

If margin on that part is higher and supply is higher why would it bother AMD if more people buy the higher margin part. We are talking 66% of the silicon with lower power and cooling requirements for 65-70% of the price. The margin on N32 will be higher than N31
 

Aapje

Golden Member
Mar 21, 2022
1,515
2,065
106
@insertcarehere

If the 7800 XT is close in performance to the 7900 XT and priced very close to it, then the entire product is nearly pointless, since it will drive very little extra sales due to being so similar to the 7900 XT. They then also get the bad PR of having to explain why the price for this tier went up so much.

And when it comes to laptops, the number of laptop models with a specific chip shows that the 3050, 3050 Ti and 3060 are the main sellers. There are less than half the models with a 3070 and almost half again, for the 3080. So unless something changes, which seems unlikely, AD107 will be the main seller on laptops for Nvidia and thus the main chip to compete with. You have to keep in mind that laptop makers have limited R&D capacity, so it takes time to make the new laptop models. Any extra model with N32 would for the next period just mean one fewer model with N33.
 

TESKATLIPOKA

Platinum Member
May 1, 2020
2,523
3,038
136
If margin on that part is higher and supply is higher why would it bother AMD if more people buy the higher margin part. We are talking 66% of the silicon with lower power and cooling requirements for 65-70% of the price. The margin on N32 will be higher than N31
Why would be the margin for N32 higher than N31?
Price: $699 vs $999
That's a difference of $300.

I calculated the cost for making N31 and N33.
Wafer prices are 7nm at that time $8000, 5nm currently $15000, 6nm currently $7000.
MCD is 37mm2 -> 1547 good dies. 7000/1547 = ~ $4.5
N31 GCD is 300mm2 -> 160 good dies. 15000/160 = $94 + 6*$4.5 = $121, with packaging maybe $155.
N31(cut) GCD is 300mm2 -> 160 good dies. 15000/160 = $94 + 5*$4.5 = $116.5, with packaging maybe $148.
N32 GCD is 200mm2 -> 251 good dies. 15000/251 = $60 + 4*$4.5 = $78, with packaging maybe $100.
GDDR6 is $20 per 2GB GDDR6 module included in BOM.

MRSP price will be divided: 8% to shop, 3% shipping, 19% manufacturer margin, you will be left with 70% of MRSP for BOM and AMD's asked price for the chip.
Chip costBOMMSRP70% of MRSP
RX 7900 XTX$155$330$999$699
RX 7900 XT$148$290$899$629
RX 7800 XT$100$230$649-699$489
AMD can set the price for manufacturers per chip at:
RX 7900 XTX: $699 - $330 = $369 (36.9% of MRSP)
RX 7900 XT: $629 - $290 = $339 (37.7% of MRSP)
RX 7800 XT: $489 - $230 = $259 (37% of MRSP)

Profit per chip:
RX 7900 XTX: $699 - $330 -$155 = $214
RX 7900 XTX: $629 - $290 -$148 = $191
RX 7800 XT: $489 - $230 - $100 = $159

Both N31 based models are more profitable than N32 for AMD.
 

Timorous

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2008
1,748
3,240
136
Why would be the margin for N32 higher than N31?
Price: $699 vs $999
That's a difference of $300.

I calculated the cost for making N31 and N33.
Wafer prices are 7nm at that time $8000, 5nm currently $15000, 6nm currently $7000.
MCD is 37mm2 -> 1547 good dies. 7000/1547 = ~ $4.5
N31 GCD is 300mm2 -> 160 good dies. 15000/160 = $94 + 6*$4.5 = $121, with packaging maybe $155.
N31(cut) GCD is 300mm2 -> 160 good dies. 15000/160 = $94 + 5*$4.5 = $116.5, with packaging maybe $148.
N32 GCD is 200mm2 -> 251 good dies. 15000/251 = $60 + 4*$4.5 = $78, with packaging maybe $100.
GDDR6 is $20 per 2GB GDDR6 module included in BOM.

MRSP price will be divided: 8% to shop, 3% shipping, 19% manufacturer margin, you will be left with 70% of MRSP for BOM and AMD's asked price for the chip.
Chip costBOMMSRP70% of MRSP
RX 7900 XTX$155$330$999$699
RX 7900 XT$148$290$899$629
RX 7800 XT$100$230$649-699$489
AMD can set the price for manufacturers per chip at:
RX 7900 XTX: $699 - $330 = $369 (36.9% of MRSP)
RX 7900 XT: $629 - $290 = $339 (37.7% of MRSP)
RX 7800 XT: $489 - $230 = $259 (37% of MRSP)

Profit per chip:
RX 7900 XTX: $699 - $330 -$155 = $214
RX 7900 XTX: $629 - $290 -$148 = $191
RX 7800 XT: $489 - $230 - $100 = $159

Both N31 based models are more profitable than N32 for AMD.

159/330 (profit / cost) is 48.2% margin.
214/485 is 44.1% margin for the 7900XTX
191/438 is 43.6% margin for the 7900XT

So $700 7800XT has higher margin than both N31 products which is what I suggested.

Thanks for doing the math to prove my suspicion.
 

TESKATLIPOKA

Platinum Member
May 1, 2020
2,523
3,038
136
Propose this to AMD lol.
Now when they already launched them? I don't think they will unlaunch them just because I think their naming sense is pretty bad. :D

There is a difference in TDP range AND clock speed though (game clocks are different between the 7600M XT and the 7700S, and between the 7600M and 7600S). So while similar in specs, they are not the same. Also, in AMD's case one can have a rough estimation of the specs (exact TDP apart) only from the name.
4.5% difference in clockspeed 7600M XT vs 7700S is because that is at their highest TDP 100W vs 120W.
Their TDP range is:
7600M XT: 75-120W
7700S: 75-100W
That means 7600M XT can also be limited to 100W.

If you compared 2 laptops, one with 7600M XT 100W vs 7700S 100W. How will they perform? Won't they perform the same?
The same with 7600M vs 7600S
Unless those S models are binned N33 then these models have no real reason to exist.
For 3 models you can guess the specs, but 7700S has simply wrong name. For no good reason, It's a higher tier.
 
Last edited:

Kronos1996

Junior Member
Dec 28, 2022
15
17
41
If Navi 33 beats the desktop 3060 by 31% as they claim, that would put it around RX 6800 performance on desktop. If they do plan on selling the 7600 XT for $400-450 then it needs to be faster then the 6700 XT so that would make sense. Otherwise it should be $350 max.
 

insertcarehere

Senior member
Jan 17, 2013
639
607
136
@insertcarehere

If the 7800 XT is close in performance to the 7900 XT and priced very close to it, then the entire product is nearly pointless, since it will drive very little extra sales due to being so similar to the 7900 XT. They then also get the bad PR of having to explain why the price for this tier went up so much.
No, close pricing like this would make the existing Navi 31 products seem more attractive, and presumably allow them to get rid of stock for the current 'flawed' chips to clear the path for the 'fixed' N31, assuming there's such a thing, of course.

As for bad PR, AMD threw HEDT users with very expensive platforms under the bus for Zen 3 threadripper, they are not allergic to making business moves with negative PR.

And when it comes to laptops, the number of laptop models with a specific chip shows that the 3050, 3050 Ti and 3060 are the main sellers. There are less than half the models with a 3070 and almost half again, for the 3080. So unless something changes, which seems unlikely, AD107 will be the main seller on laptops for Nvidia and thus the main chip to compete with. You have to keep in mind that laptop makers have limited R&D capacity, so it takes time to make the new laptop models. Any extra model with N32 would for the next period just mean one fewer model with N33.

This implies that there's a fixed proportion of resources allocated per laptop OEM for each vendor, regardless of how many models or SKUs there may be, and that this 'extra' model for N32 wouldn't instead be taking away from 4070/4080 or other Nvidia SKUs. That I find hard to believe.
 

TESKATLIPOKA

Platinum Member
May 1, 2020
2,523
3,038
136
159/330 (profit / cost) is 48.2% margin.
214/485 is 44.1% margin for the 7900XTX
191/438 is 43.6% margin for the 7900XT

So $700 7800XT has higher margin than both N31 products which is what I suggested.

Thanks for doing the math to prove my suspicion.
We were talking about AMD's margins, right?
Then BOM doesn't have anything to do with AMD, It has to do with manufacturers. AMD sells their chips to manufacturers for a price.

This is the price AMD could charge manufacturers.
X 7900 XTX: $699 - $330 = $369 (36.9% of MRSP)
RX 7900 XT: $629 - $290 = $339 (37.7% of MRSP)
RX 7800 XT: $489 - $230 = $259 (37% of MRSP)

Product margin= (selling price – cost of product) / selling price.
RX 7900 XTX: (369-155)/369 = 58%
RX 7900 XT: (339-148)/339 = 56%
RX 7800 XT: (259-100)/259 = 61%

You calculated It wrongly, but N32 still has higher margin.
BTW why does this margin even matter, when AMD has more $ from N31 than from N32?

edit: This was just an example I came up with. In reality, N31 could have higher margin than N32.
 
Last edited:

TESKATLIPOKA

Platinum Member
May 1, 2020
2,523
3,038
136
If Navi 33 beats the desktop 3060 by 31% as they claim, that would put it around RX 6800 performance on desktop. If they do plan on selling the 7600 XT for $400-450 then it needs to be faster then the 6700 XT so that would make sense. Otherwise it should be $350 max.
Don't believe everything they claim.
I checked 2 games and It looks different from AMD's chart.
AMD presentationRX 6700S 8GB (laptop)RX 7700S 8GB (laptop)RTX 3060 8GB (desktop)RXT 3060 12GB (desktop)RX 7600M XT 8GB (laptop)
Borderlands 3751046977106
Assassin's creed Valhalla781027283100

borderlands-3-1920-1080.pngassassins-creed-valhalla-1920-1080.png
RX 6600 is the same chip as RX 6700S, but with higher clocks.
In Borderlands 3 RTX 3060 12GB is 20% faster.
In Valhalla they perform comparably.
These results are much different than what AMD claims. RX 6700S performs a lot better than It should.

I would only compare RX 6700S vs 7700S, but keep in mind It's:
RX 6700S vs RX 7700S
TDP: 80W vs 100W
Frequency: 1890 MHz vs 2200MHz
SPecs: 28CU vs 32CU
RX 6800S would be a much better comparison, but then performance would closer. Specs and TDP are the same, only clockspeed is different.
 
Last edited:

insertcarehere

Senior member
Jan 17, 2013
639
607
136
Don't believe everything they claim.
I checked 2 games and It looks different from AMD's chart.
AMD presentationRX 6700S 8GB (laptop)RX 7700S 8GB (laptop)RTX 3060 8GB (desktop)RXT 3060 12GB (desktop)RX 7600M XT 8GB (laptop)
Borderlands 3751046977106
Assassin's creed Valhalla781027283100

View attachment 74140View attachment 74141
RX 6600 is the same chip as RX 6700S, but with higher clocks.
In Borderlands 3 RTX 3060 12GB is 20% faster.
In Valhalla they perform comparably.
These results are much different than what AMD claims. RX 6700S performs a lot better than It should.
Far more simple than that, the unwillingness in the presentation to compare Navi 33 to anything more performant than 3060 on Nvidia's side and (binned) N23 on their own product stack should suggest plenty that comparisons with anything more powerful don't put N33 in a good light. If N33 did compare well against say 6700XT, AMD loses nothing and gains more interest by showing it outright.
 

TESKATLIPOKA

Platinum Member
May 1, 2020
2,523
3,038
136
Far more simple than that, the unwillingness in the presentation to compare Navi 33 to anything more performant than 3060 on Nvidia's side and (binned) N23 on their own product stack should suggest plenty that comparisons with anything more powerful don't put N33 in a good light. If N33 djd compare well against say 6700XT, it would well be in AMD's interest to show this.
I don't mind them comparing It only to RTX 3060, but I don't like this desktop vs laptop comparison. They should have used only laptop models along with TDP.
N33 will be slower than N22, It just doesn't have specs or clocks to compare.
 

Kaluan

Senior member
Jan 4, 2022
504
1,074
106
Don't believe everything they claim.
I checked 2 games and It looks different from AMD's chart.
AMD presentationRX 6700S 8GB (laptop)RX 7700S 8GB (laptop)RTX 3060 8GB (desktop)RXT 3060 12GB (desktop)RX 7600M XT 8GB (laptop)
Borderlands 3751046977106
Assassin's creed Valhalla781027283100

View attachment 74140View attachment 74141
RX 6600 is the same chip as RX 6700S, but with higher clocks.
In Borderlands 3 RTX 3060 12GB is 20% faster.
In Valhalla they perform comparably.
These results are much different than what AMD claims. RX 6700S performs a lot better than It should.

I would only compare RX 6700S vs 7700S, but keep in mind It's:
RX 6700S vs RX 7700S
TDP: 80W vs 100W
Frequency: 1890 MHz vs 2200MHz
SPecs: 28CU vs 32CU
RX 6800S would be a much better comparison, but then performance would closer. Specs and TDP are the same, only clockspeed is different.
Well, I don't know what settings TPU used, they don't always use the highest settings, AMD did. I see many outlets bench Borderlands 3 w/ Very High or Ultra instead of Badass and AC:V with Very High instead of Ultra.

We don't know the power budgets, or even less so the actual measured TGP, AMD used desktop boards for all the mobile GPU tests, so it's not like we can refer to a specific laptop model. ASUS has a 6700S design that can be configured up to 100W (which it doesn't hit according to a nanoreview review), despite AMD's spec being "up to 80W". So all of this is a mess to correctly frame performance-wise.

AMD didn't even bother to use the same system (to their disadvantage maybe) when it benched the 3060 desktop vs 7600M XT on. 5600X/DDR4-3600 for the Radeon and 7600X/DDR5-6000 for the GeForce
lol

4FeKtWfWe9GqW5Ws.jpg
Also, can't seem find the endnote for the 6700S v 7700S test.
 

Attachments

  • 4FeKtWfWe9GqW5Ws.jpg
    4FeKtWfWe9GqW5Ws.jpg
    393.4 KB · Views: 3

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,700
5,434
136
N33 is supposed to be the big seller for mobile, so they might not want to present it as a lower tier laptop solution right now. Also what TESKA said, it would divulge a lot about desktop.

It's different for AMD than for Nvidia, because all of Nvidia's mobile chips are small monolithic chips, including the mobile '4090' (which is really a 4080 desktop chip, which is really a x070 tier chip). N32 is not a great chip for laptops, I don't think.

@Timorous

If a $650 7800 XT gets close to a 7900 XT, then it will not just cannibalize that card, but a lot of people will probably get it over the 7900 XTX that is nearly twice as expensive. Ultimately, the 7900 XTX is not a halo product and needs to provide value, which it won't.
The 6900XT and 6800XT coexisted @ $649 and $999, so a $999 7900XTX and a $649 7800XT, is more sensible than the the pricing of the motherboards 6xxx series.


But it is pretty weird that N32 is Mia...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RnR_au

Timorous

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2008
1,748
3,240
136
We were talking about AMD's margins, right?
Then BOM doesn't have anything to do with AMD, It has to do with manufacturers. AMD sells their chips to manufacturers for a price.

This is the price AMD could charge manufacturers.
X 7900 XTX: $699 - $330 = $369 (36.9% of MRSP)
RX 7900 XT: $629 - $290 = $339 (37.7% of MRSP)
RX 7800 XT: $489 - $230 = $259 (37% of MRSP)

Product margin= (selling price – cost of product) / selling price.
RX 7900 XTX: (369-155)/369 = 58%
RX 7900 XT: (339-148)/339 = 56%
RX 7800 XT: (259-100)/259 = 61%

You calculated It wrongly, but N32 still has higher margin.
BTW why does this margin even matter, when AMD has more $ from N31 than from N32?

edit: This was just an example I came up with. In reality, N31 could have higher margin than N32.

It matters because AMD will sell more N32 than N31 due to there being more buyers at $700 than at $900+