Caporegime
Link removed.
13Gb/s is impressive and hopefully we will see this in the newer Pascal and Polaris cards that don't get HBM2 but I wouldn't hold my breath on that.
Last edited:
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Micron to start mass producing GDDR5X memory chips
- Thread starter Gregster
- Start date
Link removed.
13Gb/s is impressive and hopefully we will see this in the newer Pascal and Polaris cards that don't get HBM2 but I wouldn't hold my breath on that.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
It's going into mass production in summer, they got their first chips at all out of the fab and they work well. Mass production in summer means the absolute earliest we would see cards using it would be mid Q3 if early summer production. If late summer, early to mid Q4.
GDDR5x isn't remotely a replacement or competitor. 60-70% of the power usage for gddr5(x) is the memory controller and sending the signals to and from the chips, HBM gets rid of the majority of that. Running a memory controller at twice the speed isn't going to save power on that end, gddr5x memory chips themselves might use less power though the relatively erroneous reporting that it will save power because GDDR5 is stuck at 1.5v... when 1.35v chips have been available for years, is a bit of a joke. They'll likely use less power than existing chips on the majority of last gen simply because they've moved to 20nm production which gddr5 has also but most cards will have gddr5 made on the cheaper/higher process.
GDDR5x offers no communication power reduction, no packaging/pcb advantages, it's likely to cost significantly more than standard gddr5 for a time as well, though it should be cheaper than HBM.
GDDR5x is probably not really targeted at graphics cards, think more like a router which has 1 or 2 chips combined with a cheap chip and bandwidth/speed is required but the cost of hbm/interposer no maybe a £10 chip isn't viable, but simply replacing gddr5 with the new variant is cheap and easy.
Capacity, packaging, power, HBM just destroys it but if you want to take a router from 256MB and what 20GB/s to 512MB and 40GB/s, Gddr5x is perfect while a 2-4GB stack of 256GB/s memory is complete overkill.
GDDR5x isn't remotely a replacement or competitor. 60-70% of the power usage for gddr5(x) is the memory controller and sending the signals to and from the chips, HBM gets rid of the majority of that. Running a memory controller at twice the speed isn't going to save power on that end, gddr5x memory chips themselves might use less power though the relatively erroneous reporting that it will save power because GDDR5 is stuck at 1.5v... when 1.35v chips have been available for years, is a bit of a joke. They'll likely use less power than existing chips on the majority of last gen simply because they've moved to 20nm production which gddr5 has also but most cards will have gddr5 made on the cheaper/higher process.
GDDR5x offers no communication power reduction, no packaging/pcb advantages, it's likely to cost significantly more than standard gddr5 for a time as well, though it should be cheaper than HBM.
GDDR5x is probably not really targeted at graphics cards, think more like a router which has 1 or 2 chips combined with a cheap chip and bandwidth/speed is required but the cost of hbm/interposer no maybe a £10 chip isn't viable, but simply replacing gddr5 with the new variant is cheap and easy.
Capacity, packaging, power, HBM just destroys it but if you want to take a router from 256MB and what 20GB/s to 512MB and 40GB/s, Gddr5x is perfect while a 2-4GB stack of 256GB/s memory is complete overkill.
Soldato
Gddr5x is also dependant on new extensions in functionality on the controller end. Considering that it just became a standard, no card coming out will have support unless micron talked with the others.
But with AMD focusing on HBM, unless they were looking at running the gddr5x in gddr5 mode then I doubt it would be used in the first release of cards this year.
But with AMD focusing on HBM, unless they were looking at running the gddr5x in gddr5 mode then I doubt it would be used in the first release of cards this year.
i dont see GDDR5x competing with HBM, the advantage of HBM is too huge, speed, efficiency, small foot print with the memory on the chip itself, if the competition is about the price, HBM price will eventualy go down overtime, i dont see them competing in 2 years, just gddr dying off
Caporegime
I'll take GDDR5X all day long thanks very much
lmao
I hope by that you didn't mean you would take it over HBM.
HBM is the must have VRAM but the speeds they have achieved keep GDDR5 alive and of course price and availability are what will dictate it's usage. I remember reading an article about NVidia using it but not sure if that was official or a click bait site.
lmao
I hope by that you didn't mean you would take it over HBM.
HBM is new, the only experience I have of it so far is AMD. Also, the fact that AMD have said that games need to be optimized for it. Right now, for me thats a fail or AMD have failed with it. It's one or the other.
I know what GDDR5 is, I trust it. The new node 5X has higher capacity memory. It's also twice as fast as standard GDDR5.
GDDR5X all the way as I said until we at the very least have a rough idea of how HBM is going to be/go. As I mentioned all weve had is AMD and its failed.
Caporegime
I don't even....
I'll let someone who can even be bothered reply to that.
FYI: Just because something is new and needs optimisation does not make it a fail, we'd get nowhere if we just stuck to the safe option.
I'll let someone who can even be bothered reply to that.
FYI: Just because something is new and needs optimisation does not make it a fail, we'd get nowhere if we just stuck to the safe option.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Lambchop is a troll, he has no other function on this forum. Flopper is at least funny with some of the crazy stuff he says, Lambchop is not ever funny, just anti AMD with zero other purpose for posting. Mods say they want to clean up this sub but let him troll every thread with impunity.
I mean, how stupid is this "I know what GDDR5 is, I trust it......... so I want GDDR5X, which is new and unused before so it can't be trusted". Oh also, nope, gddr5x doesn't offer higher memory capacity at the moment. GDDR5 and 5X will both offer 8Gb chips.... is 8Gb double the capacity of 8Gb.. nope, I don't think so. Oh also gddr5 comes in speeds up to 8Gbps, Gddr5x will come in speeds potentially as high as 13Gbps at launch, is that twice as fast, nope.
I mean, how stupid is this "I know what GDDR5 is, I trust it......... so I want GDDR5X, which is new and unused before so it can't be trusted". Oh also, nope, gddr5x doesn't offer higher memory capacity at the moment. GDDR5 and 5X will both offer 8Gb chips.... is 8Gb double the capacity of 8Gb.. nope, I don't think so. Oh also gddr5 comes in speeds up to 8Gbps, Gddr5x will come in speeds potentially as high as 13Gbps at launch, is that twice as fast, nope.
There's no need to be rude about it.
That's not quite what I said. I said GDDR5X all the way, then said until we have a rough idea of how HBM is going to be. I dont think thats very unreasonable or taking the safe option.
Caporegime
No you quite clearly stated above it's a fail, either the technology fails or AMD failed with it, it's right there in your post.
We have more than a rough idea how HBM will pan out, and it offers far more than GDDR5X will.
If it's not taking the safe option then why would you want to stick with an inferior technology?
We have more than a rough idea how HBM will pan out, and it offers far more than GDDR5X will.
If it's not taking the safe option then why would you want to stick with an inferior technology?
FYI : GDDR5X can hit speeds up to 14gbps, they say it will go as high as 16gbps. The big thing with GDDR5X is the double prefetch thats its biggest selling point, doesnt take a genius to work out, although you might struggle, double the node double the bandwidth. Maybe not right away but it will happen. GDDR5X is new yes but its an extension of GDDR5. HBM is a brand new technology. I know what I'm getting with GDDR5, as i said I trust it. If you cant accept or work that out, then stop responding to my posts.
You really need to check your reading skills.
how is a game supposedly be optimized for memory that stores information?
Gee how the world is blamed for ones own not so understandable mind
You asked me if I would take it over HBM, I gave you my reasons why, yet you still refer back to my post of saying its a fail. You cant seem to get past that regardless of what else I say.
AMD stuck it on their card(s), its been an underwhelming piece of crap. Optimisations for nearly every game ? That wasnt sold to us. You can not seriously think its been a success ?
Were way past that, keep up
The memory optimisation with the current Fury cards isn't for HBM but so that the 4GB on it doesn't kill performance at i.e. 4K where VRAM usage could easily go past 4GB. (There may be a certain amount for handling some pipeline differences like latency, etc. but that is largely insignificant in this context).
Caporegime
Yeah I did and you responded with it being a fail, then stated that wasn't what you said? Make your mind up.
I don't know where you've come up with this optimisations for every game idea either, but crack on.
The way I understand it, memory management comes in to play (flopper will struggle with this one), so instead of having every game optimized to know how GDDR5 behaves (that would be ridiculous) standard memory management is introduced to 'know' exactly how GDDR5 behaves. HBM is new, games dont know how to really deal with HBM yet, hence it requiring optimized. Right now and until that happens with every game, I'll stick with my GDDR5 thanks.