• 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.

AMD Navi 23 ‘NVIDIA Killer’ GPU Rumored to Support Hardware Ray Tracing, Coming Next Year

Status
Not open for further replies.
humbug said:
So a 64 CU 2.3Ghz Big Navi would be about 30% faster than a 2080TI, GA102 would be 20% faster again.

This assuming 0 IPC gain RDNA2 vs RDNA1.
Click to expand...
Assuming 0% IPC gain makes your numbers incredibly conservative. All you're doing is showing how AMD missed a trick by not releasing a 64CU RDNA 1 card :p (for whatever reason they had).

Go from the 50% performance per watt target AMD have spoken about. Assuming they achieve it. That would put a 40 CU, 225W RDNA 2 card about 10% over the 2080 Ti. 40 CUs. 64 CUs would match GA102. Hell, if AMD only manage 35-40% ppw increase then 40 CUs would still be in the ball park of the 2080 Ti.
 
LePhuronn said:
Assuming 0% IPC gain makes your numbers incredibly conservative. All you're doing is showing how AMD missed a trick by not releasing a 64CU RDNA 1 card :p (for whatever reason they had).

Go from the 50% performance per watt target AMD have spoken about. Assuming they achieve it. That would put a 40 CU, 225W RDNA 2 card about 10% over the 2080 Ti. 40 CUs. 64 CUs would match GA102. Hell, if AMD only manage 35-40% ppw increase then 40 CUs would still be in the ball park of the 2080 Ti.
Click to expand...

Yes, deliberately conservative, its always better to underestimate than overestimate. :)
 
LePhuronn said:
Assuming 0% IPC gain makes your numbers incredibly conservative. All you're doing is showing how AMD missed a trick by not releasing a 64CU RDNA 1 card :p (for whatever reason they had).

Go from the 50% performance per watt target AMD have spoken about. Assuming they achieve it. That would put a 40 CU, 225W RDNA 2 card about 10% over the 2080 Ti. 40 CUs. 64 CUs would match GA102. Hell, if AMD only manage 35-40% ppw increase then 40 CUs would still be in the ball park of the 2080 Ti.
Click to expand...

AMD dropped first ball when they done the VII instead of concentrating on that 64CU you mention. This also leads nicely into the reasoning is they realised RDNA2 was ready so all hands on deck.

Conservatively you have a mid range card thats around the 2080Ti level (hopefully costing under £500) and then the real 6800XT that as you put would be the sweet spot of 25% better to see if it can be the holy grail 4k card in the semi-reasonably priced section :p
 
Th0nt said:
AMD dropped first ball when they done the VII instead of concentrating on that 64CU you mention. This also leads nicely into the reasoning is they realised RDNA2 was ready so all hands on deck.

Conservatively you have a mid range card thats around the 2080Ti level (hopefully costing under £500) and then the real 6800XT that as you put would be the sweet spot of 25% better to see if it can be the holy grail 4k card in the semi-reasonably priced section :p
Click to expand...

What's scary is how after 2 years, AMD still has 0 GPUs capable of DX12 Ultimate :eek:



https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-rtx-2080-ti.c3305
 
Th0nt said:
AMD dropped first ball when they done the VII instead of concentrating on that 64CU you mention.
Click to expand...
Radeon VII wasn't a ball drop, it was a face saver and PR stunt. Very little effort went into the Radeon VII because it had already existed as a cancelled Vega 20 gaming project, but when Navi hit power issues and was delayed, it was easy to brush off the old cooler design and PCB, repurpose a load of Instinct MI50 packages and slap them together into the Radeon VII to fill a product and PR gap.

It's entirely likely that AMD decided it was more beneficial to put resources into RDNA 2 a year early then fix RDNA 1 and be a year late. We'll see if that decision was worth it in a few months.
 
I don't see power related issues with Navi except maybe missed aggressive targets. It's fine when fine tuned as other members already said:

Poneros said:
See this if it helps (5700XT):

resultsshjg4.png
Click to expand...
 
4K8KW10 said:
What's scary is how after 2 years, AMD still has 0 GPUs capable of DX12 Ultimate :eek:
Click to expand...
Presumably because RDNA 2 isn't out yet? You really do talk some rubbish. And DX12 Ultimate wasn't even a thing until May. Hell, is it actually even running yet? I thought it was landing properly later this year? So by the time DX12 Ultimate actually exists then AMD will have cards supporting it.

Try harder with your pathetic trolling.
 
Last edited:
Satchfanuk said:
If you want to keep believing that rumour, despite multiple sources saying it doesn't exist, then you go right ahead :p
Click to expand...

Yeah, was just joking around. :D

But if those pics are real, then probably nVIDIA has one fast GPU on their side. It will be quite the step back from current gen to drop the ball like that. But... you never know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom