• 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.

It looks like the 'real' /affordable RDNA3 + next gen NV desktop launch won't launch until September. Thoughts?

Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
48,643
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
AMD launched 2nd so the ball was in their yard. The good ol' capitalist promise of competition and the progress that ensues it was the expectation.
I haven't such much love towards Nvidia, even moreso if we talk about value for their cards with this gen. Since you'd do the same (apparently customers are suckers and meant to be milked), you're basically upset because you feel Nvidia can get away with shenanigans while AMD can't. A "whatabout Nvidia, guys" type of thing when AMD is caught with its hand in the cookie jar.


A negative for one does not equate to a positive for the other, now you're trolling.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
48,643
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
I see 3 potential lineups and it depends on how well N33 performs and how aggressive AMD want to be. This will just be the XT models, imagine there are non XT variants in the price gaps.

Lineup 1 if N33 can clock really high and perform at 6800 - 6800XT tier performance. I don't think this will happen at all. Also it makes the lineup a bit rubbish and takes away one of the main benefits of N32 being MCM in that a 3 MCD config would be really odd in such a stack.

GPUDieSpecVramPerfCost
7800XTN3260CU + 4MCD16GBAIB 6950XT or more$600 max
7700XTN3332CU16GBhas to hit 6800 minimum$400 max
7600XTN3328CU8GB6700$300 max
7500XTN3320CU8GB (128 bit but slower ram)6600XT$200 max

This seems absurdly unlikely IMO

Lineup 2. N33 performs as expected and AMD want to be somewhat aggressive in price/performance

GPUDieSpecVramPerfCost
7800XTN3260CU + 4MCD16GB 20+gbpsAIB 6950XT / 4070 Ti$550
7700XTN3248CU + 4MCD16GB 18 gbps6800XT / 4070$450
7600XTN3240CU + 3MCD12GB 18 gbps6750XT - 6800$350
7500XTN3332CU8GB6650XT - 6700$220

The names vs die vs spec might be out but I think AMD really need to offer those performance tiers at those prices. It would also mean each card is getting a decent uplift over the older model. If AMD want to be less aggressive they could add $50 to each tier but I think that would go from 'these are really good value cards' to 'meh, not NV bad but not great either'

Lineup 3. What I think may actually happen.

GPUDieSpecVramPerfCost
7800XTN3260CU + 4MCD16GB 20gbpsAIB 6950 / 4070Ti$600
7700XTN3248CU + 4MCD16GB 18gbps6800XT / 4070$500
7600XTN3332CU8GB with 16GB AIB variants6700XT$350 for the 16GB $280 for 8GB
7500XTN3320CU8GB but slower memory6600$180

Similar to lineup 2 but 7600XT and 7500XT are weaker and the N32 parts are more expensive. Still better value than NV but not great. If 16GB AIB 7600XT do exist it leaves a potential 7700 12GB looking a bit weird.

I'm with you on line 3
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
30 Jun 2019
Posts
7,885
Only issue is that no one would buy a N33 GPU for $400 /£400.

16GB or not.

The 7700 XT would be a sidegrade compared to the 6700 XT, aside from the VRAM, and cost more also.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
OP
Joined
30 Jun 2019
Posts
7,885
Maybe the reason we haven't seen N32 yet, is the economics of it doesn't make sense yet, e.g. a 7700 XT on N32 couldn't have been very profitable.

But I've no doubt these would be the cards most consumers would be interested in, given the success of the RX 6700 XT.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
OP
Joined
30 Jun 2019
Posts
7,885
They're doing N33 cause it's an easy peasy decision, they can't lose.

cheap to mass produce, easy to sell in laptops.

Similar to 4nm iGPUs, but I suppose the production cost could be a bit higher.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
OP
Joined
30 Jun 2019
Posts
7,885
I think all N33 cards will be cheap, due to having 8GB and economies of scale. So, £260 or less.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
13 Jun 2012
Posts
354
People will buy a Navi32 GPU if they want more VRAM. Most can afford this tier comfortably.
Navi23 + Navi33 is the filthy casual tier :D

Or, if you have a 1080p 60hz monitor (still super common, and perfectly fine).
What are you basing "this tier" on?

I'd suggest you base it on the Navi2x series, specifically Navi22.
In which case we're looking at a Navi32 based 7700XT with 16GB for ~£400.

Fine, i'll buy that.

What I don't accept is that a 128bit low-end GPU die like Navi33 should be marketed as 7700 XT tier with a £400 pricetag.
Nor too do I accept that Navi32's should be marketed as 7800 XT tier with a £650 pricetag.

It is a midrange die, not a high-end die.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
31 Dec 2010
Posts
2,560
Location
Sussex
A770 says hi.
Actually, there is a reason why the A750's £/FPS is much much better than the 16GB A770. Peole are looking for more VRAM! (Or alternatively GDDR6 really as as expensive as Nvidia plead!)
Intel isn't a serious competitor yet, AMD knows that.

The transistor density on the ARC cards sucks, small dies also.

But when they do a die shrink with the next gen, it could be a very different story.
Small die? DG2-512 is huge at around 406mm². Density at 53.4m / mm² is very similar to that Navi 24 (currently the only other 6nm GPU) which is 50.5M / mm²:

No, Intel's problem is very poor performance per transistor. 21.7 billion transistors cannot even keep up with Navi 22 (17.2 billion), or GA104 (17.4 billion).
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
30 Jun 2019
Posts
7,885
Yeah, tbf they need more transistors in their next GPU series. But more importantly, the density and efficiency needs to improve so they can scale it more effectively and reduce power usage.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,982
Location
Planet Earth
Actually, there is a reason why the A750's £/FPS is much much better than the 16GB A770. Peole are looking for more VRAM! (Or alternatively GDDR6 really as as expensive as Nvidia plead!)

Small die? DG2-512 is huge at around 406mm². Density at 53.4m / mm² is very similar to that Navi 24 (currently the only other 6nm GPU) which is 50.5M / mm²:

No, Intel's problem is very poor performance per transistor. 21.7 billion transistors cannot even keep up with Navi 22 (17.2 billion), or GA104 (17.4 billion).

I think a lot of that is the immature software ecosystem TBF.
 
Soldato
Joined
31 Dec 2010
Posts
2,560
Location
Sussex
Yeah, tbf they need Intel needs more transistors in their next GPU series. But more importantly, the density and efficiency needs to improve so they can scale it more effectively and reduce power usage.
Wide and slower (or not factory overclocked!) would be nice but every cent counts so I suspect that won't happen. Chiplets could do it as a 406mm² monolith may have worse yields than two 300mm² chiplets.
I think a lot of that is the immature software ecosystem TBF.
Some of it surely is, some it might be stuff like the RT cores and AVX1. Some might be that they wanted one card able to handle some professional loads too (although never looked up their FP32 performance - although these days it's all about FP8 any how!).
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
30 Jun 2019
Posts
7,885
If they could double up the shading units in the Arc A770, it could lead to a really powerful GPU, perhaps similar to a RTX 4070 TI or greater.

But they would have to improve the transistor density and power consumption a huge amount to do that in a single generation.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,982
Location
Planet Earth
Wide and slower (or not factory overclocked!) would be nice but every cent counts so I suspect that won't happen. Chiplets could do it as a 406mm² monolith may have worse yields than two 300mm² chiplets.

Some of it surely is, some it might be stuff like the RT cores and AVX1. Some might be that they wanted one card able to handle some professional loads too (although never looked up their FP32 performance - although these days it's all about FP8 any how!).

Isn't DX9 and DX11 emulated?
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Oct 2019
Posts
12,042
Location
Uk
I see 3 potential lineups and it depends on how well N33 performs and how aggressive AMD want to be. This will just be the XT models, imagine there are non XT variants in the price gaps.

Lineup 1 if N33 can clock really high and perform at 6800 - 6800XT tier performance. I don't think this will happen at all. Also it makes the lineup a bit rubbish and takes away one of the main benefits of N32 being MCM in that a 3 MCD config would be really odd in such a stack.

GPUDieSpecVramPerfCost
7800XTN3260CU + 4MCD16GBAIB 6950XT or more$600 max
7700XTN3332CU16GBhas to hit 6800 minimum$400 max
7600XTN3328CU8GB6700$300 max
7500XTN3320CU8GB (128 bit but slower ram)6600XT$200 max

This seems absurdly unlikely IMO

Lineup 2. N33 performs as expected and AMD want to be somewhat aggressive in price/performance

GPUDieSpecVramPerfCost
7800XTN3260CU + 4MCD16GB 20+gbpsAIB 6950XT / 4070 Ti$550
7700XTN3248CU + 4MCD16GB 18 gbps6800XT / 4070$450
7600XTN3240CU + 3MCD12GB 18 gbps6750XT - 6800$350
7500XTN3332CU8GB6650XT - 6700$220

The names vs die vs spec might be out but I think AMD really need to offer those performance tiers at those prices. It would also mean each card is getting a decent uplift over the older model. If AMD want to be less aggressive they could add $50 to each tier but I think that would go from 'these are really good value cards' to 'meh, not NV bad but not great either'

Lineup 3. What I think may actually happen.

GPUDieSpecVramPerfCost
7800XTN3260CU + 4MCD16GB 20gbpsAIB 6950 / 4070Ti$600
7700XTN3248CU + 4MCD16GB 18gbps6800XT / 4070$500
7600XTN3332CU8GB with 16GB AIB variants6700XT$350 for the 16GB $280 for 8GB
7500XTN3320CU8GB but slower memory6600$180

Similar to lineup 2 but 7600XT and 7500XT are weaker and the N32 parts are more expensive. Still better value than NV but not great. If 16GB AIB 7600XT do exist it leaves a potential 7700 12GB looking a bit weird.
If a 7800XT is only 60CU then it would need to clock well above 3ghz to get 6950XT performance, the 84 CU 7900XT is only 10-15% faster than an 80CU 6950XT.
 
Associate
Joined
3 May 2021
Posts
1,237
Location
Italy
If a 7800XT is only 60CU then it would need to clock well above 3ghz to get 6950XT performance, the 84 CU 7900XT is only 10-15% faster than an 80CU 6950XT.
There is a chance that the release leak was right and Navi 31 was defective, leading to substandard performance.
If true, we might see greater gains than the early cards revealed.
 
Back
Top Bottom