Associate
why would anyone expand in a recession?
-
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?
- Thread starter g67575
- Start date
To dominate market share in the following turn up, as long as they survive the recession!
Caporegime
Well, the RDNA2 based RX 6600 XT was slower (on average) than the RTX 3060, according to Techspot:
EDIT - Oops, it depends on the resolution actually, which is faster.
Spec wise, it's basically identical to the RDNA3 based RX 7600M XT:
AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT Specs
AMD Navi 23, 2589 MHz, 2048 Cores, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 8192 MB GDDR6, 2000 MHz, 128 bitwww.techpowerup.com
AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT Specs
AMD Navi 33, 2469 MHz, 2048 Cores, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 8192 MB GDDR6, 2250 MHz, 128 bitwww.techpowerup.com
And this is what AMD claims about the 7600M XT's performance:
More games compared here:
Seems like it's around 20% faster than a RTX 3060 8GB, depending on the game.
So, I'd assume at least a 20% performance increase for RDNA3 Compute Units. The floating point (FP32) processing power is approx. double.
That's before taking clock speeds into account.
The Boost clock on the RX 6800 is just 2100 Mhz, so 2500-2600Mhz for Navi32 wouldn't be a surprise.
Yeah its not a 4K card that....
At 1440P its pretty damned good, it beats the 3060 12GB but its also a dead card replaced by the slightly faster RX 6650XT, which is on average £50 cheaper.
Look at this, sits right between the 3060 12GB and the 3060Ti, the Gigabyte Gaming is £309. Good card, good price. All things being fair it should be the best seller, but no, the 3060 is, by far.
Last edited:
Associate
is this supposed to be some kind of a fairy tale.. they can possibly extend cheeeep financing options but this is going to be unheard of in this space, AMD doing a GE?
anyhow if i am tasked with building a strategy for recession, i would start with an assumption of lower volumes by default and then build a plan to maximize profits under this assumption
So how well is AMD's lower volume but higher margins working for them?
High margins means expensive prices for us consumers, and given the choice of expensive and very expensive, it seems most consumer buy the very expensive Nvidia cards. Not helped by yet another poorly launched of Navi31.
And I don't really mean the references cooler - although AMD should have issued a recall on those as anything else costs them more in reputation - no I mean releasing yet again for some silly arbitrary release date with drivers which weren't polished. That, for example, the idle power issue has now mostly been solved but launch day reviews were poor or poorer than they need have been.
So AMD are left trying to get back their fixed costs over an ever-smaller volume. Even at the same margin, having 90% of the marketshare means Nvidia can survive this far better.
High margins means expensive prices for us consumers, and given the choice of expensive and very expensive, it seems most consumer buy the very expensive Nvidia cards. Not helped by yet another poorly launched of Navi31.
And I don't really mean the references cooler - although AMD should have issued a recall on those as anything else costs them more in reputation - no I mean releasing yet again for some silly arbitrary release date with drivers which weren't polished. That, for example, the idle power issue has now mostly been solved but launch day reviews were poor or poorer than they need have been.
So AMD are left trying to get back their fixed costs over an ever-smaller volume. Even at the same margin, having 90% of the marketshare means Nvidia can survive this far better.
Last edited:
So, it looks like I wasn't far off saying a 20% performance improvement for RDNA3 Compute Units:
The magic number is 17.4% for the CUs.
AMD also claims a 20% improvement for the overall silicon design:
I think this includes cache system improvements also:
AMD says that there are less infinity cache hits with RDNA3.
I think we will get another 10 or 20% boost in performance from higher clock speeds.
I think the earlier claims of a 50% performance per watt improvement, must have assumed large increases in clock frequency, like rumours suggest we could see with an RDNA3 refresh (and probably conflated things by including compute unit increases in this figure also).
So, it looks to me, like the performance of a 60 Compute unit RDNA3 GPU will be as fast as either an RTX 3080, or RTX 3090 (closer to the RTX 3090), depending on the max boost clock frequencies.
The magic number is 17.4% for the CUs.
AMD also claims a 20% improvement for the overall silicon design:
I think this includes cache system improvements also:
AMD says that there are less infinity cache hits with RDNA3.
I think we will get another 10 or 20% boost in performance from higher clock speeds.
I think the earlier claims of a 50% performance per watt improvement, must have assumed large increases in clock frequency, like rumours suggest we could see with an RDNA3 refresh (and probably conflated things by including compute unit increases in this figure also).
So, it looks to me, like the performance of a 60 Compute unit RDNA3 GPU will be as fast as either an RTX 3080, or RTX 3090 (closer to the RTX 3090), depending on the max boost clock frequencies.
Last edited:
Caporegime
So, it looks like I wasn't far off saying a 20% performance improvement for RDNA3 Compute Units:
The magic number is 17.4% for the CUs.
AMD also claims a 20% improvement for the overall silicon design:
I think this includes cache system improvements also:
AMD says that there are less infinity cache hits with RDNA3.
I think we will get another 10 or 20% boost in performance from higher clock speeds.
I think the earlier claims of a 50% performance per watt improvement, must have assumed large increases in clock frequency, like rumours suggest we could see with an RDNA3 refresh (and probably conflated things by including compute unit increases in this figure also).
So, it looks to me, like the performance of a 60 Compute unit RDNA3 GPU will be as fast as either an RTX 3080, or RTX 3090 (closer to the RTX 3090), depending on the max boost clock frequencies.
Another AMD slide?
We already know they are not 17.4% faster per compute unit.
RX 6950XT: 5120 Shaders @ 2310MHz. 100% performance
RX 7900XT: 5376 Shaders @ 2400Mhz. 110% performance
5376 / 5120 = 1.05 (+5%)
2400Mhz / 2310MHz = 1.0389 (+3.9%)
+8.9% Total
The 7900XT also has a 320Bit Bus vs 256Bit
Don't trust AMD's slides....
Last edited:
Caporegime
If the Shaders really were 17.4% faster per clock the 7900XT would be at 128% on that ^^^ chart, pushing just past the 4080, i have no doubt that's where AMD wanted it, thought it would be, but it isn't.
Last edited:
Associate
shaders cant be faster because there isnt any change in basic functionality, will they be utilized better is the bigger question? the dual issue approach means greater utilization like in the case of 7900xt, theres been an increase in utilization but it wasnt enough to deliver on intended perf envelopes
Caporegime
I'm not an expert on this so can't comment, certainly i don't pretend to know more than the people who designed it, if i did i wouldn't have time to post on this forum.
Having said that there are glimpses where its does much better than the average or even very well indeed. There is a massive discrepancy between its best and worst performance, the architecture or drivers seem very inconsistent.
Last edited:
Associate
a shader is just expected to do one fma operation per clock.. theres no concept of ipc when the functionality is so narrowly definedI'm not an expert on this so can't comment, certainly i don't pretend to know more than the people who designed it, if i did i wouldn't have time to post on this forum.
Having said that there are glimpses where its does much better than the average or even very well indeed. There is a massive discrepancy between its best and worst performance, the architecture or drivers seem very inconsistent.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,542
Perhaps AMD meant the performance improvement is actually half that amount per CU, because Compute Units are paired?
Interesting:
videocardz.com
This suggests that high clocks in games might be possible on some Navi32/Navi33 cards.
Custom AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX can hit 3.5 GHz clock with Blender, 2.8 GHz in games - VideoCardz.com
AMD Navi 31 OC clocks: up to 2.8 GHz in games, 3.5 GHz in Blender ComputerBase have a detailed overview of AMD RDNA3 and NVIDIA Ada architecture frequency analysis. This generation allows both architectures to reach the 3 GHz barrier with ease, but such clocks will not be seen at all times...
videocardz.com
This suggests that high clocks in games might be possible on some Navi32/Navi33 cards.
Interesting:
Custom AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX can hit 3.5 GHz clock with Blender, 2.8 GHz in games - VideoCardz.com
AMD Navi 31 OC clocks: up to 2.8 GHz in games, 3.5 GHz in Blender ComputerBase have a detailed overview of AMD RDNA3 and NVIDIA Ada architecture frequency analysis. This generation allows both architectures to reach the 3 GHz barrier with ease, but such clocks will not be seen at all times...
This suggests that high clocks in games might be possible on some Navi32/Navi33 cards.
Maybe but we still don't know the reason why game clocks are so much lower than benchmark clocks
My theory is that benchmarks like this only stress a part of the GPU which allows the card to push power to that part specifically and run faster where as games are dynamic and use the entire GPU capability which results in lower clocks
Last edited:
That happens because AMD still believes they can basically price match Nvidia with a minimal discount.
I'm not brand loyal, I bought Matrox, 3DFX, Nvidia, ATI and AMD in my life. My last few cards have all been AMD for a simple reason: they were the best bang for the buck when I needed to upgrade.
No brand and no feature will persuade me to spend more than 600€ on a card so I'll just get the best combination of raster and VRAM under that price, which right now means either a RX 6700XT or an ARC a770 (similar price, one wins on speed and drivers, the other on VRAM).
I've been playing since 1988, I don't care about 4k, I think RT is nice but still immature and more than anything I know that both players are killing the gaming market. Aside from a small minority of enthusiasts very few people will spend more than a month of pay for an entire system, cards costing a grand are rich kid toys just like high end smartphones. Nvidia is simply trying to pull the low end into their streaming service and AMD thinks that they still profit if the low end goes to console.
Back on topic, I do hope AMD will either try to squeeze the 7800xt on the lowest N31 bins or find some trick that will allow them to have a more efficient N32 chip (maybe fixing something that went wrong with N31?), we desperately need cheaper new gen GPUs.
Darujhistan will just say if they giving it away, despite them having better margins than Nvidia
