• 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.

** The AMD Navi Thread **

I suspect the pricing on this will be very competitive. That die looked pretty damn small. GTX 2070 / 2060 are a 445mm2 die. 12nm may be an older, larger node than 7nm, but I highly doubt 12nm is cheap - it was a custom SHP shrink of 16nm designed purely for NVIDIA.

I'd guess the die that the 5700 product stack is using is less than half that size. I doubt the wafers are anywhere near double the cost, now that TSMC's 7nm is a year old, and of course yields will be much better for a small die than a big die.

Further, I'd guess we'll get a hint at both bigger and smaller Navi at the E3 event.

Whispers are now saying big Navi sooner rather than later this year, and possibly GamesCom reveal. I'm sure it's probably ready to go right now, but still doubtful about wafer supply, as demand for Zen 2 is going to be enormous ... guess we'll see.
 
shankly1985 said:
Here we go once again DP knows everything!
Tell us all how you can make this bold statement?

Think you would have learned by now with all the misleading bold statement you made about Vega 7
Click to expand...


Ehh, everything I said about Vega 7 turned out to be spot on.


I'm just going by what AMD has provided media in terms of architectural changes.
They have moved GCN form having 4 shader engines to having 8, which is a useful change, but something Nvidia have effectively been doing every new generation. that in itself is not defining.


This new architecture looks to be similar to the changes form Pascal to Turing, except without the new RTX and Tensor cores.


As I said, doesn't matter at all, the only thing you should care about is price, performance and features. Why on earth do you care what AMD market it as?
 
Participant said:
If it's the same architecture as what will be in the PS5 and that Lisa kept referring to as 'the future of gaming' etc. then it surely must be a new architecture? Unless they're planning to rinse GCN for another 5 years...
Click to expand...


Do you think AMD would really say it is a dead-end of gaming using ancient technology. Why on earth do you trust marketing speak so much? Why are you so worried if it is just another iteration of GCN?

GCN is an incredibly powerful and future looking architecture with some scalability limitations. Looks like AMd have made the obvious changes required to improve efficiency with such high screaming processor counts by doubling the number of compute units to 8.


Are you so dismissive of AMD's engineering that you think they coudln't make GCN significantly better? Personally, I am extremely optimistic with what AMD had done here.
 
Last edited:
Participant said:
That's a bold statement considering they explicitly said it was a brand new architecture. Where did you get your information?
Click to expand...


My information comes straight form what AMD publicly shared, ignoring the marketing buzz words. Remember, AMD said the rebranded Hawaii 290 to 390 renaming was a completely new architecture, that Polaris was a completely new architecture, that vega was a completely new architecture. Remember AMD marketed vega as having "Next-Gen Compute Unit." to replace the GCN compute units, which in reality meant support for half-precision but no realworld performance difference.
 
D.P. said:
Ehh, everything I said about Vega 7 turned out to be spot on.


I'm just going by what AMD has provided media in terms of architectural changes.
They have moved GCN form having 4 shader engines to having 8, which is a useful change, but something Nvidia have effectively been doing every new generation. that in itself is not defining.


This new architecture looks to be similar to the changes form Pascal to Turing, except without the new RTX and Tensor cores.


As I said, doesn't matter at all, the only thing you should care about is price, performance and features. Why on earth do you care what AMD market it as?
Click to expand...

Right away that is false because you even said amd wouldn't bring a gpu to compete with 1080Ti or 2080
 
Does no one remember vega frontier edition?
The spin put on that when people tried games on it and I'm pretty sure it performs exactly as a vega 64 at the same clocks?

And then Vega 64 itself was just a die shrank and higher clocked Fury X wasn't it?
 
Pricing on the RX 5700 will make it or break it. Sure it can trade blows with RTX 2070... but if it's priced close to RTX 2070, that doesn't really move GPUs forward with pricing. We need to break this terrible trend set by Nvidia and AMD have let us down too many times with the likes of Vega and Radeon 7 slotting in around what Nvidia has already laid down.
 
Martini1991 said:
Does no one remember vega frontier edition?
The spin put on that when people tried games on it and I'm pretty sure it performs exactly as a vega 64 at the same clocks?

And then Vega 64 itself was just a die shrank and higher clocked Fury X wasn't it?
Click to expand...


The more worrying aspect of AMD's own marketing points is they say a 1.5x efficiency increase. Well, guess what happens if you port vega to 7nm and keep clock the same, you get an exact 50% increasing in efficiency. So the true performance difference is how much faster the 5700 will be over Vega64, which looks more like 10%. SO AMD's true efficiency gains are much more modest but they have managed to get 7nm yields up enough to make a prosumer level GPU.
 
Martini1991 said:
Didn't AMD specifically say they weren't doing what they eventually did though :p?

The vega vii came out of no where and is accepted as just an odd release?
Click to expand...


Exactly, AMD said they woudln't have a GPU at that level, and said the 7nm Instinct cards wouldn't come to a a consumer GPU.
 
D.P. said:
My information comes straight form what AMD publicly shared, ignoring the marketing buzz words. Remember, AMD said the rebranded Hawaii 290 to 390 renaming was a completely new architecture, that Polaris was a completely new architecture, that vega was a completely new architecture. Remember AMD marketed vega as having "Next-Gen Compute Unit." to replace the GCN compute units, which in reality meant support for half-precision but no realworld performance difference.
Click to expand...

Stop the trolling, please.

The cache size and hierarchy is totally different. The CU / SP setup is completely different. Physical design is clearly very different. What are you expecting a new architecture to do? To be some completely new paradigm which ditches current CU / SP designs completely?

Who cares what they call it? RDNA or GCN? It's clearly a large departure from Fiji / Polaris / Vega, and does indeed appear to be a dedicated gaming architecture.

Most interesting thing is that clearly their GPU product stack is going to completely diverge, with GCN staying for enterprise and 'pro' markets.

P.S. If people missed it, Su said both that further Vega / GCN products are in the pipeline for non-consumer products, and that the 'Next Gen' architecture referenced in slides for next year is 'RDNA' based.
 
D.P. said:
Exactly, AMD said they woudln't have a GPU at that level, and said the 7nm Instinct cards wouldn't come to a a consumer GPU.
Click to expand...

No they never, its guys like you that misinterpreted what was said for your own purpose.

I Can not be bothered digging ram through posts but I clearly remember you stating that amd wouldn't release a high end GPU to complete with 1080Ti when in fact they did better and brought a GPU to market on level with a 2080.
 
Martini1991 said:
Does no one remember vega frontier edition?
The spin put on that when people tried games on it and I'm pretty sure it performs exactly as a vega 64 at the same clocks?
Click to expand...

That card was more about its 16 gigs of hbm, they put a lot of emphasis on that, besides that it was just a vega 64.
 
Martini1991 said:
When the gaming results came through that wasn't the case though.
Mental gymnastics all around.
Click to expand...

For the games at the time 16 gigs of hbm wouldn't have made much of a difference anyway. They did say numerous times that gamers should wait for the vega 64 card as performance wise there was no difference for what gamers would see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom