AMD Vega 10, Vega 11, Vega 12 and Vega 20 Rumors and Discussion

Boost clock on LC version is 1677Mhz. Either round up or you can assume consumers can overclock a mere 23Mhz.

I doubt the slide refers to overclockable values because both Fiji and Polaris can reach above 1Ghz and 1.3GHz, respectively.
Question is does the 1650MHz "achievable threshold" refer to the LC version only, or all versions?
 
I doubt the slide refers to overclockable values because both Fiji and Polaris can reach above 1Ghz and 1.3GHz, respectively.
Question is does the 1650MHz "achievable threshold" refer to the LC version only, or all versions?
All I'm saying is that the liquid cooled version lists an official boost clock of 1677Mhz. So saying Vega can reach ~1.7Ghz is perfectly valid. The air Vega 64 boost is 1546Mhz.
 
I just realized that DPM7 on the liquid RX is higher than what both GN and Buildzoid managed. GN maxed out at 1.7GHz, while Buildzoid somewhere under that.

Maybe FE had adaptive clocking disabled. In the Polaris whitepaper they said it gained them 140MHz to core clock, and FE DPM7 to RX Vega DPM7 is a 150MHz increase.
 
We have no idea if these DPM7 clocks are achievable or in particular sustainable in real world use though. Does Nvidia list any kind of max clock for their GPUs above what they list as Boost?
 
We have no idea if these DPM7 clocks are achievable or in particular sustainable in real world use though. Does Nvidia list any kind of max clock for their GPUs above what they list as Boost?
I imagine DPM7 in RX Vega, like with FE, won't happen often if at all at stock config due to power limit.
 
Don't know why anyone thought they wouldn't be... AMD's huge compute and memory bandwidth advantage over Nvidia makes them amazing miners.

That didn't necessarily help as much with Ethereum where Nvidia wasn't too far behind. Fury and the 1080 weren't able to stretch their legs relative to their cheaper brethren using GDDR5, so there was some suspicion about the latency of the subsystems using HBM and GDDR5X.
It seems AMD may have been able to tweak whatever that miner was sensitive to.

AMD even explicitly calls out a ISA changes as being useful to cryptocurrency, so there would be some expectation of an improvement even if CU efficient wasn't the limiter. One of my ideas for leveraging/controlling mining was to add ISA shortcuts, then throttling unless paying for a mining card.
 
Here is one more Vega 10 wafer shot. This one has quite narrow DOF, so only a fraction is sharp.
amd_vega_10_wafer_4k_02.jpg
 
AMD even explicitly calls out a ISA changes as being useful to cryptocurrency, so there would be some expectation of an improvement even if CU efficient wasn't the limiter. One of my ideas for leveraging/controlling mining was to add ISA shortcuts, then throttling unless paying for a mining card.
That's what I'm hoping AMD is doing. This would allow them to reap the rewards of having strong mining cards, without hurting their gaming target market.
 
At 70-100 MH/s for Ehereum, Vega is bound to fly off the shelves, regards wheter or not it is consuming 250 watts for this.
Part of me hopes this is true, part of me fears it is true.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top