AMD: Navi Speculation, Rumours and Discussion [2017-2018]

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by Jawed, Mar 23, 2016.

Tags:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 3dilettante

    Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,137
    Likes Received:
    2,939
    Location:
    Well within 3d
    It might help to clarify what specifically you mean by HW scheduler.
    There is an HWS unit, at least on Polaris and later GPUs. Are your data points covering older chips like Hawaii, which may mean this is not making as much of a difference?

    The HWS and ACEs are on the front end of the GPU's command processing pipeline, and many games that see high performance on GCN often see big gains because their shaders and workload characteristics better fit the architecture of the back end where the workgroups launched by the front end go to be executed.

    Losing resources in the back end, past a relatively modest baseline for asynchronous compute, would generally make things harder for the front end. They have limited influence on how well wavefronts execute past their early involvement with them.
    If there is any expectation of improvement in the graphics pipeline, removing compute resources would make it doubly hard for the ACEs and HWS, as they exist to fill in gaps in graphics execution. The fewer spare resources, the fewer gaps.

    Quick response queuing and other forms of resource reservation or pre-emption do worse if there are fewer resources to spare. They explicitly sacrifice throughput for responsiveness, either by walling off resources that could have gone somewhere else "just in case" or by forcing wavefronts that were running at very high utilization to yield to something that is not.
     
  2. ECH

    ECH
    Regular

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    7
    Hmm, that review was just a cursory update. Not a lot of effort either as it only showed 1080 on par with a 1080TI. And with 8xaa...for Forza 7.
    Furthermore in the original test it made it very clear that Vega trailed Pascal at 8xaa: https://www.computerbase.de/2017-09/forza-7-benchmark/
    In the link you've posted they simply carried over the 4K @8xMSAA result over to "update" review using 1080 w/387.92 driver and wallah you have your chart.
    So what were the performance at 4xMSAA? We will never know from that update.

    Its difficult for me to only look at such reviews when I noticed that AMD doesn't always lists performance improvements on every driver release.

    Here is another review using Radeon 17.10.1:
    https://us.hardware.info/reviews/76...-23-graphic-cards-test-results-wqhd-2560x1440
    The above is dated in December 20, 2017. This gave AMD a opportunity to also release "a driver". Albeit my focus, in my prior post, is purely between AMD current and next gen.
    So lets keep it that way.
     
  3. DavidGraham

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    2,679
    It's because ComputerBase didn't bother updating the 1080Ti scores with the new driver.
    All tests were performed with 8XAA from the start anyway. No one bothers downgrading to 4XAA when the game cranks out so many fps.

    In that review, both AMD and NVIDIA GPUs appear to be lining up together at 1440p, the game appears CPU limited anyway. You can't extract much data from that situation any way. Only @4K you begin to see the separation of GPUs when the game becomes GPU limited.
    https://us.hardware.info/reviews/76...graphic-cards-test-results-ultra-hd-3840x2160

    Oh and BTW they tested with 8XMSAA too.

    Here is another final test made this month with the 2080Ti:

    [​IMG]
    https://www.hardwarecanucks.com/for...a-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-rtx-2080-review-10.html
     
    A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y likes this.
  4. w0lfram

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2017
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    33

    Not sure I understand your post.

    The RTX2080ti is a cutdown TU102 @ $1,200. Since the Vega64 didn't compete with the 1080ti, but the 1080, it is only fair to compare the V64 to the RTX2080 (TU104) in terms of competing Radeon performance.


    Turing GPU TU104:
    12nm
    545mm^2
    13.6 Billion transistors
    2,944 CUs
    192 Texture units
    64 ROPS
    10.1billion FLOPS

    Turing GPU TU102:
    12nm
    754mm^2
    18.6 billion transistors
    4,552 CUs
    288 Texture units
    96 ROPs
    13.4 billion FLOPS


    Vega 2.0:
    7nm
    20.1 billion FLOPS


    You mean a lot of miles for Nvidia to cover, right..?

    You are essentially suggesting, that AMD can not pack as many transistors into a 7nm die, as nVidia can in their 12nm die...? AMD can easily match Nvidia's performance and hit a $400~$500 price point using 7nm yields & efficiency. AMD doesn't have to produce anything as powerful as the 2080ti for gaming, only offer the same performance under 7nm prices.

    Think of what a updated Vega128 on 7nm wafer, would offer in gaming performance..? (Specially without wasted raytracing space.)
     
  5. Digidi

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2015
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    99
    ECH likes this.
  6. DavidGraham

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    2,679
    Their 4K testing is made with no MSAA whatsoever, which is completely meaningless.
     
    A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y and pharma like this.
  7. Digidi

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2015
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    99
    It is wiht MSAA in 2k 4x times and with 4k you dont Need MSAA.

    Thats why i Always say Nvidia has really unbalanced Chips. They have so much geometry output and not much shader power.

    And the Programs fulfill their wishes with useless MSAA. 8x MSAA is to much for 2k an 4k nobody Need it.

    We should make a blindetest ;)

    https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/anti-aliasing-nvidia-geforce-amd-radeon,2868-8.html
     
    #707 Digidi, Oct 1, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2018
    ECH and w0lfram like this.
  8. DavidGraham

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    2,679
    Of course you do. The game has horrible aliasing without it on my 4K screen, as it doesn't support any other AA method. And you also need it if you want your 4K results to be more GPU limited.
     
  9. Digidi

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2015
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    99
    ECH likes this.
  10. w0lfram

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2017
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    33
    Be glad you never played DOOM!
     
    Digidi likes this.
  11. ECH

    ECH
    Regular

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    7
    It's a bit erroneous on your part to imply that the test results are cpu limited because it's not run at 4K 8xMSAA. Furthermore, it's specious to also imply that Vega is a "4K" 8xMSAA card. Lets try to keep this in prospective. 1440p, for example, is ample enough of a resolution to make comparisons with when Navi finally reaches the market. 4K, 8xMASS serves no real value if we are going to compare Vega to Navi except to say that (if true) Navi is a true 4K card. Your results seem to just make comparisons between Vega and Pascal. I'm pretty sure there is another thread for that.

    Lets keep the focus on Navi. Do understand that my posts were comparing Vega to Navi in what I would think Navi would perform if GCN is still used by then.
     
    #711 ECH, Oct 1, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2018
    Digidi likes this.
  12. DavidGraham

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    2,679
    Not really sure what are you arguing here! MSAA cleans up the image even @4K. It's even used on the Xbox X version of the game. Because IT IS NEEDED. The game has no other AA option.
    Doom has TSSAAA and multiple post process AA methods, Forza 7 has none. Hence why MSAA is needed.
    You are basing your argument on one CPU limited game. Where @1080p and 1440p the difference between different cards is minimal. You need to push the game to become GPU limited to show the true difference between cards. Without this your argument is flawed. This is not about 2.5K or 4K or even 95K, it's about testing GPUs with GPU limited scenarios.
     
    A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y and pharma like this.
  13. Digidi

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2015
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    99
    @DavidGraham

    I don't think that they use massive MSAA on Xbox X for native 4k also vor 2k i don't think they use 8x MSAA Maybe 2x or maximum 4x. More is a waste of Energy.

    If you realy have native 4k you don' t need antialysing.

    In my linked Article TomsHardware stated that you can't see any big different between 4x and 8x MSAA and the Resolution was 1080p. So i think you will have better Results with 2k an 4x MSAA and of Course with native 4k.
     
  14. DavidGraham

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    2,679
    According to who?
    It's perfectly fine to compare top of the line GPU chips to ascertain the performance difference. AMD needs to make 7nm's Navi 80% faster than Vega 64 to even have a chance of competing with NVIDIA's top of the line 12nm! Whether you believe this will happen or not is up to you. But we are yet to talk about NVIDIA's 7nm.
    Again we have yet to talk about NVIDIA's 7nm. Factor that in, and you have your answer.
     
    A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y likes this.
  15. w0lfram

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2017
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    33

    I am confused, are you claiming that AMD doesn't have a 7nm GPU coming..?
    Or are you saying you do not understand what 7nm yields, over 14nm & 12nm fabrications. In terms of performance and power usage. Or how scaling from 12nm to 7nm works in terms of power & efficiency.

    You can quote me and say "according to who..?" all day long, but you are doing is feigning ignorance..? Or, you are posting as if you have not read up on anything Vega20 related in the past few months...? (This is a news article from 3 months ago.)


    Essentially, a 7nm Radeon Vega 2.0 chip, (about half the size of Turing's 754mm2 TU102), would be greater in graphical power as Turing's own TU104 @ 545mm2, while still using less energy. And since these new Vega20s are so small (360mm2) they are also higher yield and easier to produce, than Nvidia's much larger GPU dies. Thus, AMD's newer 7nm Radeons coming will be much cheaper to produce.

    Or, if Vega's 7nm scaling is too confusing for you to calculate/understand... just think of Vega2.0, as being a new Radeon card with about twice the performance of Vega64, for the same cost and using 30% less power.
     
  16. CarstenS

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    2,072
    Location:
    Germany
    AFAIU, you cannot just add much less double transistor count and expect your whole new chip to automagically consume 30% less energy. That figure is for a design that's roughly or exactly the same amount of transistors
     
  17. DavidGraham

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    2,679
    Yeah, in the land of dreams maybe. The transition of AMD from 28nm to 14nm only yielded 30% more performance and a ton of power consumption increases. You expect 14nm to 7nm transition to give you a 100% uplift over Vega with less power just because it's running on 7nm? What is this 7nm magic matetial? The dreams achiever?

    Ironically this 7nm only appears to work in AMD's favor too! When NVIDIA does it they will not be achieving anywhere near the results of Vega 7nm, because 7nm is the dream land of Vega only.
     
  18. DrYesterday

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    18
    Where are you getting your numbers from, 360mm2? TSMC is stating a 1.6x scaling factor for 7nm from 16nm. So VEGA 10 at 510mm2 scales down to 318mm2 on 7nm. 360mm2 would only be a 10-15% increase in die size & transistor count.

    Note that 7nm isn't a true measurement. It's just a name for the node and more of a marketing term.
    http://www.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/technology/7nm.htm
     
  19. Geeforcer

    Geeforcer Harmlessly Evil
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,297
    Likes Received:
    464
    You do realize that the entire "article" is 3rd hand layman's conjecture based on the generous reading of GlobalFoundaries fevered dreams presentation for their stillborn 7nm process, right? The last thing that needed was your ill-informed twist on top.
     
  20. TheAlSpark

    TheAlSpark Moderator
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    20,823
    Likes Received:
    5,936
    Location:
    ಠ_ಠ
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...