You should tell also to Scott Wasson and a ton of other sites still reporting the same thing
https://techreport.com/review/21404/crysis-2-tessellation-too-much-of-a-good-thing/
AFAIK, triangle performance nowadays takes secondary role to culling performance. How does triangle performance affect hybrid RT more than "simple" rasterization?Its a performance issue. nVidia's RT Cores offloading more work from the shaders, have their own caches and Ampere has twice the triangle performance.
If you look closely the marks are at 128, 96 and 64MBs So I think AMD gave us an spoiler there.
Which are the sweet spot(when the curve flattens) for 1440p and 1080p.
HBM2 version with 2.5GHz+ clocks when?
Yep I did notice that of course and even 48MB has a reasonably high cache hit rate for 1080p so even that is possible.
You should tell also to Scott Wasson and a ton of other sites still reporting the same thing
https://techreport.com/review/21404/crysis-2-tessellation-too-much-of-a-good-thing/
Why do you say that? HUB always came across as fair and balanced to me.
I'm making my way through all the big sites and they story seems pretty consistent so far. Very strong rasterization performance, great power efficiency and noise levels. Slower but competitive at 4K and significantly behind on RT.
And it still looks like crap most of the time.In the end Raytracing is brute force. And nVidia is brute forcing their way through it...
Actually you could argue they list 16 on the slide, but regardless AMD counts two RB+'s in that diagram to be one RB+.In linux and macOS you can se that we have 4 Shader Engines with 2 Shader Array, and each shaderarry have 1 Scanconverter. So this means a total of 8 Rasterizer, but why AMD is drawing only 4 in its architecture slide? Are driver values wrong?
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-6800-xt/images/arch1.jpg
How sure are you about those shaders being overflown? I don't remember people complaining about DLSS-performance when it was running on CUDA-cores in few versions during Turing-era.I'm impressed by the rasterization performances, the "audacity" to use a big cache, etc, giving how navi 1 was a let down (to me). But, I've the feeling that they are still too late or one generation behind again. The RT perfs are problematic imo, and the lack of dlss solution doesn't help. And if there is one day, it will run on the already "overflown" shaders units when RT is done ? Meehh... I'm on the market for a new cpu/mb/gpu combo, but I can see the 6800xt as a good solution.
Now if you don't care about RT, it's reeeaaaally and impressive gpu. If you can find it.
Still, I like the deep reviews when they come, and all the exchanges here : )
How sure are you about those shaders being overflown? I don't remember people complaining about DLSS-performance when it was running on CUDA-cores in few versions during Turing-era.
To make it clear, NAVI21 has the same number of RB+'s as NAVI10 has RB's. NAVI21 would be better bandwidth balanced across all formats.Actually you could argue they list 16 on the slide, but regardless AMD counts two RB+'s in that diagram to be one RB+.
In linux and macOS you can se that we have 4 Shader Engines with 2 Shader Array, and each shaderarry have 1 Scanconverter. So this means a total of 8 Rasterizer, but why AMD is drawing only 4 in its architecture slide? Are driver values wrong?
https://www.pcgamer.com/a-linux-update-may-have-let-slip-amd-big-navis-mammoth-core/
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-6800-xt/images/arch1.jpg
64MB has very similar hit rates on 1440p compared to 128MB on 4K (55%?), and to expand on that:
96MB: ~50% hit rates on 4K, 60% on 1440p, ~68% on FHD;
64MB: ~45% on 4K, ~55% on 1440p, ~65% on FHD
48MB: ~30% on 4K, ~47% on 1440p, ~60% on FHD
32MB: ~23% on 4K, ~45% on 1440p, ~55% on FHD
24MB: ~20% on 4K, ~27% on 1440p, ~48% on FHD.
At 1080p, even the 18MB(?) cache gets significant hit rates up to ~40%, and for a mobile SoC that is limited to e.g. 128bit LPDDR5 so this could make worlds of difference.
It also doesn't look like 96MB would have a significant advantage against 64MB if the GPU is targetting 1440p, so perhaps Navi 22 may use only 64MB.
And as for Navi 23, it's reportedly coming with HBM2, and the Infinity Cache is there to compensate for a lower off-chip bandwidth. It could be using just 32MB LLC + HBM2e and that way it could have a similar "effective bandwidth" to the Navi 22 with 64MB LLC + 192bit GDDR6.
Of course, what's missing here is the fact that lower amounts of cache supposedly means lower LLC bandwidth, unless AMD is keen on using more slices with lower capacity each (which in turn wouldn't linearly scale down in die area).
BTW, here's a video with more of the super tessellated models in Crysis 2:
Is the FidelityFX SR being developed with MS or Sony, MS I would bet. They have been cooperating a lot lately.Super Resolution Technology in development in partnership with Console and game development partners and not exclusive development inside AMD - Scott Herkelman
Is the FidelityFX SR being developed with MS or Sony, MS I would bet. They have been cooperating a lot lately.
Just yesterday AMD announced to use MS Azure hybrid cloud solution to host their cloud EDA workflows and several hours ago AMD announced to integrate MS Pluton Security block in future Ryzen chip.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/cr...-2020-and-february-2021.317704/#post-50113078
Wireframe view removes lod and occlusion culling. What you see in wireframe view is not what it renders in ... normal ... view.
LOD levels according to distance are unknown, and there's also no reason why the models on simple geometry like concrete slabs would ever need to have that ridiculously complex geometry in the first place.Wireframe view removes lod and occlusion culling. What you see in wireframe view is not what it renders in ... normal ... view.
64MB has very similar hit rates on 1440p compared to 128MB on 4K (55%?), and to expand on that:
96MB: ~50% hit rates on 4K, 60% on 1440p, ~68% on FHD;
64MB: ~45% on 4K, ~55% on 1440p, ~65% on FHD
48MB: ~30% on 4K, ~47% on 1440p, ~60% on FHD
32MB: ~23% on 4K, ~45% on 1440p, ~55% on FHD
24MB: ~20% on 4K, ~27% on 1440p, ~48% on FHD.
At 1080p, even the 18MB(?) cache gets significant hit rates up to ~40%, and for a mobile SoC that is limited to e.g. 128bit LPDDR5 so this could make worlds of difference.
It also doesn't look like 96MB would have a significant advantage against 64MB if the GPU is targetting 1440p, so perhaps Navi 22 may use only 64MB.
And as for Navi 23, it's reportedly coming with HBM2, and the Infinity Cache is there to compensate for a lower off-chip bandwidth. It could be using just 32MB LLC + HBM2e and that way it could have a similar "effective bandwidth" to the Navi 22 with 64MB LLC + 192bit GDDR6.
Of course, what's missing here is the fact that lower amounts of cache supposedly means lower LLC bandwidth, unless AMD is keen on using more slices with lower capacity each (which in turn wouldn't linearly scale down in die area).