DegustatoR
Legend
Who says that it's worse?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
yes , they did and it din´t help Vega to become better gaming GPU, because despite higher clock, the limitations due architectural design choices still remainedwhich actually proves my point, that RDNA3 clock is not limited by process node .-) RDNA2 clock up to 2,8GHz on 7nm , I don´t see any valid point from you, why it´should be worse on 5nm node beside some architectural glitches or design flaw....
Hmmmm, since we only have the official information released by AMD thus far, let's compare shall we? Clocks are Base, Game, Boost in MHz using AMDs officially released numbers for each (taken off of Techpowerup's GPU database)...
- 7900 XTX
- 1900, 2300, 2505
- 7900 XT
- 1500, 2000, 2400
- 6950 XT
- 1860, 2100, 2310
- 6900 XT
- 1825, 2015, 2250
- 6800 XT
- 1825, 2015, 2250
- 6800
- 1700, 1815, 2105
- 6750 XT
- 2150, 2495, 2600
- 6700 XT
- 2321, 2424, 2581
- 6650 XT
- 2055, 2410, 2635
- 6600 XT
- 1968, 2359, 2589
- 6500 XT
- 2310, 2610, 2815
- 6400
- 1923, 2039, 2321
But if we compare it to the cards it's actually replacing, the 6900 XT and/or 6950 XT, then the base clock is slightly higher but game clock and boost clock are significantly higher.
The 7900 XT certainly is a bit disappointing at first glance (especially considering MSRP is only 100 USD less), but while the base clock is pretty low, the game clock is relatively equal to the 6900 XT while the boost clock is 150 MHz higher.
I'll wait for independent benchmarks before I even start to think about whether this is disappointing or not.
Regards,
SB
DegustatoR
Legend
Why would clocks of all things signify if some GPU is a disappointment?
Frenetic Pony
Veteran
Wonder if this is what's killing the performance per ALU. 2.2x ALU for 1.6x the performance. Maybe the dual issue just doesn't work for a lot of instructions, the waves don't get filled, and vaunted "density improvement" from this design amounts to little. Could even be killing any RT improvement, 32 wave size is already large there. Depending on the ALU involvement still you'd get killed by low occupancy on heavy divergence.
Anyway, at least the new infinity cache looks good. More selectivity and bandwidth seems to have paid off, less cache for more improvement. And the chiplet arch as well, combined that's saved them like $80 on BOM, around 28% of the cost.
Edit "7900 designed for clockspeeds up to 3ghz" supposedly straight from AMD, err. 24gbps, 450 watts, 3ghz card next year?
Last edited:
OMG, are you just suggesting another soon to be realeased part with more clock/more WGPs? Or some kind of 295X2 style multicore solution?
So AMD confirmed the 7900XTX is competitive with the 4080, not the 4090.
I started looking closely at their claims, and this is how they derived their 54% perf per watt claim, they set both a 6900XT and 7900XTX to a 300W TBP, and tested both in select titles.
So this means, that in those titles and at a lower TBP of 300W (instead of 355W), the 7900XTX was 54% faster than than the 6900XT (@300W). That already puts it at the 4080's performance level (which is 35%~40% over the 3090Ti). So the 7900XTX will beat the 4080 by however much it gains going from 300W to 355W.
It also means that 54% claim also includes some low hanging ray tracing gains as well.
I started looking closely at their claims, and this is how they derived their 54% perf per watt claim, they set both a 6900XT and 7900XTX to a 300W TBP, and tested both in select titles.
So this means, that in those titles and at a lower TBP of 300W (instead of 355W), the 7900XTX was 54% faster than than the 6900XT (@300W). That already puts it at the 4080's performance level (which is 35%~40% over the 3090Ti). So the 7900XTX will beat the 4080 by however much it gains going from 300W to 355W.
It also means that 54% claim also includes some low hanging ray tracing gains as well.
The annotated GCD die shot (provided by AMD tho) doesn't show any large interface for GCD-GCD communication.
We need a real shot to check whether TSVs are present on the MCDs. If so we could still expect a 3D stacked premium' version at some point.
hoom
Veteran
For those of us with more limited $ & W budgets is there any indication when we will see the mid-range stuff?
I pretty much only play stuff that would class as legacy these days & my 5600XT copes with most of that fine at 4K but I could do with a bit more horsepower without having to spend $$$ & I really don't want a space-heater so I've been hoping mid-range + the crash of the crypto GPU bubble should mean I can look forward to a decent performance upgrade at affordable $ & similar W.
I pretty much only play stuff that would class as legacy these days & my 5600XT copes with most of that fine at 4K but I could do with a bit more horsepower without having to spend $$$ & I really don't want a space-heater so I've been hoping mid-range + the crash of the crypto GPU bubble should mean I can look forward to a decent performance upgrade at affordable $ & similar W.
Subtlesnake
Regular
I find the lack of ray tracing specific performance boosts weird considering AMD talks about a 50% increase in performance per CU and the 7900 XTX has 20% more CUs. So at least in some titles we should be seeing an 80% increase in RT performance.
Consider that at best he's the amd version of eastman, at worst just an attention seeker making things on the spot.
Leoneazzurro5
Regular
In some titles that are completely RT limited, probably (MInecraft RT?). In the others the pipeline has likely other bottlenecking factors, and you will see the improvement leaning more towards the raster factor increase.
Last edited:
DegustatoR
Legend
I'd expect the opposite - bigger gains in "lite RT" titles than in heavy path traced ones.
Bondrewd
Veteran
But it didn't because stuff happened.
Yeah I was a probably a bit too literal in my argument. I do of course understand a 7900XT/X can easily achieve better graphics, frame rate and image quality than an Series S or Series X all at the same time. As can a 6900 and probably even a 6800 to a marginal degree in each area. However...
The main thrust of my argument was that if we are to say RT performance doesn't matter because we'll just turn it off anyway, then you are accepting that on your $900 GPU, you are getting a lesser experience in some respects than even an Xbox Series S gamer. On the other hand if you turn RT on, then the AMD GPU is much slower than it's competing Nvidia GPU. Both options are bad IMO.
The 7900 (and 6xxx series for that matter) is a beast for rasterization and great value when compared to the $1100 4080 in that respect. But when RT comes into play - as it does in many big titles and will in many more moving forwards - then it's potentially only competing with a 3080Ti which can be picked up for much less or it's giving you an experience that falls short of the consoles in some respects.
What are the Ada rates for the metrics listed under "CP & Geometry" and "Pixel Pipe"?
architecture "to exceed 3GHz" confirmed
Still wondering what's the difference between 2nd gen RT and 1st gen.
Mentioning larger caches is off topic, imo.
'RT featuers for perf. & eff.' does not mention what's the features.
1.8x @ x GHz sounds like comparing per CU vs. the old gen at same frequency, which would be the speedup i would have expected in the best case. But benches suggest it's comparing the whole GPUs.
Well, ISA docs will tell...
Mentioning larger caches is off topic, imo.
'RT featuers for perf. & eff.' does not mention what's the features.
1.8x @ x GHz sounds like comparing per CU vs. the old gen at same frequency, which would be the speedup i would have expected in the best case. But benches suggest it's comparing the whole GPUs.
Well, ISA docs will tell...
True, though it makes you wonder about corsairs 600W 12vhpwr connector as it only has 2 8pins.
Not saying AMD should be trying to pull 500W from 2 8pins just pointing out that the spec actually has room for that much amperage to be pulled if one was willing to.
I am also curious about N31 clocks compared to N21. Are there any N21 cards that only match the reference clocks? My reference 6900xt clocks higher even at the OOB 250W power limit.
AD102 has 12 rasterizer (GPCs),144 geometry units (TPC) and 16 ROPs per GPC (192). A 4090 with 2750MHz (real clock rate) can process 33 billion triangles per second.
Similar threads
