More accurately it can rasterise 33B tris/s and transform/cull 198B/sAD102 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.
More accurately it can rasterise 33B tris/s and transform/cull 198B/sAD102 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.
The slides talk about up to a 1.5x boost per CU (https://images.anandtech.com/doci/17638/AMD RDNA 3 Tech Day_Press Deck 25.png). So the 1.8X must be for the full GPU.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...
R520 vibes?But it didn't because stuff happened.
Absolutely correct.R520 vibes?
1.5 x per CU aligns with the wins we get from dual issue. So i would rant gen2 == gen1.The slides talk about up to a 1.5x boost per CU (https://images.anandtech.com/doci/17638/AMD RDNA 3 Tech Day_Press Deck 25.png). So the 1.8X must be for the full GPU.
It means this:What could it mean? hmmmmm.... : )
However. I really like their slogan 'Worlds most advanced Gaming GPU'. What a nice sidekick.
The slides talk about up to a 1.5x boost per CU (https://images.anandtech.com/doci/17638/AMD RDNA 3 Tech Day_Press Deck 25.png). So the 1.8X must be for the full GPU.
But I found this qualifier: "Based on November 2022 AMD internal performance lab measurement of rays with indirect calls on RX 7900 XTX GPU vs. RX 6900 XT GPU." (https://www.anandtech.com/Gallery/Album/8202#70)
So it sounds like some kind of synthetic benchmark.
Did they succed to identify the problem or it still remains blurry ?Absolutely correct.
(well this one is a fair bit bolder since everything besides ROPs was touched and pretty heavily at that).
Yea.Did they succed to identify the problem
Will the rest of the lineup be messed up too?Yea.
It's another R520.Anyone else seeing parallels between Fermi GF100 and N31?
Oops, i've missed the first link from the post.It means this:
hope it´s not another Vega ....It's another R520.
It should’ve been called “7800 XT” then.It's another R520.
Happens.
For some RT performance is all that matters and this "only" seems to match last gens fastest card if even that.Again, did I miss something? How can y'all be doom and glooming about this part when we really haven't seen any kind of real performance evaluation of it?