Primitive shaders of PS5 variety yes, mesh shaders though I don't know if there were any progress.It is using Mesh shader/primitive shader for bigger triangle. I think Nanite is only for triangle covering less than 4 pixels.
Primitive shaders of PS5 variety yes, mesh shaders though I don't know if there were any progress.It is using Mesh shader/primitive shader for bigger triangle. I think Nanite is only for triangle covering less than 4 pixels.
Primitive shaders of PS5 variety yes, mesh shaders though I don't know if there were any progress.
I assume it's what the shader core runs at under load with 2.3GHz specced "game clock".The slide says the RT unit gets "1.8x" RDNA2 usage at 2.5ghz, is it on a separate clock?
I assume it's what the shader core runs at under load with 2.3GHz specced "game clock".
Are you sure there is a bug at all?If AMD can fix the bug in time they should just reboot the GPU series.
Where did they make this claim anyway?I’m curious if AMD is basing their claim of this being the most advanced GPU solely on the basis of it being a chiplet design.
Well, 3 GHz is mentioned as a design target in AMD's own slides. Obviously that doesn't prove that a "bug" is preventing them from hitting that, but it at least suggests that certain architectural choices didn't pan out as expected.Are you sure there is a bug at all?
It's just a broken telephone, usual suspects had heard somewhere about the 3 GHz frequency, but didn't know anything about RDNA 3's 2 frequencies domains architecture at the time, now they have to speculate about the new revision because otherwise they would look like fools.
Well, it is rated at 355 watts and in one slide of the presentation/YT video, they detail how much power (25%!) the decoupled clocks, i.e. downclocking the shaders from 2.5 to 2.3 GHz "game clock" yields for them. Do the math.Well, 3 GHz is mentioned as a design target in AMD's own slides. Obviously that doesn't prove that a "bug" is preventing them from hitting that, but it at least suggests that certain architectural choices didn't pan out as expected.
If people are worried about future proofing, pretty much all games will be made with consoles notably weaker than these GPUs as a base both from a rasterization perspective and a ray tracing perspective.
A tentative post musing on the PC market from a console user interested in the workings of the PC market. Tell me if I was off base with anything stated here
"The bug" is likely a severe increase in power draw which makes it impossible to achieve said clocks on Navi 31.Well, 3 GHz is mentioned as a design target in AMD's own slides. Obviously that doesn't prove that a "bug" is preventing them from hitting that, but it at least suggests that certain architectural choices didn't pan out as expected.
They're cliented to L1 now so that's way inside the chip.Why not put the ROPs on the MCDs as well?
No.AMD most likely felt they needed more time for their RT and ML implementation akin to intel and NV,
No RDNA4 is all about chiplet approach to be even more cost efficient.they could be ironing out things and have it ready with RDNA4.
No."The bug" is likely a severe increase in power draw which makes it impossible to achieve said clocks on Navi 31.
No, it's N31."Architected to exceed 3GHz" though is about RDNA3 and not Navi 31.
No there's a genuine wall in there.So a smaller narrower chip may well manage to do this
They don't specify the part of the chip for which that was a goal, that's just a vague 3 GHz that is still here in the latest slides. That implies that the goals have been achieved (It would be very weird to mention them otherwise).3 GHz is mentioned as a design target in AMD's own slides.