AMD: Sea Islands R1100 (8*** series) Speculation/ Rumour Thread

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by Shtal, Dec 31, 2011.

  1. STaR GaZeR

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16
    AMD has done wrong since the HD5000s IMO. With each generation the chips used for the HDx8xx SKUs have been smaller and smaller. They're now at 212 mm^2, selling it for $350. Pircairn is an awesome chip, much better than Tahiti, but it's way too small. Cypress had awesome perf/W and perf/mm^2, and it was "big". Barts was the same, but not quite there at 252 mm^2. Pircairn is king there too, but it's too small.

    Make a ~300 mm^2 (or more) Pitcairn, sell it at non retarded prices, and you'll have a winner.
     
  2. EduardoS

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Messages:
    131
    Sure you are right, but why comparing a hypothetical GPU to a real GPU? I'm not sure GTX680 is the perfect balance.

    BTW, I don't think HD7870 is the perfect balance either, the problem Thaiti have Pitcairn have as well just more limited, and the most interesting topic about GCN to me still what is limiting it's gaming performance ;)
     
  3. Ryan Smith

    Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    441
    Location:
    PCIe x16_1
    Sure thing. I had to pick something, so I picked the something that was the least likely to be CPU limited.
     
  4. Mianca

    Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    330
    I think the main problem isn't that they didn't want to make a bigger high-midrange chip, but that average fab costs per mm² keep rising when comparing similar points of process maturity.

    Wouldn't be surprised if a ~210mm² (28nm) Pictairn chip actually cost about as much to make right now as a ~340mm² (40nm) Cypress chip cost back in Oct. 2009 - so launch prices of the corresponding cards end up very similar though the chips are of different size.


    That being said, a ~300mm² high-midrange chip @ 28nm should actually become way more financially feasible towards the end of this year. I think AMD is in a rather good position in that respect. The direct successor to GK104 will probably end up somewhere between 350-400mm² - so a 250-300mm² Pitcarin successor has more headroom for relative increase in die size.

    The question really is: How far are they willing to go within that range - and what are Nvidia's plans? Slightly over ~250mm² Pitcairn successor vs. slightly under ~400mm² GK104 successor won't really change the current performance gap in any significant way. Slightly under ~300mm² Pitcairn successor vs. slightly bigger than 350mm² Gk104 successor would get really interesting, though.


    Given the current circumstances, I'd probably just try to extend the average life cycle of my compute chips, though - and make room for bigger gaming chips every 18-24 months. Tahiti is really good at compute tasks and FireGL cards take a lot of time to validate anyway - so why bother with another compute-heavy chip in 2012?

    Going down that BIG COMPUTE - MEDIUM GAMING - BIG GAMING - MEDIUM GAMING - BIG COMPUTE (20nm) - MEDIUM GAMING (20nm) road, a ~250mm² Pictairn successor PLUS a 350mm² gaming-optimized high end chip would be a really nice combo of medium and heavy punches. Next Tahiti-like multi-use chip would then be scheduled to precede BIG Maxwell somewhen in late 2013/early 2014. Wishful thinking? :razz:
     
  5. EduardoS

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Messages:
    131
    You speak (I mean, write) as if what slow downs Thaiti in games is too expensive to fix¹ and doesn't affect compute performance².

    1) Maybe, if it was easy I assume it would already be fixed, but I still believe this wasn't intentional.

    2) I'm not sure if this is true there still so few GPU compute applications to check... Anyway, what limits gaming performance can't say how it will affect other applications.
     
  6. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,167
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Really interesting.
     
  7. Mianca

    Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    330
    Point taken - but your results still aren't all that different to the numbers I used, so why should I be disappointed? :wink:

    Your numbers attest GTX680 about 7% better perf/W than HD7970, W1zzard says 4%.

    What I'd be really interested in are some perf/W numbers for HD7870 based on your more refined test procedure - and maybe perf/W for HD7970 @ -20% Powertune settings.

    If there's one thing I took away from the discussion in this thread, it's that PowerTune has received way too little review-love until now.


    EDIT:

    There's a rather interesting PowerTune test @behardware.com, btw.

    So HD7970 basically still has a ~10% guardband in power budget to keep PowerTune from actually throttling games - which also explains why some people reported that even their overclocked cards weren't noticeably throttled @ stock PowerTune settings. There just is a relatively broad headroom to exploit.

    Interesting things happen @ -20% power budget, though: Once it actually kicks in, PowerTune seems to adapt nicely and with good granuality to different levels of stress. I'd love to see corresponding clock rates and power draw readings over the benched period of time.

    Looks like average performance decreases faster than average power consumption, though - i.e. average power efficiency goes down with (power budget based) clock throttling in that specific case. Maybe Tahiti's average Perf/W peak is achieved within a higher clock speed / power range?
     
    #287 Mianca, Mar 27, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 31, 2012
  8. sheepdogexpress

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    82
    Is it just me or is the only games the gtx 680 loses in performance per watt is metro 2033 for performance per watt. Out of 9 games, that is pretty good if you ask me.
     
  9. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,167
    Location:
    Switzerland
    I think the point was just to show how close they was in PowerDraw, and far of the figure the spec give.

    Performance are subject to change following setting and resolution + benchmark zone. A simple example with BF3, the 7970 is faster without FXAA, the fps drop of 50% with it, when the lost is half of it for the 680. It depend too where you test.

    But again, if it win, the difference is not big. thanks to Metro, ME2 .. ( SC2 is a strange change case for dont say more )
     
    #289 lanek, Mar 27, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 27, 2012
  10. Mianca

    Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    330
    Yeah, HD7970 is specced according to its max power draw in games (see my earlier post), GTX680 is specced according to its typical power target in games.

    HD7970 is absolutely clock deterministic with hugely variable power draw in games (the games tested by CarstenS show a range from 139W to 182W - that's about 30% fluctuation).

    GTX680 is relatively power deterministic with variable clock rates within a certain range - resulting in way less fluctuation in power draw (the games tested by CarstenS show a range from 156W to 174W - that's a fluctuation of under 12%).

    A lot of review sites just measure peak power consumption - which just doesn't do a card whose power draw fluctuates a lot justice.

    Also, notice that the numbers posted by CarstenS are average numbers - so they really just give fluctuation of average power draw across different games. Add fluctuation of power draw within games on top of that, and the range of power draw will become even bigger.
     
    #290 Mianca, Mar 28, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2012
  11. xEx

    xEx
    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    330
    Then i´d like to ask you why you used the old drivers that came with the HD79xx? idk if you re-run the test or just put the numbers in any case im really wondering why you used a numbers that don't represent the current performance of the Radeons...And ironically who used the newest drivers they turn off the optimizations of the driver(Catalyst AI) which are the same as Nvidia just that Nvidia don't let you turn it off.

    I don't want to fight a fight nor being a fanboy of anything i just want to know why you(as many other) chose that decision.
     
  12. xEx

    xEx
    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    330
    Not be able to edit my own post really **** lol
     
  13. AnarchX

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,557
    Sea Islands GPUs?
    http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=4335465&postcount=14
     
  14. UniversalTruth

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likely the mobile chips codenames. :???:
     
  15. Kaotik

    Kaotik Drunk Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    6,558
    Mars & Venus are planets, Oland is island (in a sea, too), so mix of both I guess
     
  16. eastmen

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    8,657
    Any word on if this is hitting this year ?
     
  17. rSkip

    Newcomer Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Messages:
    6
    Location:
    Shanghai
    They are also islands in Canada.
    It seems that Venus is just a new name for Cape Verde (Mobile) and Mars & Oland are new chips.
     
  18. Kaotik

    Kaotik Drunk Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    6,558
    Does Canada have island named Sun too? :razz:
    From 9.00 betas
    + apparently all the previously mentioned too
     
  19. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,167
    Location:
    Switzerland
    8800M .... ok... this time i think we can say it is gpu mobile ( they all have the same string: 66xx and 68xx)
     
    #299 lanek, Jun 14, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 14, 2012
  20. AnarchX

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,557
    AMD682x deviced IDs:
    • Venus
    • HD 8800M

    So were are looking probably on a Cape Verde successor, which was base of HD 7800M/HD 7700M.
     

Share This Page

  • About Beyond3D

    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...