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

[STaR GaZeR]

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.

 

[EduardoS]

But I'd still bet on a gaming optimized 300mm² GCN GPU to consistently beat GK104 by a fair margin - even without AMD implementing all that Boost stuff @ stock settings.

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

 

[Ryan Smith]

Actually, I would really like to hear that theory! Ryan probably too, since he's a reader here.

Sure thing. I had to pick something, so I picked the something that was the least likely to be CPU limited.

 

[Mianca]

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.

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?

 

[EduardoS]

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?

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.

 

[lanek]

Sorry to disappoint, but "average" is just Crysis 2:
"Average: Crysis 2 at 1920x1200, Extreme profile, representing a typical gaming power draw. Average of all readings (12 per second) while the benchmark was rendering (no title/loading screen)." (From your link)

The numbers I mentioned are also directly from the slot plus PSU connectors, so they're not guesstimates any more than what you've linked. Avg. Performance per watt correllating performance in many games and watts in just one is more a rough ballpark (albeit a very useful one!) than a number whose decimal's points I'd trust in for inter-arch comparisons.

Here's a few games with watts and fps at exactly the same spot:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,873907/Test-Geforce-GTX-680-Kepler-GK104/Grafikkarte/Test/?page=19
Unfortunately we've only had time to do 680, 580 and 7970 here (for 7970 we've also used the reviewer sample provided by AMD). But nevertheless, the results are way less advantageous as Nvidia would like you to think. 680 is beating 580 handily though.

Really interesting.

 

[Mianca]

Sorry to disappoint, but "average" is just Crysis 2

Point taken - but your results still aren't all that different to the numbers I used, so why should I be disappointed?

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?

 

[sheepdogexpress]

Sorry to disappoint, but "average" is just Crysis 2:
"Average: Crysis 2 at 1920x1200, Extreme profile, representing a typical gaming power draw. Average of all readings (12 per second) while the benchmark was rendering (no title/loading screen)." (From your link)

The numbers I mentioned are also directly from the slot plus PSU connectors, so they're not guesstimates any more than what you've linked. Avg. Performance per watt correllating performance in many games and watts in just one is more a rough ballpark (albeit a very useful one!) than a number whose decimal's points I'd trust in for inter-arch comparisons.

Here's a few games with watts and fps at exactly the same spot:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,873907/Test-Geforce-GTX-680-Kepler-GK104/Grafikkarte/Test/?page=19
Unfortunately we've only had time to do 680, 580 and 7970 here (for 7970 we've also used the reviewer sample provided by AMD). But nevertheless, the results are way less advantageous as Nvidia would like you to think. 680 is beating 580 handily though.

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.

 

[lanek]

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.

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 )

 

[Mianca]

I think the point was just to show how close they was in PowerDraw, and far of the figure the spec give.

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.

 

[xEx]

Sure thing. I had to pick something, so I picked the something that was the least likely to be CPU limited.

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.

 

[xEx]

Not be able to edit my own post really **** lol

 

[AnarchX]

Sea Islands GPUs?

AMD6600.1 = "MARS (6600)"
AMD6601.1 = "MARS (6601)"
AMD6602.1 = "MARS (6602)"
AMD6603.1 = "MARS (6603)"
AMD6606.1 = "MARS (6606)"
AMD6607.1 = "MARS (6607)"
AMD6620.1 = "MARS (6620)"
AMD6621.1 = "MARS (6621)"
AMD6623.1 = "MARS (6623)"
AMD6610.1 = "OLAND (6610)"
AMD6611.1 = "OLAND (6611)"
AMD6631.1 = "OLAND (6631)"
AMD682B.1 = "VENUS LE"
AMD6823.4 = "VENUS PRO"
AMD6821.1 = "VENUS XT"
AMD6820.2 = "VENUS XTX"

http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=4335465&postcount=14

 

[UniversalTruth]

Likely the mobile chips codenames.

 

[Kaotik]

Likely the mobile chips codenames.

Mars & Venus are planets, Oland is island (in a sea, too), so mix of both I guess

 

[eastmen]

Any word on if this is hitting this year ?

 

[rSkip]

Mars & Venus are planets, Oland is island (in a sea, too), so mix of both I guess

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.

 

[Kaotik]

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.

Does Canada have island named Sun too?
From 9.00 betas

AMD6823.2 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD6823.3 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD682B.2 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD6823.4 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD6821.2 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD6820.2 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD682B.3 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD6823.5 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD6821.3 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD6820.3 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD682B.4 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD6823.6 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD6821.4 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD6820.4 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD6820.5 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD6821.5 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD6821.6 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD6820.6 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD6823.7 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M Series"
AMD6820.7 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M Series"
AMD6821.7 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M Series"
AMD682B.5 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M Series"
AMD6823.7 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M Series"
AMD6820.7 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M Series"
AMD6821.7 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M Series"
AMD682B.5 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M Series"
AMD6823.1 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD682B.1 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD6821.1 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD6820.1 = "AMD Radeon HD 8800M"
AMD6600.1 = "MARS (6600)"
AMD6601.1 = "MARS (6601)"
AMD6602.1 = "MARS (6602)"
AMD6603.1 = "MARS (6603)"
AMD6606.1 = "MARS (6606)"
AMD6607.1 = "MARS (6607)"
AMD6620.1 = "MARS (6620)"
AMD6621.1 = "MARS (6621)"
AMD6623.1 = "MARS (6623)"
AMD6610.1 = "OLAND (6610)"
AMD6611.1 = "OLAND (6611)"
AMD6631.1 = "OLAND (6631)"
AMD6660.1 = "SUN (6660)"
AMD6663.1 = "SUN (6663)"
AMD6667.1 = "SUN (6667)"
AMD666F.1 = "SUN (666F)"

+ apparently all the previously mentioned too

 

[lanek]

8800M .... ok... this time i think we can say it is gpu mobile ( they all have the same string: 66xx and 68xx)

 

[AnarchX]

AMD682x deviced IDs:

• Venus
• HD 8800M

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