AMD: Speculation, Rumors, and Discussion (Archive)

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by iMacmatician, Mar 30, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,996
    Likes Received:
    4,570
    That curiosity isn't relevant for the architecture forum, at least not anymore now that it's been solved.
    You can create a thread about that in the industry section and leave this one alone.
    Enough powergate solution, we have other stuff to discuss now.

    The RX470 seems to have close to 75% the performance of the RX 480, at least in AotS:
    http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...-details/c4f20d31-5c68-4047-973c-d67c3b8fec7c
    Same CPU model but it seems to be clocked a bit higher.
     
  2. DavidGraham

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,786
    Likes Received:
    2,585
    I just stated that games that promised Mantle support have dropped it for the good old DX11 support. They didn't even bother with DX12 or Vulkan. So no it didn't move things along that path. Games support DX12 now because that's what happens with the introduction of any new APIs, same thing happened with DX11 and DX10 before it.

    The inevitability was AMD's fault, The API had problems since it's introduction: memory compatibility issues, architecture compatibility, didn't work well with GPU limited scenarios which resulted in small fps boost. late arrival to games. It wasn't even the default API for running it's supported games.

    Exactly, which did nothing to improve their image or market share. NV was first to support Vulkan with drivers. and According to DOTA 2/Talos Principle benchmarks, NV holds the performance advantage in both Vulkan and OpenGL.

    Not a huge win, late to the party, With AMD having far worse OpenGL performance compared to NV in that game. Expect Vulkan to improve the situation, but not by much.
     
  3. Dave Baumann

    Dave Baumann Gamerscore Wh...
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    14,079
    Likes Received:
    648
    Location:
    O Canada!
    1) Why would there be an additional voltage to go to?

    2) With power mechanisms such as they are this is going to have a negative affect on performance (see results with people undervolting).
     
  4. sonen

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    33
    Because had it been possible to achieve higher boost speeds in a safe and comprehensive manner without additional voltage, would mean that there was too much voltage to begin with that can be removed in a safe and comprehensive manner :)
    Not saying that is what happened..
     
  5. Dave Baumann

    Dave Baumann Gamerscore Wh...
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    14,079
    Likes Received:
    648
    Location:
    O Canada!
    Process VMAX is one of the first things that is characterised and it is already utilised within the peak clock/voltage state available with ASIC distribution, it just a question of what clock can be achieved for the voltage and the residency in that power state for a given target design.
     
  6. CarstenS

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,798
    Likes Received:
    2,056
    Location:
    Germany
    The first proof for that rule: If no measurements had been taken, all would be in perfect order?

    So, 14nm GloFo is ~27% less than 16nm TSMC? As in 1700-ish vs. 1200-ish. Certainly, that cannot be what it is you're implying?
     
    #4226 CarstenS, Jul 9, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2016
    xEx likes this.
  7. Dave Baumann

    Dave Baumann Gamerscore Wh...
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    14,079
    Likes Received:
    648
    Location:
    O Canada!
    You can't necessarily tell what VMAX is for an process based on a single sample as the voltages per state will alter per-chip. Additionally VMAX for a product will have the companies reliability model applied to it as well.
     
    Razor1 likes this.
  8. Jawed

    Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    767
    Location:
    London
    Hell, no.
     
    Razor1 likes this.
  9. Razor1

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    NY, NY
    A bit confusing what he stated, but to me it sounds like voltage is based on the node, and frequency is based on design based on that voltage.

    edit sorry didn't see your response Dave!
     
    #4229 Razor1, Jul 10, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2016
    TomK likes this.
  10. CarstenS

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,798
    Likes Received:
    2,056
    Location:
    Germany
    Each node has a manufacturer's recommended voltage. Someone mentioned it being 0.8 volts for TSMC 16FF, IIRC. Kind of a baseline.
     
    pharma and Razor1 like this.
  11. el etro

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2014
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    12
    My guess is that the TDP target was lower. I think the card was supposed to perform at 390x level, but with this performance the efficiency got out of control.
     
  12. CSI PC

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,050
    Likes Received:
    844
    The Vnom was 0.85V, with Vlow at 0.72V for 16nm.
    Vnom was 0.9V for 28nm, with regards to TSMC (context being comparable part used for processors and GPUs).
    If the info I have is still correct.
    Would be interesting to compare the voltage-frequency scaling and also leakage of both 14 and 16nm.
    Cheers

    Edit:
    Changed value to 28nm rather than showing 20nm.
     
    #4232 CSI PC, Jul 10, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2016
  13. seahawk

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    141
    It kind of feels wrong to anser this, as you have vastly more knowledge than I do on the topic, but more voltage has often allowed more chips to achieve the desired frequency than low voltage. Considering that AiBs reported some not marginal variations in silicon quality, it might have been a solution to make more dies hit the desired frequencies. If I look at the custom designs from NV I also notice that those having high frequencies and consuming lots of power are cheaper than those having high frequencies and consuming less power. And considering that EVGA already lists the FTW DT (DT de-rated) for chips that did not hit the TW speeds within the power budget, I am thinking this could be the answer.
     
    Heinrich04 likes this.
  14. function

    function None functional
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    5,135
    Likes Received:
    2,248
    Location:
    Wrong thread
    I think the idea is that AMD had already determined the highest voltage planes that the chip / process was suited to, and that we shouldn't assume there was another voltage level for them to go to late in the day.

    Being flexible with TDP and binning might well be later options than adding voltage planes, if AMD were already intending to use up to where they'd determined was suitable for the process.
     
  15. Grall

    Grall Invisible Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    10,801
    Likes Received:
    2,172
    Location:
    La-la land
    That AMD determined highest operating voltages and whatnot early on does not preclude a late-in-the-day voltage/corresponding clock frequency bump; theoretically the RX 480 could have been intended to run at lower volts than it actually released at. Possibly.
     
  16. Ext3h

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    294
    Much likely. We will see that when P11 is released officially, how efficient Polaris can really be if not pushed to the performance limit, but rather tuned for peak efficiency for use in laptops and alike.
     
  17. CarstenS

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,798
    Likes Received:
    2,056
    Location:
    Germany
    My hope is, that we will see this with RX 470 already, having a board power of 110 watts (maybe +10 again?). That would put it in GTX 1060 ballbark.
     
  18. Ext3h

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    294
    I have to ask a strange question:
    Does anyone know if it is possible to tune the current 14/16nm processes for a trade off between transistor switching speed / power drain, and yields on the other side?
    Speaking figuratively, so you have the choice between a higher base line consumption, plus possibly a higher voltage requirement to get even the "bad" transistors to work, versus a broken die all together on the first "bad" transistor?

    And what is the chance that AMD went with the safe bet?
     
  19. homerdog

    homerdog donator of the year
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    6,153
    Likes Received:
    928
    Location:
    still camping with a mauler
    For real though, reality is setting in and all indicators point to GP107 absolutely clobbering P11 in terms of efficiency. If it doesn't then we can assume P10 is simply broken in some way (which I don't think is the case).
     
  20. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,996
    Likes Received:
    4,570
    Based on what exactly?
    GP106 still isn't out yet, though for all we know is that its power/performance seems to be wrecked by GP104 (half the performance for 30% less power consumption?). Polaris 10 in its RX480 form seems to be working above its ideal power curves, since the RX470 offers much better performance per watt.

    Seems to me that Polaris' efficiency goes up as you lower absolute performance, whereas Pascal's goes down.
    I'm not saying P11 will be more efficient that GP107, just that it's too early to draw conclusions. At the very least because those are two completely undisclosed GPUs for the moment.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  • About Us

    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...