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:
    9,844
    Likes Received:
    4,457
    I'm not mad at anyone, nor do I see any reason to believe so in my post.
    I'm simply pointing out what I think is not going so well with my favorite hardware website, and I will continue to do so respectfully, as means of providing an audience feedback.

    And while we're there, criticism is not purely about number of articles being released, but also about methodology, focus and timing.
    The GTX1080 review + GTX1070 review + Pascal overview took 1.5 months between the 1080's release and AT's article. Then the GTX 1060 took two weeks between release and AT's article.
    For Polaris, it's been 2.5 months since the RX480 release and 1 month since the RX470/460's release. All we've got is a 4-page performance preview of the RX480. The RX 480 released 3 weeks before the GTX 1060, yet the later has a month-old full article at AT.


    If I was a part of AMD's PR, I wouldn't be very happy with this. Having the people in my company working their asses off to release our GPUs before the competition at their price range and making them available to the press on time, only to see the reviews being postponed indefinitely while the competition releases their cards and gets their reviews before ours.
    Not only do I not see the point of that from AT's perspective, I also wonder if in case AMD's PR decides to somehow act on it, they'll be regarded as the bad guys as usual. There's just no possible victory for them, is there?
     
  2. function

    function None functional
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    5,135
    Likes Received:
    2,248
    Location:
    Wrong thread
    So 4, 8 or 16 then. That's interesting, and might help to explain the what appears to be the shortage of ROPs on Polaris 10.

    Compared to the "equally flopped" 390X, CU utilisation is down despite the improvements to the geometry engine. And while there's a lot less bandwidth (480 is 67% of 390X BW) the colour compression is supposed to allow up to 1.4X the effective BW. Taken at face value, that should mean up to 93% of the effective transfer rate of the 390X for none compute workloads.

    ROPs, on the other hand are down to 32 from 64, and the modest clock bump means it still has only 60% of the fillrate. 12 ROPs per shader engine would take the 480 back up to around 90% fill, in what might appear to be a good match for the bandwidth and colour compression - at least going by the more highly utilised and much older 390X.

    It starts to look like current GDDR5 and core clocks may have created a situation where neither 8 or 16 ROPs per shader engine is optimal, and there isn't the flexibility to have 12.

    So probably just a diagram error. If they're lazy like me, perhaps they started out by editing something older and failed to catch that.

    Cheers. I probably should have worked that out ....

    While I'm sure that AMD ran the numbers thoroughly, my armchair chip peeping makes me wish they'd kept such an arrangement for Polaris 10, and kept the 64 ROPs of the 390X. This would have allowed them to ship a 384-bit 480 and a 256-bit 470.

    The 480 can be several % ahead of the 390X at very low resolutions (so clearly there are improvements in there) but falls increasingly behind at higher ones. With a different ROP and memory arrangement, I think it could clearly exceed the 390X and also the 1060, particularly at higher resolutions (where the 390X already does this).
     
  3. CarstenS

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,797
    Likes Received:
    2,056
    Location:
    Germany
    I honestly do not know. Again, not speaking for AT and/or Ryan and - since you seemed to feel criticized - not criticizing anyone, just trying to provide some background.
     
  4. RecessionCone

    Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    Messages:
    499
    Likes Received:
    177
    AT has to prioritize based on what their readers want to read, given their limited resources.

    They wrote up 3 full review articles on Fiji (Fury X, Fury, Fury Nano), but not a single review of GM206, despite the fact that GM206 sold in far greater volume than Fiji.

    I think this is because Fiji was a far more interesting story than GM206, given the HBM, water cooling, small FF board.

    I wish that AT had more resources to publish more reviews. But the truth is that they can only do so much, especially given the terrible state of online advertising these days.
     
    Razor1 and pharma like this.
  5. Jawed

    Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    767
    Location:
    London
    One might argue that Polaris 10 should have had 3 shader engines, each with 16 ROPs. 12 CUs per shader engine would have resulted in the same compute. This would have meant less geometry throughput. I imagine it would have been a smaller die.

    If AMD was aiming for 32 ROPs, they could have done this with 2 shader engines. But there could only be 32 CUs. That would be a yet smaller die in theory. It would need higher clocks though. And clock speed is current-GCN's enemy.

    So that would have even worse geometry throughput. The geometry improvements in Polaris architecture would have been "lost" with only two shader engines and it seems unlikely it would have been "VR Ready". It's unclear to me which is dominant for VR: geometry or rasterisation/ROP.
     
    liolio likes this.
  6. swaaye

    swaaye Entirely Suboptimal
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,456
    Likes Received:
    578
    Location:
    WI, USA
    Brings back happy memories of B3D arguments of ROP shortages on R600, RV770 and friends. RV770 was more competitive than Polaris 10 though.
     
  7. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,909
    Likes Received:
    1,607
  8. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,909
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    HIS RX 480 IceQ X2 Roaring Turbo: A true king of the jungle?
    http://videocardz.com/review/his-radeon-rx-480-iceq-x2-roaring-turbo-8gb-review

    HIS RX 480 IceQ X2 Roaring Turbo 8GB Video Card Review
    http://www.madshrimps.be/articles/a...0-IceQ-X2-Roaring-Turbo-8GB-Video-Card-Review
     
    #5048 pharma, Sep 12, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2016
  9. seahawk

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    141
    But when you look at how loudness physically works, you will learn that many sources of little noise are less disturbing than one loud. 4 fans at 1,0 Sone are more silent than one at 2,5 Sone.

    For example. Say your RX480 is doing 42db, you PSU 32db and your case fan 30db the sum is: 42,65db

    Now we add another 30db case fan, a 32db CPU fan and a GPU Cooler at 38db, the sum is: 40,60db
     
    Dr Evil likes this.
  10. function

    function None functional
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    5,135
    Likes Received:
    2,248
    Location:
    Wrong thread
    Can GCN support none power of two shader engines (I'm thinking of 3dilettante's observations about ROPs in shipped AMD products never being 12 per shader engine)?

    Do we have any idea how big a geometry processor or render backed (4 ROPS) is in terms of die area? CUs you can work out if you can get a die shot, but I'm not so hot at identifying other units.

    This makes me think of a "super 460". And that has 16 ROPs, compared to the PS4's 32.

    Interestingly, the PS4 GPU loses 10~40 GB/s to the CPU depending on what the CPU's doing, according to Sony developer slides. So if we were to (very) crudely compare PS4 and the 460:
    - PS4: 136 ~ 166 GB/s, 32 ROPs, fillrate of 25.6 Gpixels/s. Fill / flops: 25.6 / 1.84 = 13.9 pixels per megaflop
    - 460: 112 GB/s, 16 ROPs, fillrate of 19.2 Gpixels/s. Fill / flops = 19.2 / 2.2 = 8.7 pixels per megaflop

    Three things to note: Sony particularly requested 32 ROPs; devs say while the PS4 can be BW limited for colour, there are situations where it gives a noticeable boost over the 16 ROP (but higher clocked, greater bandwidth) X1, and while the 460 has less memory bandwidth than the PS4, the CPU on PS4 take a good chunk and the 460 has DCC that (supposedly) effectively increases transfers by up to 40%.

    In short, I think the 460 could do with more ROPs too, and like the 480, 12 ROPs per shader engine might be a good fit but might not be possible. X1 can be hold back by its ROPs relative to the PS4, and 460 has a worse fill / compute rate than even the X1.
     
  11. Esrever

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    298
    I think you may be taking the 40% too literally. In practice, it is probably not as good as that judging by the reports of increased performance from memory OC many people get.
     
  12. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    17,222
    Likes Received:
    1,742
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    I don't think Zen will ever come out. :(
     
  13. Razor1

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    NY, NY
    Always got Phil Jackson or the Dalai Lama ;)
     
    digitalwanderer likes this.
  14. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    17,222
    Likes Received:
    1,742
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    Or what was that book? "Winnie the Poo and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" or some such?

    :p
     
    Kej and Razor1 like this.
  15. function

    function None functional
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    5,135
    Likes Received:
    2,248
    Location:
    Wrong thread
    A new graphics card is normally fast enough to play all the current games well. It's how it'll play them in a couple of years that's going to matter most. - to me anyway But then again, I say this as a tight arse who's still playing on a 680 aka 770. Should a bought a 290 instead ....

    AMD's hardware seems to suit the console space better than the desktop market - at least at the moment. Hardware that is still competitive after 2 (or 4, or 6) years of software advances is a positive there.
     
  16. Razor1

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    NY, NY

    Well can't see that coming always, any case I upgrade my card every gen so it doesn't matter to me, I do look at features that might be useful in the future (dev stuff), but for my gaming needs, I just want the fastest right now for the games that will be coming out for the life span of that card.
     
  17. AlBran

    AlBran Ferro-Fibrous
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    20,658
    Likes Received:
    5,758
    Location:
    ಠ_ಠ
  18. Psycho

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    39
    Location:
    Copenhagen
    #5058 Psycho, Sep 20, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2016
  19. function

    function None functional
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    5,135
    Likes Received:
    2,248
    Location:
    Wrong thread
    That "Vega 20" info comes just a little too close to Global Foundries announcing their plans for 7 nm for me to be comfortable.

    They don't appear to have 14 nm nailed yet, not sure when a 7 nm graphics card would be likely to be realistic.
     
  20. seahawk

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    141
    If Vega 10/11 are 14nm at GF and Polaris is 14nm at GF, it makes sense that the next new chip would be 7nm at GF. Imho this might indicate that AMD is no longer doing a real fully fledged refresh line up on an existing process. But went with small chip - big chip for each process. Considering the limited resources it makes sense, but keeping up with NV, who still seems willing to do full refresh generations on each process, will be a challenge, even more so if GF is lacking behind TSMC, or Samsung.
     
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...