AMD Vega 10, Vega 11, Vega 12 and Vega 20 Rumors and Discussion

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by ToTTenTranz, Sep 20, 2016.

  1. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,768
    Likes Received:
    1,497
    AMD's Background On The ROCm OpenCL Stack
    5 July 2017
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ROCm-OpenCL-Background
     
    Anarchist4000 and Jawed like this.
  2. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,531
    Likes Received:
    4,194
    Well it's not 550MHz because the card actually just stays at around 1400MHz most of the time, so it's more of a 350MHz / 33% difference.
     
  3. AlBran

    AlBran Ferro-Fibrous
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    20,326
    Likes Received:
    5,369
    Location:
    ಠ_ಠ
    Maybe RX Vega will be 8GB @ higher memclock?
     
  4. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,531
    Likes Received:
    4,194
    Even if they overclock those 4-Hi stacks to death, if RX Vega keeps showing a performance-per-CU-per-clock that is lower than Polaris then this chip is a total clusterfuck for gaming.
    Final RX Vega gaming drivers need to show at least a 20% boost in games compared to whatever the FE is running right now.
    Either that or AMD will have to be selling RX Vega for $350, because at these performance and power levels the miners won't touch the thing.
     
  5. Kaotik

    Kaotik Drunk Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,008
    Likes Received:
    1,707
    Location:
    Finland
    Fury doesn't have Pro-drivers. They should have used Radeon Pro Duo in single-GPU mode or FirePro/Radeon Pro

    I think the results are quite clear - the current drivers are indeed so called "Fiji-drivers".
    To my understanding Vega should have everything Polaris has + it's own improvements on top - Fiji has none of each, so it's driver won't be taking paths utilizing the improvements
     
  6. AlBran

    AlBran Ferro-Fibrous
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    20,326
    Likes Received:
    5,369
    Location:
    ಠ_ಠ
    Sure.

    I'm just positing one of the things they'll do for the "gamer" version. I don't know what they'll end up showing.
     
  7. DavidGraham

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    2,222
  8. dogen

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    252
    nvm ^ just posted the same thing
     
  9. 3dilettante

    Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,019
    Likes Received:
    2,569
    Location:
    Well within 3d
    Not everything Polaris did should have needed drivers to use. Polaris had expanded instruction buffers, improved L2 access handling, and some form of instruction prefetch.
    It seems like Vega should have some architectural elements that don't need explicit hand-holding, given how much AMD has said it changed.
     
    pharma, DavidGraham and Rootax like this.
  10. Rootax

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,044
    Likes Received:
    494
    Location:
    France
    Yeah I agree. In my uneducated opinion, something in the chip is broken, they can't fix it on time, so we have a fiji on (not that efficient) steroids. But I guess we'll never know for sure (like the r600/msaa thing).
     
  11. DavidGraham

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    2,222
    In GN's testing, it appears that Vega FE is having better geometry and tessellation performance than FuryX at the same clock, at least in FireStrike GFX 1 test (which is geometry heavy).

    [​IMG]
     
  12. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,531
    Likes Received:
    4,194
    Then if Vega FE is getting an almost exact carbon copy the gaming results of a GCN3 Fiji at similar clocks, whereas GCN4 Polaris 10 showed significant improvements over GCN3 Tonga, what do you think is happening here?
    Broken chip using Fiji fallback driver path just to work? Broken chip using Vega driver but since it's broken this is all it can do? Healthy chip using Fiji fallback driver waiting for Vega driver?
     
  13. Geeforcer

    Geeforcer Harmlessly Evil
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,297
    Likes Received:
    464
    I though Tonga->Polaris was only ~+5% (as opposed to Tahiti->Polaris which was well over +30%)

    Relevant thread

    BTW that thread has a lot of other very relevant information to the the other topics at hand, well worth a re-read.
     
  14. Rootax

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,044
    Likes Received:
    494
    Location:
    France
    Maybe FE is in reality for Fiji Edition.
     
  15. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,531
    Likes Received:
    4,194
    Depends on the game. Witcher 3 in computerbase.de shows a 15% boost for Witcher 3. Gameworks games (i.e. geometry-intensive games) seem to show the largest boost, between 10 and 15%. Other games go down to 4%.

    At the very least, Vega should be showing this 4-15% advantage towards Fiji at equal clocks, though needing 40% more transistors for that sounds a bit embarrassing.
     
  16. Jawed

    Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    10,853
    Likes Received:
    722
    Location:
    London
    Polaris has better delta colour compression than Fiji, so Vega should do too. That should negate Vega's slight bandwidth shortfall.
     
    no-X likes this.
  17. Kaotik

    Kaotik Drunk Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,008
    Likes Received:
    1,707
    Location:
    Finland
    Alexko likes this.
  18. Rys

    Rys AMD RTG
    Moderator Veteran Alpha

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2003
    Messages:
    4,138
    Likes Received:
    1,338
    Location:
    Beyond3D HQ
    The "Fiji fallback driver" or "Fiji drivers" meme needs to stop. That's not how it works or should be described. Otherwise you should start calling Volta drivers Pascal drivers Maxwell drivers. There is obviously commonality -- that's just how software engineering needs to work for a GPU -- but calling it a Fiji driver or Fiji fallback is wrong.
     
    Newguy, tinokun, MDolenc and 11 others like this.
  19. leoneazzurro

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    25
    Location:
    Rome, Italy
    Can then we call them " Vega drivers without any game specific optimization" then? In the AMD demos we saw Doom running on Vega at 70+ fps whereas in the tests we saw on the sites about Vega FE It barely surpasses 50 FPS. Can this be related to game specific optimization turned off in Vega for the sake of stability?
     
    looncraz likes this.
  20. 3dilettante

    Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,019
    Likes Received:
    2,569
    Location:
    Well within 3d
    There's a constellation of items that occurred to me, that seem like they could factor into it from my standpoint of as an outside observer.
    (TLDR: possible fallbacks to unevolved hardware, tradeoffs for same performance per clock, maybe it's not that different)

    Architectural features can be disabled or enabled even if they do not need explicit targeting by the driver at runtime.
    Some of the most significant alterations could be complex enough or flaky enough to not be turned on if they interact poorly with real-world code.
    Risk reduction may have those new features placed in areas that can safely fall back to architectural "bones" that are proven to work. The geometry front end and rasterizer changes could fall back to bones based heavily Fiji, given how closely they match on various parameters.
    The primitive discard accelerator in Polaris is something in the same area, and that might mean it doesn't exist separately enough to work if those items aren't active--or there's another possibility I will get to later.

    It may also be possible that even with some automatic improvements that there are penalties. One of the changes in the driver patches is a change in how many loads Vega can issue before having to wait, by a factor of 4. That could be a sign of something new not yet revealed, or something GCN was found to be limited by earlier, or a sign that Vega's L2/mem hierarchy needs that much more latency hiding. Something like trading off for higher clocks (or a higher-overhead data fabric?) might leave the designers purposefully aiming for roughly the same per-clock performance, with bonuses and penalties balancing out more closely than one would expect.
    One specific oddity to the wait count encoding is that the counter is split, with the portion corresponding to the standard GCN wait count sitting in one portion of the encoding, and the remaining bits set on the far side opposite all the other counts. That may point to wanting some level of binary compatibility, since a more significant architectural departure shouldn't care about a few bits. That could be risk mitigation, the hardware isn't that different, or the different portion is similarly layered on top of something that isn't that different.
    Something similar may apply as to why the ROPs changing in position relative to the L2 or the supposed increase in delta compression with Polaris didn't apply here, if some of the features are bypassed or add their own disadvantages. Polaris added some kind of coalescing of L2 client requests, but that might not apply the same way if Vega's L2 changed more significantly.

    Comparing Tonga to Polaris may be somewhat unrepresentative because Tonga seemed a little more flaky than usual, as far as gauging improvements versus the Fiji/Vega range.

    One other scenario I noted I would get to:
    The device IDs for Ellesmere, Baffin, and Greenland showed up quite some time ago. Vega FE was still called Greenland in some areas.
    GPU hardware even in the same "generation" isn't wholly equivalent. Tonga and Fiji have some decimal point differences in some of their IP identifiers, so what goes into the various blocks may be variably up to date.
    Perhaps some elements were taken as snapshots at times we wouldn't expect, and some of the CU changes that went into Polaris were added after whatever snapshot was taken by Greenland, like specific tweaks to the instruction buffer size. Perhaps some of the other geometry and compression tweaks happened uniquely within the Polaris branch.

    In addition to this, Polaris had features touted at launch that were touted at launch for Fiji and Carizzo. Given the overlapping timeframes of the projects and varying delays, perhaps we need to wait and see how many slides Vega RX cribs from prior gens.


    Another random bit of comparison:

    Since AMD has been touting Vega as being the first GPU with Inifinity Fabric:
    One of the marketed benefits is a more modular command fabric, which I noted with the Zen slides has a sensor and control loop that measures and reacts every millisecond.
    This was noted in various reviews and AMD's Ryzen page for its precision boost tech. I believe it is also mentioned for EPYC and its more distributed system.

    For comparison:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/7457/the-radeon-r9-290x-review/5

    AMD has put various items like bees in jar: its highly responsive GPU management, its futuristic fabric, what level of responsiveness was acheived, how much that responsiveness matters, and an unknown level of integration of these items into Vega's hardware. Then it shook the jar. I'm curious what falls out in a month or so.
     
    Lightman and Cyan like this.
Loading...

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...