Just send a (broken) Vega to this fellow. He has already covered Polaris and Fiji. Also it seems he keeps improving his technique - Zen.I found the die shot from page 2 of this pdf. It's covered up but if you open it in Adobe and change to and from that page or zoom in or out, you sometimes briefly see the picture without being covered.
Exactly which unused Vega features that are also supported but unused by Volta did you have in mind?The people complaining about RX VEGA's unused features, somehow won't be complaining about them, when later this year Volta ends up supporting those game features too, right..? (Not really hard to see what a 7nm Vega w/2.4ghz HBM2 will do, either.)
Reread your first sentence. Yes, the one with a heave dose of whataboutism. Do you notice the irony?Why be political about it ?
I found the die shot from page 2 of this pdf. It's covered up but if you open it in Adobe and change to and from that page or zoom in or out, you sometimes briefly see the picture without being covered.
https://www.hotchips.org/wp-content...b/HC29.21.120-Radeon-Vega10-Mantor-AMD-f1.pdf
As an aside, it appears that the PS4 Pro is next up. The current shot is pretty blurry, although presumably a more straight-on shot is on its way. It seems like it was more difficult to etch down cleanly with a chip on this process (comments indicating GV100 is a goal?).Just send a (broken) Vega to this fellow. He has already covered Polaris and Fiji. Also it seems he keeps improving his technique - Zen.
It seems to have some relation to core clock. If core is >1500MHz, SOC clock is 1100MHz. If core is <1500, SOC clock drops down to 1028, sometimes less. Memory clock = 1000, at all times.It should have been clocked slightly higher than the memory as I recall.
Oh, but they did. Check page 10:Should be Infinity, but AMD never clarified what they were doing with it.
The memory transfer bandwidth as measured by AIDA64's GPGPU-test is 20% better on Fiji (367) than on Vega (303), right inbetween sits the Titan X (Pascal) with 336 GB/s.
IIRC that has been remedied. Was a bit buried during the RX Vega launch test, but there:Has anyone re-done those tests that showed worse performance on Vega than on Fiji? "Now that the drivers have improved"...
Yes, that page shows what AMD is doing with infinity fabric, but it doesn't nail down that GPU-Z's "SOC clock" is infinity fabric clock.Oh, but they did. Check page 10:
For those not familiar with this Vega presentation, it contains interesting benchmark showing gaming DBSR on/off perf. and power gains:Oh, but they did. Check page 10:
https://www.hotchips.org/wp-content...b/HC29.21.120-Radeon-Vega10-Mantor-AMD-f1.pdf
This makes one think about the Vega project goals. Given Fiji vs Vega10 clock-to-clock being the same within an error margin, they must have ramped-up the frequency. Vega10@1.3GHz surely has a nice power profile. The current Vega10@1.6GHz not so much... But hey, they had to beat their previous (28nm, pioneering and bottlenecked) flagship by a meaningful margin. What were they thinking?
Nowhere in there could I find an explanation for Raja saying Infinity is larger than necessary for gaming devices though. The implication would be it connects something that only shows up in server or compute more robustly. SSG, Infinity mesh for MI25 with Epyc, etc as shown in that presentation.Oh, but they did. Check page 10:
https://www.hotchips.org/wp-content...b/HC29.21.120-Radeon-Vega10-Mantor-AMD-f1.pdf
Well if the software side still isn't fully hashed out, I doubt anyone would reasonably expect to measure huge gains in actual testing when those measurements were taken in 2016 I believe.The average gains are not anywhere near "the unicorn-level".
Isn't it established that IF is the internal interconnect in vega 10, rather than the old system of dedicated buses/crossbars. So it'd be used for all kinds of internal data transfers, not just server related stuff. Which would be funky btw, since there is hardly any vegas used that way right now...The implication would be it connects something that only shows up in server or compute more robustly.
Yeah, but the question is what unknown capability made it larger than necessary for gaming, worth mentioning by Raja, but applicable only to server as different chips weren't an option? It would seem to be providing an interconnect for some pro feature or routing traffic differently for a standard chip in compute configuration.Isn't it established that IF is the internal interconnect in vega 10, rather than the old system of dedicated buses/crossbars. So it'd be used for all kinds of internal data transfers, not just server related stuff. Which would be funky btw, since there is hardly any vegas used that way right now...