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

Digidi said:
It is interesting because AMD stated that they can't include primitive shaders to the driver, but they can help developers to make culling over shaders. AMD said also it would be similar to primitive shaders.

Reading this patent looks like primitive shaders is nothing else than normal shaders used for culling automatically.
Click to expand...
except that it's supposed to combine both VS and GS stages into one
 
I think this is one part of the new pipline. I think with the Next Generation Geometry pipline, AMD try to simmulate a Frontend on normal Shader, which will be very flexible ;)

Maybe in the Future you don't have a front end. You have only the shader and a Workloaddistributer. You will get than a realy flexible Frontend. As more Polygons come in as more shaders are blocked for polygon work.
 
itsmydamnation said:
70?
Click to expand...

According to wccftech:

https://wccftech.com/amd-7nm-vega-20-32gb-gpu-3dmark-benchmark-leaked-up-to/

With that being said, if Vega 20 manages to deliver similar performance to the Vega 64 Liquid at 1GHz we’re looking at no less than 70% faster performance per clock, which seems absolutely bonkers. The alternative hypothesis is that Vega 20 is running at a modest but unknown boost clock speed that 3DMark is just not picking on, although we’ve never seen boost functionality operational on any of AMD’s engineering samples in the past.
Click to expand...
 
For what it's worth, at least I couldn't dig out the claimed results from 3DMark result database
 
So there's 3 possible explanations for the results then: dual-gpu which doesn't get recognized by 3DMark, clocks which are read wrong by 3DMark, All claimed leaks and rumors of Vega 20 configuration are just dead wrong and it's a giant chip with like 8192 streamprocessors?
 
Did anybody recognise that the reaults are the same? So i think it´s the same clock Speed and the same architecture but at lower Power
 
Digidi said:
Did anybody recognise that the reaults are the same? So i think it´s the same clock Speed and the same architecture but at lower Power
Click to expand...
They're not the same, 2 very similar results though. And WCCFTech compared one of the results to the Vega 64 Liquid Edition, which gets around same score, too.
 
Forgot that it'd look at SLI/CF too, so quite likely that VC explanation is correct and it's picking up the default values for the clocks and not the boost clocks.
 
Kaotik said:
All claimed leaks and rumors of Vega 20 configuration are just dead wrong qand it's a giant chip with like 8192 streamprocessors?
Click to expand...

That (very) old slide set from videocardz has been spot on for everything save for a few things like dual Vega 10 (probably because of Vega 10's higher than expected power consumption) .

I'm inclined to believe Vega 20 is a 64CU part. But that thing had better clock north of 1.7GHz on 7nm or RTG will have heads rolling pretty soon.
 
ToTTenTranz said:
That (very) old slide set from videocardz has been spot on for everything save for a few things like dual Vega 10 (probably because of Vega 10's higher than expected power consumption) .

I'm inclined to believe Vega 20 is a 64CU part. But that thing had better clock north of 1.7GHz on 7nm or RTG will have heads rolling pretty soon.
Click to expand...
Same slide set also presented Vega 11 as discrete card, while we now know it's the IGP in Raven Ridge
 
kalelovil said:
It's not. Confusingly AMD GPU 'codenames' (based on some sort of internal ordering) and product names (based on CU count) overlap.
Click to expand...
I think his post is in context of this slide at Videocardz Jan 2017:

AMD-VEGA-10-VEGA20-VEGA-11-NAVI-roadmap-1000x547.jpg



But then maybe they changed their strategy from that Q4 2016 presentation or there is a bit of misinformation around *shrug*.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top