Anarchist4000
Veteran
A prosumer workstation card with Apple brand. Not surprised. Unclear what the product support looks like, but that could be a fair price for a pro product. Just look at WX and Quadro cards.
Still a bit cringeworthy.
AMD Vega 10, Vega 11, Vega 12 and Vega 20 Rumors and Discussion
Still a bit cringeworthy.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
It's not a Pro card, though. It's a Vega 56, not a WX8200...
Computerbase did test RX480 and it says the opposite, the memory bandwith is issue with Polaris.
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/how-memory-frequency-starved-is-polaris.2479648/
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/how-memory-frequency-starved-is-polaris.2479648/#post-38348803
Anarchist4000
Veteran
If the entire workload fit into the cache practically zero memory bandwidth would be required. The issue would be the geometry pipeline stalling and making memory the bottleneck due to cache misses. Then consider the effect of any bandwidth saving techniques.
The newer memory types aren't anything special. Just typical process improvements applied to the prior version. The question is why one card requires more bandwidth than another.
if that were true, no high-performance GPU needs a bus larger than 256bit and Nvidia could save some money on GTX 1080/1080Ti memory as well as AMD on Vega 64/56 ...
Anarchist4000
Veteran
They simply wouldn't if the caches were that large. Caches and register files have a huge amount of bandwidth relative to actial memory. It's the culling, reuse, and compression schemes, or lack of effective implementation, that can make a huge difference. Check out Nvidias tiled rasterizer for example.
too much "if" ....
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
From Anandtech's live blog of AMD's Next Horizon event:
MI60?
If the MI25 was a single Vega with 12.3 TFLOPs FP32 / 24.6 TFLOPs FP16, going by the same logic the MI60 should be ~30 TFLOPs FP32 / 60 TFLOPs FP16.
Maybe it's a 2x Vega 20 card with each chip clocked at 1.8GHz?
And with 4x HBM2 stacks, we could be looking at cards with a whopping 64 GB VRAM.
MI60?
If the MI25 was a single Vega with 12.3 TFLOPs FP32 / 24.6 TFLOPs FP16, going by the same logic the MI60 should be ~30 TFLOPs FP32 / 60 TFLOPs FP16.
Maybe it's a 2x Vega 20 card with each chip clocked at 1.8GHz?
And with 4x HBM2 stacks, we could be looking at cards with a whopping 64 GB VRAM.
DavidGraham
Veteran
It's Vega 20 with 15TF FP32, 30TF FP16 and 60TF FP/INT 8.
Yes, 4096 Cores at 1,8 Ghz at 300W. they just changed their naming scheme a bit, as bigger numbers sound better.
Pushing for the upper range of performance runs into decidedly non-linear penalties. The promised gains in circuit performance iso-power were stated as being ~1.25x, which if comparable to earlier slides from AMD is a downgrade from ~1.35x. Something more fundamental to the architecture would need to change to do more than incrementally shift where the chip hits a wall.
DavidGraham
Veteran
Exactly my thoughts, like I said, they would need to significantly change the arc in order to scale the frequency more than Vega 10. Also it seems power efficiency is rather bad at the core of the Vega architecture, 300W @1.8GHz on 7nm is not really that big of an improvement after all.
Love_In_Rio
Veteran
Much more attractive is Vega 10 performance at 150 watts. With some Navi improvements is what next gen consoles will get. On the other hand is sad to think they need 7nm to get with their current architecture the perf/watt of Pascal with 16nm.
There was some speculation concerning the Apple A12's clock speeds on 7nm, which may have hinted at somewhat less power or clock scaling than originally expected. Wire delay and resistance was something everyone was wary of, and it's possible that Vega's architectural targets feel those effects more keenly--given that Vega's changes at 14nm were notably underpinned by trying compensate for wire delay or reach higher clock speeds.
Additionally, there's a wider and faster memory subsystem and a decent amount of additional IO. There's a power hit when those features were added to Nvidia's enterprise lines as well.
Additionally, there's a wider and faster memory subsystem and a decent amount of additional IO. There's a power hit when those features were added to Nvidia's enterprise lines as well.
DavidGraham
Veteran
AMD is comparing V100 PCI-E (250W) vs MI60 (300W). Both cards trade blows in a number of benchmarks. Though they avoided the comparison with the 10% faster V100 NVLink (300W).
