AMD Vega Hardware Reviews

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by ArkeoTP, Jun 30, 2017.

  1. ArkeoTP

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    22
  2. DavidGraham

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,787
    Likes Received:
    2,588
    https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graph...B-Air-Cooled-Review/Answering-Questions-you-A
     
    pharma likes this.
  3. Clukos

    Clukos Bloodborne 2 when?
    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,462
    Likes Received:
    3,793
  4. ArkeoTP

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    22
    It's going to be one of those cards again where reducing voltages actually improves performance. Depending on your luck of course.
     
    CarstenS likes this.
  5. Clukos

    Clukos Bloodborne 2 when?
    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,462
    Likes Received:
    3,793
    Almost every card these days improves with undervolting. You can get 1600-1700 core clock at 160 watts with Pascal GP102 at 0.800mv, I'm guessing that what they are setting for those new laptop 1080s. I just wish that we'd get an undervolting section in reviews, it's probably more interesting than overclocking is these days :)
     
    xEx and Cyan like this.
  6. ArkeoTP

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    22
  7. 3dilettante

    Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,122
    Likes Received:
    2,873
    Location:
    Well within 3d
    Can that chip area be double-checked?
    Fiji is 593mm2.

    Kind of weird how close the area gets to Vega if it just "lost" two HBM interfaces. Where'd all the area savings from 14nm go?
     
    Lightman and Cat Merc like this.
  8. Cat Merc

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    108
    This is just baffling. Something just isn't right here. Where did all the transistor budget go?
     
  9. Malo

    Malo Yak Mechanicum
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    7,031
    Likes Received:
    3,103
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Holy moly that is a big hunk of die. HBCC must have cost a lot of silicon space.
     
  10. ArkeoTP

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    22
    I placed the photo in Krita, resized the card to line up with the ruler at 267mm, and the chip looks to be about 28mm by 20mm putting it at 560mm^2.

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    PCPer's measurement appears to be accurate.
     
    Cyan likes this.
  11. Gipsel

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,620
    Likes Received:
    264
    Location:
    Hamburg, Germany
    The marked rectangle in your last picture includes quite a bit more than just the GPU die on the sides.

    Edit: it's about 1.7mm too wide and a few pixels too high, which would make it 26.3 x 19.9 or something.

    Edit2:
    Taking the alleged 47.3mm x 47.3mm for the package, I arrive at 25.6mm x 19.4mm (rounded) = 498mm²
     
    #11 Gipsel, Jun 30, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2017
    BacBeyond and ArkeoTP like this.
  12. Esrever

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    298
    Why is the Fury X so efficient?
     
  13. ArkeoTP

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    22
    [​IMG]

    Ok, second take. I revised the borders, which puts it around 26.25*19.75 = 518mm^2

    It isn't a pixel perfect measurement but it should be more or less accurate. Maybe PCPer measured it wrong? Or maybe I measured it wrong?
     
  14. AlBran

    AlBran Ferro-Fibrous
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    20,726
    Likes Received:
    5,818
    Location:
    ಠ_ಠ
    Cache? o_O

    We know the rest of the chip specs, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
     
  15. HMBR

    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Brazil
    do we know if RX Vega is going to be using this same die? it seems hugely wasteful, massive increase in transistor count but hardly any efficiency gain for gaming compared to Fury X
    this looks like a product that should be targeting the 1070 market at best based on performance, but with complexity/cost above the Titan Xp.... this might be more disappointing than the 2900XT was 10 years ago.
     
  16. Rootax

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,178
    Likes Received:
    581
    Location:
    France
    Yeah, the most troubling thing for me is the power consumption. If performances were low like that, but the power consumption was more "normal", well, ok. But this... Something is broken somewhere, and I hope that reviewers will find what when RX Vega come out.


    EDIT : "Funny" thing, if I want more performance (I've a Fury X right now, but in some game I hit vram limitation), Vega is the only way to go, since I've a Freesync display and I don't want to lose that. Maybe a better cooled Vega will have better consumption number, but, no review of the WC'ooled Vega FE yet...
     
  17. Clukos

    Clukos Bloodborne 2 when?
    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,462
    Likes Received:
    3,793
  18. Pressure

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,338
    Likes Received:
    272
    • 30mm x 30mm total size of interposer + GPU (does not include substrate)
    • 20.25mm x ~26mm GPU die size
    • 10mm x ~12mm HBM2 size (x2)
    • ~4mm package height (this is the one that’s least accurate, but gives a pretty good ballpark)
    • 64mm x 64mm mounting hole spacing (square, center-to-center)
    • PCB ~1mm
     
  19. CarstenS

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,798
    Likes Received:
    2,056
    Location:
    Germany
    Something is clearly wrong.
     
    Lightman and ToTTenTranz like this.
  20. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,996
    Likes Received:
    4,570
    Yes, something is very wrong either with Vega or PCPer's (p)review.
    The chip is almost literally behaving like a Fiji with a 35% overclock. It apparently has the same amount of ALUs, TMUs and ROPs, yet it has almost 50% more transistors supposedly dedicated to getting higher IPC, but we're seeing none of that.
    It's like everything that is new from Vega's arch is either disabled or broken.

    PCPer's preview isn't without its fair share of twilight zone material, like the Fury X consuming 180W in some benchmarks.
     
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...