Given that miners try to reduce the GPU's performance while maximizing memory performance may indicate that tweaking GPRs may not yield as much a difference as correcting whatever odd problem Fiji had with utilizing its HBM bandwidth--a problem not specific to mining. Perhaps the occupancy concerns of Ethereum can be elaborated on by those using it. I thought current hardware wasn't that burdened by that consideration for mining.My take was that it had to do with how many waves were being launched. I haven't studied crypto in any detail so speculating there. That being the case, if Vega significantly increased VGPRs, accommodating far more active waves, it would be a concern.
There's a somewhat blurry die shot if you want to try finding evidence of things like a redistribution of LDS.Not accounting for any changes to LDS mechanics or temporary registers (SIMD local LDS?) that may need some explicit coding to see gains with hashing algorithms.
My impression of GPU mining, and Ethereum as the main example, is that it does tend towards unpredictable access. It helps make device-local bandwidth important and penalizes or renders useless larger clustering strategies.I don't know enough about the access patterns to really judge the impact, just that it's possible. If accesses were grouped or following a parabolic/clustered distribution in their access pattern over time as opposed to completely random.
My point is that I think it, by design, does not demand capacity sufficient to need paging.Where HBCC could page in active areas and maintain a more even distribution and throughput.