It's been four years since AMD launched RDNA, the successor to the venerable GCN graphics architecture. We take a look through the tech and numbers to see...
Bulldozer was the exact opposite in terms of how the units behaved. Currently, it’s nvidia with the ‘make moar corez’ meme, and AMD could have been in the reckoning for the top spot in raster with a chip that has like a third of the shaders of nvidia’s.
AMD’s failing this gen is again not improving the clockspeeds. And of course, not making a chip the size of nvidia’s flagchip.
As for RT, I don’t think the difference is that big hardware-wise. AMD are overperforming in raster and nvidia have sort of a software monopoly right now with the PT game being done with their collaboration.
If AMD not making a chip that is on par or bigger than nvidia’s flagship then the whole MCM design becomes meaningless. They are getting penalty from PPA and power effiency due to the interconnection between chips. What I expected is that AMD pushes the performance of their flagship to the further level, but what I see is that they are betting on higher frequency with a much smaller shader array (very ATI-style) while using MCM to save cost. Fortunately they failed, but they will never learn.
Yeah, that was the hope when the dual-issue shaders were being rumored as 12288 shaders on Navi31, almost 2.5x of 6900XT. Combined with arch improvements, higher clocks and 2nd gen RT, it would have easily done 2.5x of 6900XT performance.
Nah, rumors of RDNA 4 were 3.5ghz on a modest spec bump (someone insame also mentioned a near doubling in spec and also 3.5ghz but no one should take that seriously), which of course was cancelled and now RDNA 5 will end up near 4ghz with a moderate spec bump
Did your source ever mention there is probably a dual-chip design of RDNA4? Some people hinted that for me after the rumor which said high-end RDNA4 chips got canceled came out.
Bulldozer was the exact opposite in terms of how the units behaved. Currently, it’s nvidia with the ‘make moar corez’ meme, and AMD could have been in the reckoning for the top spot in raster with a chip that has like a third of the shaders of nvidia’s.
AMD’s failing this gen is again not improving the clockspeeds. And of course, not making a chip the size of nvidia’s flagchip.
As for RT, I don’t think the difference is that big hardware-wise. AMD are overperforming in raster and nvidia have sort of a software monopoly right now with the PT game being done with their collaboration.
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/16piqgn/cyberpunk_2077_20_pc_tech_review_dlss_35_ray/k1ugrv7/
If AMD not making a chip that is on par or bigger than nvidia’s flagship then the whole MCM design becomes meaningless. They are getting penalty from PPA and power effiency due to the interconnection between chips. What I expected is that AMD pushes the performance of their flagship to the further level, but what I see is that they are betting on higher frequency with a much smaller shader array (very ATI-style) while using MCM to save cost. Fortunately they failed, but they will never learn.
Yeah, that was the hope when the dual-issue shaders were being rumored as 12288 shaders on Navi31, almost 2.5x of 6900XT. Combined with arch improvements, higher clocks and 2nd gen RT, it would have easily done 2.5x of 6900XT performance.
Nah, rumors of RDNA 4 were 3.5ghz on a modest spec bump (someone insame also mentioned a near doubling in spec and also 3.5ghz but no one should take that seriously), which of course was cancelled and now RDNA 5 will end up near 4ghz with a moderate spec bump
Did your source ever mention there is probably a dual-chip design of RDNA4? Some people hinted that for me after the rumor which said high-end RDNA4 chips got canceled came out.
RDNA3 dual issue is so much more useless than Nvidia, they never talk about them, but still use them to talk about peak compute throughput.
Notice how 7900XTX is significantly more ‘cores’ and more TFLOPs than 4080 but is 5% better at best