Wednesday, April 24th 2024
AMD's RDNA 4 GPUs Could Stick with 18 Gbps GDDR6 Memory
Today, we have the latest round of leaks that suggest that AMD's upcoming RDNA 4 graphics cards, codenamed the "RX 8000-series," might continue to rely on GDDR6 memory modules. According to Kepler on X, the next-generation GPUs from AMD are expected to feature 18 Gbps GDDR6 memory, marking the fourth consecutive RDNA architecture to employ this memory standard. While GDDR6 may not offer the same bandwidth capabilities as the newer GDDR7 standard, this decision does not necessarily imply that RDNA 4 GPUs will be slow performers. AMD's choice to stick with GDDR6 is likely driven by factors such as meeting specific memory bandwidth requirements and cost optimization for PCB designs. However, if the rumor of 18 Gbps GDDR6 memory proves accurate, it would represent a slight step back from the 18-20 Gbps GDDR6 memory used in AMD's current RDNA 3 offerings, such as the RX 7900 XT and RX 7900 XTX GPUs.
AMD's first generation RDNA used GDDR6 with 12-14 Gbps speeds, RDNA 2 came with GDDR6 at 14-18 Gbps, and the current RDNA 3 used 18-20 Gbps GDDR6. Without an increment in memory generation, speeds should stay the same at 18 Gbps. However, it is crucial to remember that leaks should be treated with skepticism, as AMD's final memory choices for RDNA 4 could change before the official launch. The decision to use GDDR6 versus GDDR7 could have significant implications in the upcoming battle between AMD, NVIDIA, and Intel's next-generation GPU architectures. If AMD indeed opts for GDDR6 while NVIDIA pivots to GDDR7 for its "Blackwell" GPUs, it could create a disparity in memory bandwidth performance between the competing products. All three major GPU manufacturers—AMD, NVIDIA, and Intel with its "Battlemage" architecture—are expected to unveil their next-generation offerings in the fall of this year. As we approach these highly anticipated releases, more concrete details on specifications and performance capabilities will emerge, providing a clearer picture of the competitive landscape.
Sources:
@Kepler_L2 (on X), via Tom's Hardware
AMD's first generation RDNA used GDDR6 with 12-14 Gbps speeds, RDNA 2 came with GDDR6 at 14-18 Gbps, and the current RDNA 3 used 18-20 Gbps GDDR6. Without an increment in memory generation, speeds should stay the same at 18 Gbps. However, it is crucial to remember that leaks should be treated with skepticism, as AMD's final memory choices for RDNA 4 could change before the official launch. The decision to use GDDR6 versus GDDR7 could have significant implications in the upcoming battle between AMD, NVIDIA, and Intel's next-generation GPU architectures. If AMD indeed opts for GDDR6 while NVIDIA pivots to GDDR7 for its "Blackwell" GPUs, it could create a disparity in memory bandwidth performance between the competing products. All three major GPU manufacturers—AMD, NVIDIA, and Intel with its "Battlemage" architecture—are expected to unveil their next-generation offerings in the fall of this year. As we approach these highly anticipated releases, more concrete details on specifications and performance capabilities will emerge, providing a clearer picture of the competitive landscape.
114 Comments on AMD's RDNA 4 GPUs Could Stick with 18 Gbps GDDR6 Memory
They're gonna do another Polaris and then wonder why they can't catch up. Seems like my time on AMD is gonna be a one off occasion then.
I'm thinking that if nVidia hadn't been burning bridges left and right, and gotten a reputation for being a nightmare to work with, AMD might already have been having trouble in the console space as well, but I guess they have nVidia's... ahem... "unique" management style to thank for that. It never ceases to surprise me how nvidia managed to have a stable working relationship with nintendo, what with both companies being what they are.
In any case, if AMD should keep underperforming like that, I certainly think next time around (ie Playstation 7/ Xbox X series X model X squared X time around) intel might actually get a fighting chance at the consoles.
AMD as a company is doing fine, remember they also have cpu division to worry about and invest in, which I assume nets them a lot more profit, especially Epyc.
and arnt their best selling gpu's always the more entry level stuff, indeed that Polaris that seems to constantly receive "shade" from the users here?
Seems only logical to me for the company to drop investment in high end gaming gpu's, at least for now, and focus on stuff that actually sells.
All the marketing is constantly on Nvidia's side, hell look at how much digital foundry basically shuns AMD gpu's....does not help when even supposidly independant sources only mention and thus push Nvidia.
The market has spoken, if nobody buys AMD gpu's....then why should AMD continue to invest in it? Better to just make what is actually kinda being bought, mid range, and for the rest focus on that AI hype nonsense.
oh and if that midrange in the future is 7900xt performance for idk, 7600xt pricing, that would be a huge win for the consumers.
What really puzzles me is that RDNA 3's power effieiency doesn't live up to expectations, and dual-issue design doesn't seem functioning like it should. I don't know why they let it happen in the lab after RDNA 2's success.
1 gen chiplets showed promise but weren't able to unlock/really sho off the benefits till zen3
RDNA4 I suspect was aimed to do the same but something in theory did NOT translate into practice for some reason and fundamentally broke the concept or was such a problem it hobbled what the specs would have lead you to believe.
And as far as this latest problem, we are not talking about the entirety of AMD, just the rapidly becoming useless Radeon division. RDNA4 needs a very short shelf life, and RDNA5 to be amazing for them to recover. Intel will take Radeon to town by the end of this year if AMD perform the same or lower.
But the long term outlook is grim if AMD does not continue to compete in high end. Todays high end is tomorrow's midrange, and the day after, its entry level. After that? You're dead in the water. Also, the halo product perception matters. Nvidia sells its brand on 'the fastest GPU ever' every gen. Not because they're having such a fantastic midrange; ironically, for Ada, the midrange is the poorest part of the line up. Ampere was no different.
Look how much time Intel needs to gain performance parity, they're not even remotely close yet, and their target keeps moving away from them over time too. The reason Nvidia captured 80% was exactly because of the lack of AMD's focus. It wasn't until RDNA2 that they had somewhat competitive product again ever since Polaris. Even in the midrange. Vega was a shitshow, Fury X got beaten handsomely and supported poorly, etc. Also, their GPU developments are double dipping in PC and in console chips, so there is every reason to keep pushing.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. It'll turn stale and eventually crumble.
Then they will release a mid range card then announce a performance but not enthusiast card before the holidays and then a slightly tweaked enthusiast card sometime after they get production back from their console/holiday chip production.
I would guess the performance card will beat a 7900XTX at RT and be slightly behind at older DX titles/raster performance.
Its not like Polaris suddenly made AMD bank either... AMD has a permanent problem of low margins on their products, and its pretty clear why. They're inconsistent which damages trust. In the meantime Nvidia can sell a tiny sliver of a chip at 50-60% margin. So much margin in fact, that even the somewhat bigger slivers can remain monolithic for much longer.
But I suppose Lisa knows best, better than Raja at least. Perhaps there's a greater plan. I'm not holding my breath tho.
You as a customer, consumer, user, client do not get good graphics products by AMD, because of their motivation to put the consumer graphics department as the last priority in a very long list of priorities.
Even the stupid consoles are above it and AMD performs better there.
Not going to comment on EPYC. You are wrong. Nvidia sells mostly Quadros and is a much larger and wealthier company. So, AMD sits on three chairs (CPUs, GPUs, consoles) and yet it performs much worse than nvidia.
Then AMD can just focus purely on cpu's and maybe apu's, those are the biggest markets anyway, and if not, they will go away entirely, again its not like anyone cares.fine then join the 99% of the people and dont buy AMD gpu's anymore, again, everybody is doing that so might as well join them right?