Tuesday, September 25th 2018
Clues Gather Regarding Possible New AMD Polaris (Re)Revision Launch
Clues have been popping here and there regarding a possible new Polaris revision being launched by AMD in the (relatively) near future. Speculation first reared its head regarding a revised "Polaris 30" silicon, allegedly being built for TSMC's 12 nm process - not unlike AMD's 2000-series Ryzen CPUs. The company has been enamored with trying out and adapting new foundry processes for its products as soon as possible, now that they've found themselves fabless and not having to directly support the R&D costs necessary for process node development themselves.
Some publications are pointing towards a 15% performance improvement being achieved on the back of this process change for Polaris - which, if achieved only via a new process implementation, would require clock speed increases that are higher than that. AMD has already launched their revised Polaris 20 RX 500 series, which built upon their RX 400 series (and Polaris 10) by upping the clocks as well. A smaller node would likely be associated with higher yields and decreased costs per finished chip, which would allow AMD to further reduce pricing/stabilize pricing while introducing a new product generation to tide users over until Navi is finally ready.Adding to all of this (and the included NaCl), a post via Phoronix has been posted which speaks of a new Polaris Device ID (0x6FDF) that's being added to the latest AMDGPU Linux kernel patch. The new device ID is being added under the "POLARIS 10" family, which includes the Polaris 20 revision. We'll see how this pans out, but if AMD are to in fact revise their Polaris architecture for the 12 nm node, some architectural changes likely wouldn't go wrong to extract maximum value out of that investment.
Sources:
ChipHell, via WCCFTech, Phoronix, Linux Patch
Some publications are pointing towards a 15% performance improvement being achieved on the back of this process change for Polaris - which, if achieved only via a new process implementation, would require clock speed increases that are higher than that. AMD has already launched their revised Polaris 20 RX 500 series, which built upon their RX 400 series (and Polaris 10) by upping the clocks as well. A smaller node would likely be associated with higher yields and decreased costs per finished chip, which would allow AMD to further reduce pricing/stabilize pricing while introducing a new product generation to tide users over until Navi is finally ready.Adding to all of this (and the included NaCl), a post via Phoronix has been posted which speaks of a new Polaris Device ID (0x6FDF) that's being added to the latest AMDGPU Linux kernel patch. The new device ID is being added under the "POLARIS 10" family, which includes the Polaris 20 revision. We'll see how this pans out, but if AMD are to in fact revise their Polaris architecture for the 12 nm node, some architectural changes likely wouldn't go wrong to extract maximum value out of that investment.
58 Comments on Clues Gather Regarding Possible New AMD Polaris (Re)Revision Launch
RTX idle power draw sounds like something Nvidia should be able to fix in drivers. God knows they fuck up the idle modes every couple years :/
Strangely, it has been Nvidia going with newer memory types lately. Running first to both GDDR5X and GDDR6.
I remember ATI/AMD almost always being the one jumping to the new memory type first. DDR, GDDR2, GDDR3, GDDR5 :)
At the same time, competitor, bathing in money, didn't have to gamble and simply tried both (or even more options, who knows).
AMD has "Vega" architecture (GCN 5.0) for APU's with 11CU, then there's the Vega that Intel has been working with, while finally there was the announcement of that semi-custom chip commissioned by Chinese firm Zhongshan Subor gaming console. Both are said to be 24CU parts. Could AMD just bump that to a 32CU part and GDDR6 make it on a 12nm and have a mid-range offering? The major design work for the base architecture in done and I'd think it's modular/scalable given how it used so far. Perhaps the project name is here to throw us just as done in this forum... into chaos like it has. As what's in a name?