Tuesday, June 11th 2019

AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT Confirmed to Feature 64 ROPs: Architecture Brief

AMD "Navi 10" is a very different GPU from the "Vega 10," or indeed the "Polaris 10." The GPU sees the introduction of the new RDNA graphics architecture, which is the first big graphics architecture change on an AMD GPU in nearly a decade. AMD had in 2011 released its Graphics CoreNext (GCN) architecture, and successive generations of GPUs since then, brought generational improvements to GCN, all the way up to "Vega." At the heart of RDNA is its brand new Compute Unit (CU), which AMD redesigned to increase IPC, or single-thread performance.

Before diving deeper, it's important to confirm two key specifications of the "Navi 10" GPU. The ROP count of the silicon is 64, double that of the "Polaris 10" silicon, and same as "Vega 10." The silicon has sixteen render-backends (RBs), these are quad-pumped, which work out to an ROP count of 64. AMD also confirmed that the chip has 160 TMUs. These TMUs are redesigned to feature 64-bit bi-linear filtering. The Radeon RX 5700 XT maxes out the silicon, while the RX 5700 disables four RDNA CUs, working out to 144 TMUs. The ROP count on the RX 5700 is unchanged at 64.
The RDNA Compute Unit sees the bulk of AMD's innovation. Groups of two CUs make a "Dual Compute Unit" that share a scalar data cahe, shader instruction cache, and a local data share. Each CU is now split between two SIMD units of 32 stream processors, a vector register, and a scalar unit, each. This way, AMD doubled the number of scalar units on the silicon to 80, double the CU count. Each scalar unit is similar in concept to a CPU core, and is designed to handle heavy scalar indivisible workloads. Each SIMD unit has its own scheduler. Four TMUs are part of each CU. This massive redesign in SIMD and CU hierarchy achieves a doubling in scalar- and vector instruction rates, and resource pooling between every two adjacent CUs.
Groups of five RDNA dual-compute unit share a prim unit, a rasterizer, 16 ROPs, and a large L1 cache. Two such groups make a Shader Engine, and the two Shader Engines meet at a centralized Graphics Command Processor that marshals workloads between the various components, a Geometry Processor, and four Asynchronous-Compute Engines (ACEs).
The second major redesign "Navi" features over previous generations is the cache hierarchy. Each RDNA dual-CU has a local fast cache AMD refers to as L0 (level zero). Each 16 KB L0 unit is made up of the fastest SRAM, and cushions direct transfers between the compute units and the L1 cache, bypassing the compute unit's I-cache and K-cache. The 128 KB L1 cache shared between five dual-CUs is a 16-way block of fast SRAM cushioning transfers between the shade engines and the 4 MB of L2 cache.

In all, RDNA helps AMD achieve a 2.3x gain in performance per area, 1.5x gain in performance per Watt. The "Navi 10" silicon measures just 251 mm² compared to the 495 mm² of the "Vega 10" GPU die. A lot of these spatial gains are also attributable to the switch to the new 7 nm silicon fabrication process from 14 nm.
AMD also briefly touched on its vision for real-time ray-tracing. To begin with, we can confirm that the "Navi 10" silicon has no fixed function hardware for ray-tracing such as the RT core or tensor cores found in NVIDIA "Turing" RTX GPUs. For now, AMD's implementation of DXR (DirectX Ray-tracing) for now relies entirely on programmable shaders. At launch the RX 5700 series won't be advertised to support DXR. AMD will instead release support through driver updates. The RDNA 2 architecture scheduled for 2020-21 will pack some fixed-function hardware for certain real-time ray-tracing effects. AMD sees a future in which real-time ray-tracing is handled on the cloud. The next frontier for cloud-computing is cloud-assist, where your machine can offload processing workloads to the cloud.
Add your own comment

38 Comments on AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT Confirmed to Feature 64 ROPs: Architecture Brief

#26
phanbuey
rvalenciaMicrosoft has confirmed "hardware accelerated" ray-tracing for Scarlet, hence placing it's GPU with second generation NAVI.
So wait, scarlet has 2 gpus? Is the other one a proprietary MS chip?
Posted on Reply
#27
IceShroom
RichFIt doesn't have to be that way. All consoles are are x86 PCs in disguise. People should stop giving MS and Sony money to weaken the PC gaming platform by splintering it into three parts for no good reason.
Which division kept AMD alive, the semisustom division that produced chip for consols.
We are not talking about games, we are talking about hardware.
Posted on Reply
#28
Totally
phanbueySo wait, scarlet has 2 gpus? Is the other one a proprietary MS chip?
He's inferring that since Navi doesn't have hardware ray-tracing it is going to be whatever GPU comes after Navi the finds it's way into the next xbox.
Posted on Reply
#29
ValenOne
phanbueySo wait, scarlet has 2 gpus? Is the other one a proprietary MS chip?
Read AMD's road map. The next rDNA 2 has hardware accelerated ray-tracing.



Microsoft confirms Xbox Scarlet's NAVI to be rDNA 2 due to "hardware accelerated" ray-tracing.
Posted on Reply
#30
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
kapone32Agreed that would be very interesting!!!!!
Multi-GPU is dead. Nobody wants to invest in that. Even NVIDIA struggles to get its friendly devs to push SLI.
Posted on Reply
#31
Darmok N Jalad
btarunrMulti-GPU is dead. Nobody wants to invest in that. Even NVIDIA struggles to get its friendly devs to push SLI.
Yet AMD just made a custom Vega X2 card for the Mac Pro. In the past, these X2 cards ran through PCIe with bridge chips. The X2 Vega uses infinity fabric. If that solves the problem, I guess we will see once it is tested. Might just make it a compute beast. Then again, after years of having the IMC attached to the CPU, Zen 2 moves it off die but keeps it on package via IF.
Posted on Reply
#32
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Darmok N JaladYet AMD just made a custom Vega X2 card for the Mac Pro. In the past, these X2 cards ran through PCIe with bridge chips. The X2 Vega uses infinity fabric. If that solves the problem, I guess we will see once it is tested. Might just make it a compute beast. Then again, after years of having the IMC attached to the CPU, Zen 2 moves it off die but keeps it on package via IF.
Vega X2 is not for gaming. Mac Pro is not a gaming PC.
Posted on Reply
#33
kapone32
btarunrVega X2 is not for gaming. Mac Pro is not a gaming PC.
Crossfire and SLI are 2 different things. For Nvidia you have to pay a premium but with AMD all of their cards are compatible. Though not every game sees gains the ones that do are compelling enough to me to have a crossfire array for the last 10 years. The other thing I would say is based on what we have seen there does not seem to be anything AMD is not willing to do. A single card on a PCI_E 4.0 with multi GPU (as Darmok said using the infinity fabric) would have some serious throughput available.
Posted on Reply
#34
GreiverBlade
WikiFMRay tracing performance is much slower in GTX cards than in RTX ones.
WikiFMIf you cant spot the difference between RT off and RT on you should see an oculist.
well yes .... 30fps at 1080p RT on :p ...
WikiFMSince you dont care about consoles nor RT I dont see the point of your comment.
well the article doesn't talk about console or Rt ... so i don't see the point of your answer... i was just pointing out that your initial comment was about the RT wagon ... which is not a thing actually ... oh it will become one ... once it's mainstream enough and not a "slow down gimmick"

(about console ... well they will have RT but nothing Nvidia in it ... that's my point :p )

and to quote someone who is right (which technically mean i shouldn't have replied to you :cry: .... :laugh: )
JB_GamerIs that so, not according to the information that was delivered at E3?

I've got the impression that the green army is trolling on every blog and forum right at this moment, the war is on!
Posted on Reply
#35
Darmok N Jalad
btarunrVega X2 is not for gaming. Mac Pro is not a gaming PC.
I know this. My point was that this Vega X2 card is a new approach to dual GPU cards. It doesn’t use PCIe and it doesn’t use a bridge chip to connect the dies. Instead it uses the same interface that Zen uses to connect two CCXs. How this affects performance on a GPU remains to be seen, but we have a good idea of how it works on Zen.
Posted on Reply
#36
RichF
IceShroomWhich division kept AMD alive, the semisustom division that produced chip for consols.
Again, these "consoles" are merely x86 PCs in disguise. AMD is working with Sony and MS against our interests by fragmenting/degrading PC gaming.

People may want to get excited about the competition potential of the Intel–AMD duopoly but the fact remains that consoles are parasitic. AMD, working with Sony and MS, is competing against us.

AMD's financial woes weren't our fault. None of us told them to craft Bulldozer to be a server CPU, and not a good one at that.
Posted on Reply
#37
IceShroom
RichFAgain, these "consoles" are merely x86 PCs in disguise. AMD is working with Sony and MS against our interests by fragmenting/degrading PC gaming.

People may want to get excited about the competition potential of the Intel–AMD duopoly but the fact remains that consoles are parasitic. AMD, working with Sony and MS, is competing against us.

AMD's financial woes weren't our fault. None of us told them to craft Bulldozer to be a server CPU, and not a good one at that.
Now I get it what you tring to push here, AMD is bad for PC games and Nvidia is gaming savior. Same thing was pushed durung mining craze. But the truth is Nvidia hleping minier more than AMD. AMD didnt need to shiped back gpus after mining carze was over, Nvidia did as they producing more gpus for miniers. And it also reflect on Nvidia's finincial result.

Its not AMD, you need to blame Nvidia and their buddy Epic are degrading PC gaming. AMD sponsored dont run like crap on pc, nvidia sponsored one runs like crap on pc and compatating gpus.

Just like we are not blame for AMD's past finincial state ralating to cpu, the same way AMD has no obligation to supply parts for a market that returns zero profit.
Posted on Reply
#38
RichF
IceShroomNow I get it what you tring to push here, AMD is bad for PC games and Nvidia is gaming savior. Same thing was pushed durung mining craze. But the truth is Nvidia hleping minier more than AMD. AMD didnt need to shiped back gpus after mining carze was over, Nvidia did as they producing more gpus for miniers. And it also reflect on Nvidia's finincial result.

Its not AMD, you need to blame Nvidia and their buddy Epic are degrading PC gaming. AMD sponsored dont run like crap on pc, nvidia sponsored one runs like crap on pc and compatating gpus.

Just like we are not blame for AMD's past finincial state ralating to cpu, the same way AMD has no obligation to supply parts for a market that returns zero profit.
I have no interest in pointless "camp" warfare. I don't consider a duopoly to be adequate competition in the first place. The last thing a person with that view would want to do is cheerlead for one of the duopoly companies. Facts are: AMD is working against the PC gaming platform with its consoles, in cahoots with Sony and MS. Why? Because it's profitable for those companies. AMD is trying to sell small dies at higher prices to increase margin. That's profitable for AMD but not necessarily for us. We can hope that the margin will trickle down but a lot of the time the situation is worse for us than it should be. Right now, PC gaming is fragmented unnecessarily into three artificially incompatible x86 platforms. Things will be less drastically dire once the "consoles" get Zen CPUs, instead of the horrid Jaguar, but the problem will still remain. It will be a drag on PC gaming.

It's time to stop paying the MS tax of Windows to get DX for gaming and it's time to stop paying the console tax. Or, we can continue to waste our lives with useless "AMD vs. Nvidia" tripe. I would like people to start pushing Vulkan with OpenGL on Linux and the unification of x86 gaming.

Small dies aren't always bad. If yields are really good then they can be a good option for midrange and low-end parts. What they generally aren't very helpful for is high-end performance GPUs, the kind most enthusiasts care about. When a company refuses to produce those parts then it's tempting for them to overcharge for small die parts with excessive clock speed to try to overcome the inherent processing deficit. And/or the competition will keep prices high because of a lack of a competing product, which can, in turn, lead to increased prices in the midrange. Small dies can also work with the chiplet approach, apparently. Let's hope that AMD will find a way to stick together enough chiplets to get some competition into the high-end gaming space. But, instead of just hoping, we should also try to get at least one more company into serious gaming graphics. Apparently Intel is going to try this but since it's part of the CPU duopoly it's hardly ideal from a competition standpoint. But, it would be better than having a weak duopoly which is what we have now, given that AMD isn't even competing at the high end of the GPU space and hasn't for some time.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 21st, 2024 09:29 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts