Monday, June 15th 2020
AMD "Navi 12" Silicon Powering the Radeon Pro 5600M Rendered
Out of the blue, AMD announced its Radeon Pro 5600M mobile discrete graphics solution exclusive for Apple's 16-inch MacBook Pro. It turns out that the Pro 5600M is based on an all new ASIC by AMD, codenamed "Navi 12." This is a multi-chip module, much like "Vega 20," featuring a 7 nm GPU die and two 16 Gbit (4 GB) HBM2 memory stacks sitting on an interposer. While the actual specs of the GPU die on the "Navi 14" aren't known, on the Pro 5600M, it is configured with 40 RDNA compute units amounting to 2,560 stream processors, 160 TMUs, and possibly 64 ROPs.
The engine clock of the Pro 5600M is set at up to 1035 MHz. The HBM2 memory is clocked at 1.54 Gbps, which at the 2048-bit bus width, translates to 394 GB/s of memory bandwidth. There are two big takeaways from this expensive-looking ASIC design: a significantly smaller PCB footprint compared to a "Navi 10" ASIC with its eight GDDR6 memory chips; and a significantly lower power envelope. AMD rates the typical power at just 50 W. In the render below, the new ASIC is shown next to a "Navi 14" ASIC that power RX/Pro 5500-series SKUs.
The engine clock of the Pro 5600M is set at up to 1035 MHz. The HBM2 memory is clocked at 1.54 Gbps, which at the 2048-bit bus width, translates to 394 GB/s of memory bandwidth. There are two big takeaways from this expensive-looking ASIC design: a significantly smaller PCB footprint compared to a "Navi 10" ASIC with its eight GDDR6 memory chips; and a significantly lower power envelope. AMD rates the typical power at just 50 W. In the render below, the new ASIC is shown next to a "Navi 14" ASIC that power RX/Pro 5500-series SKUs.
42 Comments on AMD "Navi 12" Silicon Powering the Radeon Pro 5600M Rendered
90w. Effectively almost double with the same FP32 performance. :P
It doesn't seem to be connected to the gpu but rather the hbm chip given the way it's shaped
Also very nice gpu, but I always wonder what kind of deal apple does with amd, there's no way they made money on vega 12, and I guess the same will be for this chip given it will surely be found only in macbooks
I would guess apple pay some amount upfront because all they care is having a maximum efficiency option whatever the price but maybe I'm overestimating the cost of putting the chip in production
Dude press releases are press releases aka marketing , so what you are saying there means nothing . In the press release text nowhere AMD talks about improved efficiency ( hello it's the exact same architecture on the exact same node ) they talk about '' optimized efficiency for laptops '' which is very different .
All this to say that i'm not arguing with what AMD says there , i'm arguing the interpretation you make of it which is fundamentally flowed :
For starter power efficiency is exponential not linear , that means that once you go past the power efficiency sweet spot of a given architecture in order to get more clock speed the efficiency gets exponentially worse ! In other words the reason 5700XT consumes 4,5 times more power compared to the 5600M for less than double the clock speed is because visibly AMD pushed Navi10XT well beyond RDNA power efficiency sweet spot in order to hit those clock speed . So to sum this up 5600M only shows you what RDNA sweet spot is in terms of clock speed/efficiency ratio and is in no way indicative of any power efficiency improvement ( which again would be hard to explain where it came from considering we are talking about the same arch and node ) .
My second point was you made the claim 5600M equivalent is 2070MaxQ because they have around the same FP32 performance which again is fundamentally flowed . It's been demoed countless of times AMD and NVIDIA Tflops are in no way directly comparable .
Anyways i hope i made clear the misconceptions you seem to entertain and hopefully you will be able to understand them .
www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/tesla-t4.c3316
They basically found themselves a niche.
I've seen reviews of a 100W~ 5600M losing to a 90W RTX 2060 by 10% or so.
Or are AMD now doing what Nvidia are doing and using "5600" as an approximate performance level, and the heavy downclock means that this will be closer to a 5600 than an 5700XT
The vanilla RX 5600 is a 32CU part clocked at 1375 so a 40CU part clocked at 1035 would offer approximately the same performance, assuming it's not bottlenecked by TDP too much.
In addition, you cherry picked your 10% number. That's 10% at Maximum details settings, which in many games (being a laptop GPU) isn't a good experience. At high settings the lead is closer to 6% and at medium about 2%.
On top of that the GPU being discussed in the article is the Radeon Pro 5600M, which is a completely different piece of silicon. If Navi 12 is based on RDNA2, which is highly likely, it will be significantly more power efficient then existing chips. AMD is claiming a 50% increase in performance per watt with Navi 2. Of course, just having HBM instead of GDDR means power savings as well.