TheDeeGeeTalking about 10 years late.

ncrsI hope this means that ROCm (the equivalent of the CUDA software suite) will provide official support for the entire range of next-gen consumer Radeons unlike what they are doing today - supporting just RX 7900 series. Other models might work or not, and if they don't you're on your own.
A major advantage of CUDA is its hardware and software ecosystem.

Fouquin10 years too late for what? Something they were already doing 13 years ago? GCN was already a combined architecture with a single programming model.

DavenI love purposely ambiguous Venn Diagrams. So is AMD going for the intersection of just the RDNA and CDNA or are they going for the super small little intersection of RDNA, CDNA and general purpose?

Neo_MorpheusLets see how it goes, but it does looks promising.

Vayra86Where did you get the impression they're all hands on deck with RDNA / GPU development now as they were with Zen for CPU? There's no Jim Keller nearby, there's only the usual, we've heard it a dozen times before revamp of AMD's abbreviations... Lots of talk about great plans, and little to show for it.

I'm genuinely interested what you are basing your optimism on, is there a source?

Neo_MorpheusSo in other words, RDNA5 will really be UDNA1.

TumbleGeorgeWhat? No sense to name something rDNA if isn't rDNA only. Maybe next generation after rDNA 5.

z1n0xRDNA, CDNA, XDNA, UDNA. This overuse of DNA is so dumb. The sheer lack of taste and imagination to come up with original terms, that are cool, catchy, tells the story and roll of the tongue is astonishing. Then add to it other marketing atrocities like Adrenalin, AFMF, Anti-Lag, HYPR-RX. I swear AMD's marketing is beyond salvation.

Neo_MorpheusMaybe they do end up changing the names or maybe one of those 2 names is just an internal thing, since RDNA is more known, maybe they dont want to abandon it.

Neo_MorpheusSo the rumors that RDNA 4 is just a small refresh of sort of RDNA3 and RDNA5 being the real new architecture seems more valid.

So in other words, RDNA5 will really be UDNA1.

Also as mentioned, they concentrated on Ryzen first and that bet paid off, now they are concentrating on Radeon/Instinct.

Lets see how it goes, but it does looks promising.

MakaveliBased on what he said I think it will start at RDNA 6 not 5.

JH: So, one of the things we want to do is ...we made some mistakes with the RDNA side; each time we change the memory hierarchy, the subsystem, it has to reset the matrix on the optimizations. I don't want to do that.

So, going forward, we’re thinking about not just RDNA 5, RDNA 6, RDNA 7, but UDNA 6 and UDNA 7. We plan the next three generations because once we get the optimizations, I don't want to have to change the memory hierarchy, and then we lose a lot of optimizations. So, we're kind of forcing that issue about full forward and backward compatibility. We do that on Xbox today; it’s very doable but requires advanced planning. It’s a lot more work to do, but that’s the direction we’re going.

Neo_MorpheusIts possible.

From Toms:

Interesting how he mentions RDNA5 but then says UDNA6, so it might be the case.

But if thats the case, then RDNA5 will simply be more of the same.

Darc RequiemSo, post VEGA they split into two separate achitectures and now they are shifting back to a unified architecture. :wtf: Honestly it makes sense. AMD is smaller than Nvidia with more limited resources. So having to optimize software for two architectures made little sense from a manpower standpoint. The question is will the UDNA architechture be able to perform well in both avenues. Whatever the case maybe, I hope AMD can get the GPU aspect of their business together. GPUs desparately need some short of shake up.

mrnagantWonder what the anticipated timeline is for the first UDNA part. Has this been in the pipeline for a while, so maybe next generation we will have a merge, or is this new so the merge will start happening in 2-5 years?

They will likely just go down a path of making the CUs more flexible in what designs they offer. Like Hopper has 80B transistors to GF4090 76B. Hopper has only 24ROPs compared to the GF4090s 176. If a datacenter GPU need RT or ROP capability, have your design more flexible where you can remove those components and add more of what is wanted. But the design for the components is shared across the entire stack. From datacenters, to embedded, to gaming to a little 2CU iGPU.

MakaveliI'm thinking RDNA 5 may already be too far in development but just a wild guess on my part.