- Joined
- Jun 10, 2014
- Messages
- 2,930 (0.79/day)
Processor | AMD Ryzen 9 5900X ||| Intel Core i7-3930K |
---|---|
Motherboard | ASUS ProArt B550-CREATOR ||| Asus P9X79 WS |
Cooling | Noctua NH-U14S ||| Be Quiet Pure Rock |
Memory | Crucial 2 x 16 GB 3200 MHz ||| Corsair 8 x 8 GB 1333 MHz |
Video Card(s) | MSI GTX 1060 3GB ||| MSI GTX 680 4GB |
Storage | Samsung 970 PRO 512 GB + 1 TB ||| Intel 545s 512 GB + 256 GB |
Display(s) | Asus ROG Swift PG278QR 27" ||| Eizo EV2416W 24" |
Case | Fractal Design Define 7 XL x 2 |
Audio Device(s) | Cambridge Audio DacMagic Plus |
Power Supply | Seasonic Focus PX-850 x 2 |
Mouse | Razer Abyssus |
Keyboard | CM Storm QuickFire XT |
Software | Ubuntu |
FordGT90Concept said it's yields, and that's part of it, but the biggest reason is probably resource management. If AMD were to make a GPU with 50% more cores, it would need at least 50% scheduling resources. Resource management is already the main reason why GCN is inefficient compared to Nvidia, and the reason why RTX 2060 (1920 cores) manages to match Vega 64 (4096 cores). As we all know, AMD have plenty of theoretical performance that they simply can't utilize properly. Adding 50% more cores would require rebalancing of the entire design, otherwise they would risk getting even lower efficiency. Vega 20 is just a tweaked design with some professional features added.I wonder why AMD is stuck with maximum 4096 SP's ?
I mean.... Fury, Vega (1), Vega II ... they are almost identical.
Considering that the new chip is rather small at 331 mm2, what stopped them from making a 450 mm2 chip for example and fitting 72 CU's in it, or 96 !!
It would wipe the floor with 2080 Ti with 6144 SP's (let's say cut a few for being defective, even with 5760 SP's it would still crush it with raw computer power and that massive 1TBps bandwidth, WHILE BEING A SMALLER CHIP due to 7nm)
Instead, they just shrunk Fury, then shrunk it again without adding anything![]()