AMD RDNA2 "Navi 21" GPU to Double CU Count Over "Navi 10"

[BoboOOZ]

Indeed, it's not a mistake, it's where most of the money is. Top-end cards have very high margins, but the volume is very small. AMD is attacking the bigger segments of the market first.

 

[ratirt]

Indeed, it's not a mistake, it's where most of the money is. Top-end cards have very high margins, but the volume is very small. AMD is attacking the bigger segments of the market first.

It's obvious ain't it? Well apparently not for everybody. I'm constantly amazed how people think that the GPU market is a race who gets to the top faster or which card will be the best. It's a business and nobody is doing anything to jeopardize the fact, profit is the most valuable and main goal for the company. ALWAYS. That is the main thing and everything else is a side project.

 

[BoboOOZ]

It's obvious ain't it? Well apparently not for everybody. I'm constantly amazed how people think that the GPU market is a race who gets to the top faster or which card will be the best. It's a business and nobody is doing anything to jeopardize the fact, profit is the most valuable and main goal for the company. ALWAYS. That is the main thing and everything else is a side project.

Well, just to be fair, there is some importance for the performance crown, although it's not a direct financial benefit: brand awareness. AMD is handicapped by this, both compared to Intel and Nvidia. On these fora, people have a pretty decent idea of where the price-performance ratio is, but in other markets (laptops or professional system integrators) people are still buying Intel and Nvidia over AMD, mostly because that's all they know.
AMD are aware of this and they are trying hard to change things, but they are a smaller company than Intel and Nvidia, so they have to pick their fights more carefully. I think they wanted to go for the crown with graphic cards this fall, but Nvidia won't get caught with their pants down like Intel. So we'll see a higher-end GPU from AMD this fall, just that it won't be enough to take the crown from the biggest Nvidia die.

 

[Bruno Vieira]

Congrats AMD, finally be able to beat the 1080TI. [rolleye]

The 5700XT is alredy faster in some modern games

 

[Elysium]

Indeed, it's not a mistake, it's where most of the money is. Top-end cards have very high margins, but the volume is very small. AMD is attacking the bigger segments of the market first.

Lol, well this is a slippery slope. The big GPU houses need to attack all levels of the market, not just one or two particular areas. Do you think Nvidia profits were affected more by a quantitatively superior number of GTX 1060 sales or more by a lower number of sales of a qualitatively superior GPU in the 1080 (Ti)? The 1060 was an incredibly popular card but it also had incredible competition from the RX 580, whereas the 1080 (Ti) had almost no competition whatsoever. That lack of competition from AMD probably did more to further Nvidia's profits than the 1060 ever could.

 

[BoboOOZ]

Lol, well this is a slippery slope.

Lol, you haven't read my following post...

 

[Elysium]

Lol, you haven't read my following post...

No I read it, I just don't think it's much of a valid point. I won't deny that brand awareness helps but it's not like AMD was created yesterday, they've been around for years and have undertaken considerable outreach to get their fingers into the OEM pie. The real problem behind their lack of success here is their lack of high-end products. That's why we don't see the RTX 2080 paired with the 4900H, because AMD lack an alternative and green team are not suddenly about to hand over a cash cow to red team.

 

[windwhirl]

I never understand stuff like this, double the streaming processors....ok? is that impressive?
I mean why not do 4 times the streaming processors while we are at it?

Is there any reason why we stop at double? and technical reason? or is it just financial, not giving people all they could have right ffing now?

Like I just dont get that if just more streaming processors is so important, why doesnt AMD just make a 2000 dollar gpu with all the streaming processors in the world and take the performance crown?

It would get too large, too much power consumption and yields would be shit.

 

[BoboOOZ]

. That's why we don't see the RTX 2080 paired with the 4900H, because AMD lack an alternative and green team are not suddenly about to hand over a cash cow to red team.

You gave the best counter-argument to your own argument, right there.
In the laptop market, you don't see any 4900HS with RTX 2080, the best video card you see the 4900HS paired with is 2060. This, in spite of the fact that the 4900HS is smashing Intel processors in performance, power consumption, and price. The 2070s and the 2080s are paired with Intel instead. Why? Brand awareness, intel sells better in high-end laptops, because buyers in that market are looking for that blue logo.

 

[bug]

I never understand stuff like this, double the streaming processors....ok? is that impressive?
I mean why not do 4 times the streaming processors while we are at it?

Is there any reason why we stop at double? and technical reason? or is it just financial, not giving people all they could have right ffing now?

Like I just dont get that if just more streaming processors is so important, why doesnt AMD just make a 2000 dollar gpu with all the streaming processors in the world and take the performance crown?

Scheduling logic and die size.
Last time AMD tried to fight Nvidia by throwing shaders at the problem, they ended up with an architecture they couldn't actually fully feed (Polaris). I hope they learned their lesson.

 

[Master Tom]

Congrats AMD, finally be able to beat the 1080TI. [rolleye]

The RTX 2080Ti also.

 

[medi01]

Why is 80 CU RDNA2 chip listed as being "around 5700 XT something edition", which is a 40CU RDNA1?

Something something, but it's only 30%+ faster than 2080Ti, something.

Oh well.

energy sucking 5700XT

Lol.

Congrats AMD, finally be able to beat the 1080TI. [rolleye]

A kindergarden take on a techie forum, color me surprised.

Why? Brand awareness, intel sells better in high-end laptops, because buyers in that market are looking for that blue logo.

Or for other reasons that we have seen about 2 decades ago.

I mean, "brand awareness" is one hell of an argument, given what AMD is doing with Intel in DIY market.

 

[Sunny and 75]

The first-gen RDNA refresh is gonna be OEM-focused imo.
Excited for Navi21 XT! I remember the days when AMD was touting "RADEON FURY, HUNTING TITANS", maybe this time AMD could say that again, fingers crossed!

 

[Lionheart]

Congrats AMD, finally be able to beat the 1080TI. [rolleye]

Cringe! The RX 5700XT trades blows with it.

 

[ARF]

Why is 80 CU RDNA2 chip listed as being "around 5700 XT something edition", which is a 40CU RDNA1?

Something something, but it's only 30%+ faster than 2080Ti, something.

Oh well.
Lol.
A kindergarden take on a techie forum, color me surprised.

Mainly incompetence.

I'm quite sure that Nvidia's spying services and general market forecasts already know what is coming with Navi 2X.
But it'd be against their interest to do anything proactively, so would like to keep the status quo as it is as longer as possible.

This said - it's perfect timing for AMD to begin releasing benchmarks, so we see anyways what is coming, and the general public knows it with certain.

 

[Fluffmeister]

Two years later I hope it's more than 30% faster.

 

[bug]

Most discussions at this point are moot. Not only do we know little about RDNA2, RDNA2 will go against Ampere and we know little about that as well.

Personally, I would love to see 2080 performance for $200-300, but I think we all know that's not very realistic. Still, whatever the improvements, 4k or high refresh gaming will be one step closer to the mainstream.

 

[ARF]

If Navi 21 will have 100% higher performance per watt than the Radeon VII which is sitting at 295-watt TDP...

Hmm, Vega 20 is just 331 sq. mm with (most probably) 64 compute units and 4096 shaders.

AMD Radeon VII Specs

AMD Vega 20, 1750 MHz, 3840 Cores, 240 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 16384 MB HBM2, 1000 MHz, 4096 bit

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Elysium]

You gave the best counter-argument to your own argument, right there.
In the laptop market, you don't see any 4900HS with RTX 2080, the best video card you see the 4900HS paired with is 2060. This, in spite of the fact that the 4900HS is smashing Intel processors in performance, power consumption, and price. The 2070s and the 2080s are paired with Intel instead. Why? Brand awareness, intel sells better in high-end laptops, because buyers in that market are looking for that blue logo.

No I didn't because it's not brand awareness at all. Nvidia aren't stupid; they're well aware that these Ryzen mobile chips are some of the best ever made in terms of performance and power efficiency. RTX 2080/4900H laptops would sell like Grandma's best damn hotcakes. That's exactly why they won't hand over their high-end gear, because it's not just Nvidia who would make money off that but AMD as well. Why give a literal cash cow directly to your strongest competitor? So that's where Intel steps in. You could make the argument by association of brand awareness. But it's really down to a very simple strategic choice, "do we go with AMD or Intel?". But one of those is an arch-rival.

 

[BoboOOZ]

No I didn't because it's not brand awareness at all. Nvidia aren't stupid; they're well aware that these Ryzen mobile chips are some of the best ever made in terms of performance and power efficiency. RTX 2080/4900H laptops would sell like Grandma's best damn hotcakes. That's exactly why they won't hand over their high-end gear, because it's not just Nvidia who would make money off that but AMD as well. Why give a literal cash cow directly to your strongest competitor? So that's where Intel steps in. You could make the argument by association of brand awareness. But it's really down to a very simple strategic choice, "do we go with AMD or Intel?". But one of those is an arch-rival.

Hmm, there are way too many points you get wrong, but I will try to explain one last time.
First, Nvidia do not mind at all pairing their GPU's with AMD CPU's, if that allows them to sell more products and make more money. The simplest example in that direction is that the latest Ampere compute cards are paired with AMD Rome CPU's, and they are built by Nvidia themselves this way because this will allow them to make more money.
Second, Nvidia is not blocking the OEM from pairing their GPU's with AMD CPU's, hence you have laptops with 4000 Ryzen and Nvidia graphics (1660Ti or 2060 series). Nvidia sells the cards to the OEM and the OEM assemble them as they deem better.
Third, it's the OEM themselves that prefer to pair the higher-end Nvidia cards with Intel CPU's, and that,s because in the >2k USD laptop segment, the blue logo sells better, or at least that is what the OEM think. This is the brand awareness part, and this changes very slowly, since many people in that market segment never heard of Techpowerup, or gamer's nexus, etc. in their life.

 

[Elysium]

Hmm, there are way too many points you get wrong, but I will try to explain one last time.
First, Nvidia do not mind at all pairing their GPU's with AMD CPU's, if that allows them to sell more products and make more money. The simplest example in that direction is that the latest Ampere compute cards are paired with AMD Rome CPU's, and they are built by Nvidia themselves this way because this will allow them to make more money.

This is where your brand awareness argument totally falls apart. Why would they pair with Rome chips if Intel is the hot piece of ass everyone wants? Could it perhaps be because AMD squash Intel's over-priced, under-performing server options like an ant? Here Jensen and co. genuinely have no choice because people are struggling to justify buying Intel in the server space. In the mobile arena, it's a different matter entirely since Intel's mobile chips are decisively more capable for gaming. Who wants good gaming CPUs? Gamers, right? And they don't typically need (or even care about) power efficiency, but they do need strong GPU options. This is Nvidia playing their cards like a wise old hand, which is what they are after all.

Second, Nvidia is not blocking the OEM from pairing their GPU's with AMD CPU's, hence you have laptops with 4000 Ryzen and Nvidia graphics (1660Ti or 2060 series). Nvidia sells the cards to the OEM and the OEM assemble them as they deem better.

Blocking? Perhaps not. But unspoken agreements? Quite possibly. As I said, it's a matter of the best gaming CPUs being paired with the best gaming GPUs. There is of course AMD's lack of a mobile equivalent, which you've totally ignored.

Third, it's the OEM themselves that prefer to pair the higher-end Nvidia cards with Intel CPU's, and that,s because in the >2k USD laptop segment, the blue logo sells better, or at least that is what the OEM. This is the brand awareness part, and this changes very slowly, since many people in that market segment never heard of Techpowerup, or gamer's nexus, etc. in their life.

Again with the brand awareness and your conception of "the blue logo", it's just nonsense. People have heard of AMD at least as much as they've heard of Intel. If AMD had a mobile equivalent of the 5700 XT out there right now, paired with AMD and Intel procs, people would almost certainly be buying it. But they don't. Whose fault is that? Not Nvidia's. Not Intel's. AMD's.

 

[BoboOOZ]

This is where your brand awareness argument totally falls apart. Why would they pair with Rome chips if Intel is the hot piece of ass everyone wants?

Because that's another market, the server/VM market, and in that market, Intel has had to correct security bug after security bug in the last 3 years, and each correction has come with a performance hit. Because of this, some datacenter have had to almost double the number of machines in order to maintain capacity. So in that market, Intel is far from being the king anymore, on the contrary.

Blocking? Perhaps not. But unspoken agreements? Quite possibly. As I said, it's a matter of the best gaming CPUs being paired with the best gaming GPUs. There is of course AMD's lack of a mobile equivalent, which you've totally ignored.

A mobile graphic card? That exists, in fact, 5600M is already available. But AMD is not relevant for mobile graphics right now, excepting APU's. Anyway, there is no rule for pairing AMD CPU's with AMD GPU's (besides fanboy dreams, at least). Intel doesn't have mobile GPU's, that means they shouldn't be present on laptops with dedicated GPU's at all? This is simple fanboy logic.

Again with the brand awareness and your conception of "the blue logo", it's just nonsense. People have heard of AMD at least as much as they've heard of Intel.

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? For the general consumer market, loads of people never heard of AMD.

If AMD had a mobile equivalent of the 5700 XT out there right now, paired with AMD and Intel procs, people would almost certainly be buying it. But they don't. Whose fault is that? Not Nvidia's. Not Intel's. AMD's.

Here we agree. AMD doesn't have a relevant GPU for mobile, and that's their decision. The 5600M exists, and there is a 5700M coming, but from their specs, they won't solve AMD's brand prestige/awareness problem in this segment anytime soon.

 

[Elysium]

Because that's another market, the server/VM market, and in that market, Intel has had to correct security bug after security bug in the last 3 years, and each correction has come with a performance hit. Because of this, some datacenter have had to almost double the number of machines in order to maintain capacity. So in that market, Intel is far from being the king anymore, on the contrary.

Lol, so what if it's another market? According to you "the blue logo" is some all-consuming brand where AMD dare not to tread and consumers thus don't hear about them at all. By saying this, you've just completely wiped out your own argument. You are right about the security vulnerabilities, but again you're just cherry-picking and deliberately avoiding talking about AMD's advancements in HEDT.

A mobile graphic card? That exists, in fact, 5600M is already available. But AMD is not relevant for mobile graphics right now, excepting APU's. Anyway, there is no rule for pairing AMD CPU's with AMD GPU's (besides fanboy dreams, at least). Intel doesn't have mobile GPU's, that means they shouldn't be present on laptops with dedicated GPU's at all? This is simple fanboy logic.

I specifically said best gaming GPUs; the 5600M is the mobile equivalent of a 5600 with the perf of the 5500. AMD not being relevant for mobile graphics doesn't alter my point whatsoever, nice try with dismissing your own point though, it's not going to work with me pal. I mean, really, "Intel has an all-consuming brand because AMD is irrelevant"? Nobody is going to fall for that. I'm not even sure what kind of point you're trying to make with Intel not having mobile GPUs. Uh, so what? You're aware that Intel has the best mobile CPUs for gaming right? Can you connect the dots here?

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? For the general consumer market, loads of people never heard of AMD.

Every word of this sentence is completely, absolutely, factually incorrect.

Here we agree. AMD doesn't have a relevant GPU for mobile, and that's their decision. The 5600M exists, and there is a 5700M coming, but from their specs, they won't solve AMD's brand prestige/awareness problem in this segment anytime soon.

Nope, you don't agree with me at all because you've spent half a page trying to claim that it's not AMD's fault they aren't relevant but rather it's all about Intel and "the blue logo". Don't be a coward or turntail with your argumentation please, just stick to your guns.

 

[Gungar]

Nothing in the current, or near future AMD or Nvidia gaming GPUs are convincing me to replace my 1080. It also runs fast enough for my video editing and encoding needs.

Come on, Lisa and Huang, make something that will be worth my attention! Not the energy sucking 5700XT or the gimmicky RT of Nvidia's current GPUs. Shall I give my next GPU money to Intel???

I thought exactly the same...

 

[Vayra86]

Nothing in the current, or near future AMD or Nvidia gaming GPUs are convincing me to replace my 1080. It also runs fast enough for my video editing and encoding needs.

Come on, Lisa and Huang, make something that will be worth my attention! Not the energy sucking 5700XT or the gimmicky RT of Nvidia's current GPUs. Shall I give my next GPU money to Intel???

Hell yeah! 1080 to the death!
This
is
Pascal!

Sorry I couldn't contain myself

Because that's another market, the server/VM market, and in that market, Intel has had to correct security bug after security bug in the last 3 years, and each correction has come with a performance hit. Because of this, some datacenter have had to almost double the number of machines in order to maintain capacity. So in that market, Intel is far from being the king anymore, on the contrary.

A mobile graphic card? That exists, in fact, 5600M is already available. But AMD is not relevant for mobile graphics right now, excepting APU's. Anyway, there is no rule for pairing AMD CPU's with AMD GPU's (besides fanboy dreams, at least). Intel doesn't have mobile GPU's, that means they shouldn't be present on laptops with dedicated GPU's at all? This is simple fanboy logic.

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? For the general consumer market, loads of people never heard of AMD.


Here we agree. AMD doesn't have a relevant GPU for mobile, and that's their decision. The 5600M exists, and there is a 5700M coming, but from their specs, they won't solve AMD's brand prestige/awareness problem in this segment anytime soon.

Lol, so what if it's another market? According to you "the blue logo" is some all-consuming brand where AMD dare not to tread and consumers thus don't hear about them at all. By saying this, you've just completely wiped out your own argument. You are right about the security vulnerabilities, but again you're just cherry-picking and deliberately avoiding talking about AMD's advancements in HEDT.


I specifically said best gaming GPUs; the 5600M is the mobile equivalent of a 5600 with the perf of the 5500. AMD not being relevant for mobile graphics doesn't alter my point whatsoever, nice try with dismissing your own point though, it's not going to work with me pal. I mean, really, "Intel has an all-consuming brand because AMD is irrelevant"? Nobody is going to fall for that. I'm not even sure what kind of point you're trying to make with Intel not having mobile GPUs. Uh, so what? You're aware that Intel has the best mobile CPUs for gaming right? Can you connect the dots here?


Every word of this sentence is completely, absolutely, factually incorrect.


Nope, you don't agree with me at all because you've spent half a page trying to claim that it's not AMD's fault they aren't relevant but rather it's all about Intel and "the blue logo". Don't be a coward or turntail with your argumentation please, just stick to your guns.

You seem new here, can you get a room? Two week quarantine, its contagious