- Joined
- Sep 17, 2014
- Messages
- 22,673 (6.05/day)
- Location
- The Washing Machine
System Name | Tiny the White Yeti |
---|---|
Processor | 7800X3D |
Motherboard | MSI MAG Mortar b650m wifi |
Cooling | CPU: Thermalright Peerless Assassin / Case: Phanteks T30-120 x3 |
Memory | 32GB Corsair Vengeance 30CL6000 |
Video Card(s) | ASRock RX7900XT Phantom Gaming |
Storage | Lexar NM790 4TB + Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 980 1TB + Crucial BX100 250GB |
Display(s) | Gigabyte G34QWC (3440x1440) |
Case | Lian Li A3 mATX White |
Audio Device(s) | Harman Kardon AVR137 + 2.1 |
Power Supply | EVGA Supernova G2 750W |
Mouse | Steelseries Aerox 5 |
Keyboard | Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint II |
VR HMD | HD 420 - Green Edition ;) |
Software | W11 IoT Enterprise LTSC |
Benchmark Scores | Over 9000 |
Clearly Vega has excellent performance per watt when it's in it's sweet spot. The same thing was found out when people were undervolting their Vega 64s. People were able to cut 1/3 off the power consumption at the same clocks, putting it at around the same perf/watt as pascal.
Nvidia scaling their architecture is great but there is a limit to how big you can make a chip or how high you can get the frequency, as evidenced by Intel having issues getting over the 5GHz bump for some time now. Nvidia is very close to the reticle limit and once you hit that you literally cannot make the chip bigger.
You had better hope AMD keeps competing or else we all will be enjoying our $700 GTX 1160s.
- Vega perf/watt is fine but the overall performance per mm2 of die area is not. So what we get is a high clock to extract equal performance to what the competitor can do with a smaller die. And with that high clock, Vega perf/watt sucks. This is what happened with Vega 64, and a similar Vega 64 with GDDR5 would simply not have been possible. The bottom line is that Vega as a high end part simply isn't enough, no matter how you twist it or tweak it. Also, you handily omit the fact that the 'lower clocked efficient Vega' is also a silicon lottery. No guarantees.
- Nvidia's way of scaling their architecture is indeed great and what you are saying about how big a chip can be is exactly the problem GCN met during Hawaii and its the problem that Vega didn't manage to solve either. Meanwhile, there is a 35% performance gap at similar die sizes so now AMD has to resort to multiple dies, while Nvidia can postpone that for another full generation if they want to.
Or, perhaps we might even see a much bigger die area like what AMD did with Threadripper. Especially with HBM, the board has lots of space anyway. So there are tons of options, but ONLY if you have a highly efficient architecture that doesn't surpass TDP budgets for each segment. People simply will not accept a 400W GPU in this day and age, just as they won't accept hot and loud ones, let alone move all that hot air out of the ever smaller form factors on the marketplace. So efficiency is king for every single use case.
- You compare frequency limitations, but back when Maxwell was released, did you for one second consider the next gen would pass the 2 Ghz barrier for Nvidia? I for sure as hell didn't.
- I am not that worried about competition in the GPU space. I will say this, as I have said often; I think RTG would be much better served in the hands of a different company that can truly focus on its GPU effort instead of the happy marriage that is APU / custom chip design, because let's face it, for a true gaming GPU, those are all the wrong priorities and it shows. AMD is not doing anyone a service for the past few years and there is nothing on the horizon that is ready to dethrone Nvidia. Its up to AMD/RTG's priorities and management that we now have a high end abandoned for nearly two years...