• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Navi 23 ‘NVIDIA Killer’ GPU Rumored to Support Hardware Ray Tracing, Coming Next Year

Status
Not open for further replies.
Associate
Joined
22 Apr 2009
Posts
2,196
Location
Birmingham
From previous AMD Radeon launches I remember that the real thing has always been disappointing compared to the speculation discussions in the forums.
Let's hope that this time this "GameCache" is closer to the reality and RDNA 2 brings some ground-breaking innovations and performance uplift for the Radeon lineup.

That was mostly always the forums fault, all abaord the hype train - Choo choo.

AMD can't be blamed for any overhyping and under delivering this time around.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
Most likely fake, but not a slide i've seen before.

Can't see that as being anything other than fake. Look how bunched up the SKUs are.

349, 399, 499, 549.

And the differences between them are in some cases tiny. 48->52 CUs? Both with 16GB VRAM? Same cache, same bandwidth?

What's the point in doing that?
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
PlayStation 5 has 36 CUs but how many shaders - 3456 or 2304?

Can't see that as being anything other than fake. Look how bunched up the SKUs are.

349, 399, 499, 549.

And the differences between them are in some cases tiny. 48->52 CUs? Both with 16GB VRAM? Same cache, same bandwidth?

What's the point in doing that?

Yields.
 

GAC

GAC

Soldato
Joined
11 Dec 2004
Posts
4,688
From previous AMD Radeon launches I remember that the real thing has always been disappointing compared to the speculation discussions in the forums.
Let's hope that this time this "GameCache" is closer to the reality and RDNA 2 brings some ground-breaking innovations and performance uplift for the Radeon lineup.

then maybe stop posting the utter tosh you keep posting then :D
 

DDH

DDH

Associate
Joined
29 Jun 2016
Posts
173
Now, this means that each compute unit (so called CU) has 96 shaders, and not 64 as in the previous architectures.
Also, Navi 21 has been rumoured to be 505 sq. mm with 80 CUs.

We know from XBSX and ps5 that RDNA2 still has 64 shaders per CU so this slide is someone's work of fantasy. Also sounds like the leaks NAAF read out on his live stream as being horse ****
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,648
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Everything but the shader count looks like what they would look like.

96 Shaders per CU is odd, and yet if i was to make that up i would put down 64 Shaders per CU because that has been AMD's layout for a decade. The fact that this is out of the ordinary doesn't convince me its fake.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Apr 2008
Posts
3,875
Location
Bryn Celyn Wales
32GB at the top end seems a little much too, but you never know.
A little? It's insane other than for the productivity people never will 32GB be needed for 4k gaming... 8k, well you never know but beings as tbh you'd not be 8k gaming on current gen from AMD or nvidia unless settings are low...

I believe this gen and 4k top flight gaming will need 16GB as the defactor minimum... more is a bonus, but 10/11/12GB is not enough based on current and potential going forward, 16GB is the sweet spot so if rumours are true with navi, they've made a fine choice there with the top end cards!
 

ljt

ljt

Soldato
Joined
28 Dec 2002
Posts
4,540
Location
West Midlands, UK
Maybe I'm getting mixed up, but isn't the 6800XT in that table, the GPU that's in the Xbox Series X? If so, how can it be $100 more expensive than the console?!

If that is, I think I'll just stick with console, end up getting the same GPU with an equivalent CPU of R7 3700 for $100 less!
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Posts
4,017
Location
Scotland
Maybe I'm getting mixed up, but isn't the 6800XT in that table, the GPU that's in the Xbox Series X? If so, how can it be $100 more expensive than the console?!

If that is, I think I'll just stick with console, end up getting the same GPU with an equivalent CPU of R7 3700 for $100 less!

No, I have big doubts about that table being true but the clocks there are way higher than the XSX and shaders per CU are 50% higher too. So it would be 50% more shaders + around 20-25% higher clock speed at boost.
 
Associate
Joined
22 Apr 2009
Posts
2,196
Location
Birmingham
Maybe I'm getting mixed up, but isn't the 6800XT in that table, the GPU that's in the Xbox Series X? If so, how can it be $100 more expensive than the console?!

If that is, I think I'll just stick with console, end up getting the same GPU with an equivalent CPU of R7 3700 for $100 less!

Same amount of Compute Units, but higher clocked, more VRAM and full fat architecture no doubt. As i said before, take with a pinch of salt until AMD say somthing but historically the Discrete GPU is always more expensive than the equivant console
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom