AMD's Ryzen CPUs (Ryzen/TR/Epyc) & Vega/Polaris/Navi GPUs

The 28c, assuming it is not vaporware and released, will most likely be able to out run a TR2 32 core especially overclocked. This will not be until 4-6 months after the TR2 and as mentioned you may need to have your own home power plant. It also could be TR3 32, or even 48, core 7nm will be out in another 6 months, after the 28c release, or so to squash the Intel 28 core.

Edit; it should be noted that AMD is now willing to release the TR2 32 core based on 12nm now that Epyc is about to be on 7nm. The CPU's will no longer be competing with one another. This could though then be a factor once TR3 and Epyc both share 7nm, just a heads up!

 

Quixant Announces Their AMD Ryzen™ Embedded V1000 Based Products
AMD
Published on Jun 7, 2018
Quixant joined AMD for the launch event in February 2018 and announced their line of AMD Ryzen™ Embedded V1000 products. Learn more about how these devices are shaping the new age of Quixant gaming machines.

YCD Amazing Digital Signage Wall Powered by AMD
AMD
Published on Jun 7, 2018
YCD develops software to drive stunning video walls and immersive experiences powered by AMD Technology. In fact, the Marriott Marquis is the highest resolution wall in Time Square that is powered by YCD and AMD. Watch this video to learn more! Embedded: https://twitter.com/AMDembedded
Learn more at: www.amd.com/digitalsignage

Radeon FreeSync™ Technology Everywhere
AMD
Published on Jun 6, 2018
AMD Radeon FreeSync™ technology is supported by tons of gaming devices and now by select Samsung TVs.
Learn more at: www.amd.com/freesync

Radeon FreeSync™ Technology: #BetterRed
AMD
Published on Jun 6, 2018
Radeon FreeSync™ technology gives you the freedom of choice: 300+ compatible monitors, and now select Samsung TVs to choose from for silky smooth gaming.
Learn more at: www.amd.com/freesync

Radeon FreeSync™ Technology: How to Enable It
AMD
Published on Jun 6, 2018
Smooth gaming is just a few clicks away – this video will show you how to make sure Radeon FreeSync™ technology is enabled on your compatible PC, notebook or TV.
Learn more at: www.amd.com/freesync

 

Computex 2018: Level1 @ AMD! (Threadripper 2, 7nm Vega)
Level1Techs
Published on Jun 7, 2018

 

NEW Gaming GPUs Every Year, Promises AMD!
Gamer Meld
Published on Jun 8, 2018
AMD is promising to re-focus on gaming with new graphics cards EVERY YEAR! Stay tuned...

 

AKA more rebadges...

 

as long as the performance bump is actually real, then fine by me

Sent from my Xiaomi Mi Max 2 (Oxygen) using Tapatalk

 

A real 5-10%.

 

yep, still not a total rebadge

 

It's better than nothing, and is like Nvidia has been sliding in with their "Ti" models in the lower ranks.

AMD got bit by the mining debacle a while ago, and the market was flooded with used GPU's and unpurchased inventory, so we didn't see much new product from AMD over a longer time than normal.

I think that's what AMD are trying to say, that they have a handle on the bounce this time and are planning to still offer differentiated new GPU's annually, rather than let too much time between releases.

I hope so.

 

WRAITH RIPPER, The 32-core Threadripper Air-Cooler
Hardware Unboxed
Published on Jun 8, 2018

 

hm, this hardware unboxed dude really seems to have some interesting stuff on his channel. might have to sub that

 

Hardware Unboxed is TechSpot.

 

to my embarrassment i have to admit ive never heard of that site before now

 

Perhaps not.
AMD's new head of Radeon division did mention they lost a lot of time pursuing AI... and with AMD in general being a smaller company than Nvidia (with fewer resources too at the time of Vega's release and prior to Ryzen's and Vega increased profits), its not surprising.
However, they also mentioned new architectures on a more frequent basis...

As for new GPU's being rebadges and bringing only 5-10% improvements... we'll see...but, it probably WON'T be like that once 7nm+ and EUV litography come out.

Actually, rebadges might not mean the same as they did before (low performance gains).
Namely, with AMD now actively targeting use of Infinity Fabric for connecting multiple GPU dies with Navi (and possibly the Vega that is bound to come out this year for AI), we might see some refinements as processes improve, but otherwise, we could be looking at more GPU dies being added to refreshes combined with EUV litography (or just using EUV to stack up more chips on top of each other), and you end up with more than small bumps in performance, even with existing manuf. processes.

But, we can't be for certain what will happen.
AMD is now almost back in full swing in the CPU arena, and if the 7nm process 'liberates' Vega and Navi from the limitations of low clocks and high power draw that happened due to 14nmLPP (Which it probably will), then it might easily be that this will give them the extra edge without having to rush out with a new architecture (and besides, how many software companies out there are actually optimizing for AMD's products again?).

Nvidia did say they aren't planning any new GPU's for 'a long time to come' apparently.
Though, in fairness, software is not exactly rushing to make proper use of the GPU power in all aspects.

AI will probably change that with self-rewriting algorithms eventually... but I don't know when they will get off their rear ends and do this themselves (possibly in as little as few years (by 2020-2022 perhaps).

Many programmers have already automated the process of checking the coding.

 

Yup

It's interesting to note that TechSpot was started 2 years before Hardware Unboxed, posted videos earlier, but didn't get the following that Hardware Unboxed found.

It's pretty cool those guys found each other and swapped presenters, at first I wasn't happy with the change, but it's turned out to be a good change in the long run.

I've been posting those Hardware Unboxed videos for a long time, @jaybee83 you are just now noticing that they have a lot of interesting and useful content?

G.Skill DDR4-5066 & Gold Memory Fit For a Royal
Hardware Unboxed
Published on Jun 9, 2018


The BEST Budget Case of Computex 2018, DeepCool’s MATREXX 55
Hardware Unboxed
Published on Jun 9, 2018

You might want to check the other channels I post videos from, there have a wide range of styles - but most have useful subjects and information to offer. Some are just fun, silly, and a nice break from the pure technical, but still offer interesting ideas and perspectives.

 

lol, there is a very simple reason for me noticing only now: i basically just started watching videos on youtube on a regular basis a few weeks ago. even subscribed to my first few channels before that, i watched like a few videos a year or so

so far, i was more the reading articles kinda guy

 

More information confirming what we already knew about upcoming 7nm Vega:

AMD Demos 7nm Vega GPU: Betting Big on Machine Learning for Radeon Instinct; Shipping This Year

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12910/amd-demos-7nm-vega-radeon-instinct-shipping-2018

Given that Nvidia announced no new gpu's are coming for a while... and judging from these articles... it seems that AMD will leapfrog both Intel and Nvidia to 7nm (although in Intel's case, it would be 10nm)

It's interesting though.
The consumer versions of 7nm (namely Navi) GPU's should be coming in 2019, around first or second quarter... thing is though, would Nvidia's statement that they don't intend on releasing new GPU's for some time to come apply to next year too?
It would seem odd they would want to skip 7nm refresh of Pascal at least... or are they focusing on a new architecture?

 

Why wouldn't Nvidia wait for others to pioneer the 7nm process, and get the yield up to a more profitable level?

Instead of producing more costly initial runs, and then needing to make up the average cost by keeping end user price high, Nvidia will be able to jump in when the yields are near optimal and pass the savings on to the end users... or keep the profit for themselves.

Nvidia is pretty good at dropping new product just as it seems AMD is going to rake in the $, only to have a large part of the user market split off toward Nvidia again.

Hopefully AMD's future solutions will be able to get closer to Nvidia - either through single or multi "GPU / CCX" solutions that Nvidia can't match - at least at the same price.

 

AMD's single Vega chip on 7nm should technically be able to match a refreshed Pascal on 7nm given that the 14nmLPP was highly restrictive in clocks and produced low yields.
And, since AMD is using Infinity Fabric for combining multiple GPU dies (otherwise known as external Infinity Fabric), will Nvidia be able to counter that with anything? Do they have something matching Infinity Fabric?

 

BeQuiet! Joins Threadripper Party - Dark Rock Pro TR4
Optimum Tech
Published on Jun 10, 2018

 

Speculation: They realized with the leaked specs that people could figure out for the number of cuda cores being the same as a 1080 Ti, you only get around 15% performance with the 12nm cards over the 16nm, so they are deciding it may not be worth producing, potentially with yields on 12nm because it means the Ti would be even bigger as the 1180 grew the die size to 27% over the current size, if rumors are true. As such, and maybe on ram delays or other factors, they pushed the release or are deciding to scrap 12nm. For 7nm, I wouldn't take it that far on speculating yet.

So, I do not believe that is the reason. In the same way AMD developed the 7nm design early with GF, Nvidia did the same sort of specialized process optimizations at TSMC for 7nm. Considering that was already reported on, it makes no sense to wait at 7nm. But, AMD having any 7nm product to market first is a win to be first on a process node. I do agree that they are waiting on yields, and were supposed to have a 12nm product next, but until we know more,...

At 35% increased performance, that puts it just around or ahead of a 1080 Ti, but at 100W less than the Ti. I want to know more about external Infinity Fabric. From the Anand article, it sounded like the connections between sockets type of IF, which then comes the question if they just meant connecting them on the graphics card PCB and doing two separate packages there, or working with MB mfrs to trace IF with the PCIe to the MB socket or to other MB slots, acting as a direct comms between cards cutting out having to go to the CPU then back out to the other card, etc. It really brings up more questions than it answers.

As to their size estimate, which is based roughly on known sizes of HBM2, they came to 336 sq. mm., which the old die was 484 sq. mm. That would be about a 31% reduction in die size, not the 242 sq. mm. that would be half the size of a 484 sq. mm. die. Now, there may be good reason for this, such as use of a hybrid node to simplify design, or decisions made that increased compatibility of the architecture, etc. Does not mean that the transistor density hasn't doubled, just that certain areas may be spaced differently. Will have to wait for more info.

 

There are other devices running through the 7nm process besides AMD GPU's, so Nvidia isn't necessarily waiting on AMD to pioneer the process at either foundry alone, just in general waiting for the first turns to come through and see how the process is yielding.

Nvidia is likely pushing through test runs all the time themselves as well, but the foundry is getting feedback from more than AMD and Nvidia, so it all adds up to progress for everyone.

Yup, we don't know until we know, and Nvidia and AMD are going to know way before we do.

 

35-40% increase in performance is just from the process itself... and that's over 16nm high performing process Nvidia used.
14nmLPP as you know limited AMD's clocks quite a bit and produced high power consumption on lower frequencies, not to mention the fact that it resulted in low yields which forced AMD to increase the voltages (though, higher power consumption on AMD's end was also a result of 40% higher CU's).
So, we are likely to see more than 35% increase in performance on 7nm (as a single chip).
Think of 7nm Vega as if Vega was coming from 16nm TSMC process instead (which would probably mean same or very similar core clocks like we got on Pascal, unknown higher HBM frequencies, and probably lower voltages from the factory).

Remember that Vega 56 is clocked about 32% less than GTX 1070 on the core alone where it was already comparable to GTX 1070, and bumping its HBM alone from 800MhZ to 900-940MhZ resulted in a pretty good performance increase... near 1080, for maybe 5W increase in power draw.
Now, I don't know how much of a power draw the 40% higher CU's contributed to, but its possible that say Vega 56 on 7nm could exhibit around 67-72% core clock increase... or the performance bump on 7nm would result with say 30% increase going to the core and another 37% frequency increase going to the HBM - splitting between the core and HBM.

Or at least, something to that effect.

Overall, if Vega 56 on 16nm could achieve similar or slightly lower core clocks (and higher stock HBM frequencies) like Pascal did with much lower power draw (30% less on average, because that seems to be the main difference in overall power consumption between Vega and Pascal), then it would mean that Vega 56 would effectively equal 1080, and Vega 64 would essentially equal 1080ti (at virtually same or slightly higher power draw due to higher CU number).

Now you need to translate those kinds of 'gain estimates' to 7nm.
Besides, look at Ryzen... 14nmLPP severely limited its all core boost clocks which only resulted in roughly 200 MhZ increase from baseline... whereas Intel was able to push their all core frrequencies boost higher as their process was made on a high performing process.

Similar changes would apply to 'hypothetical Vega' on 16nm.

 

Rumors about navi:

https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd-navi-performance-computex?amp

 

well this makes sense considering the leapfrogging strategy by AMD. highend vega was the last to come out, so now its midrange polaris turn to be succeeded by a newgen set of chips. guess well have to wait a bit longer for nextgen highend gpus by AMD....

who knows, maybe the jump to 7nm will make Nvidia turn their 1080 class into the Ti class and their Ti class in turn into Titan class just like they did when introducing Titan/Ti several years ago.

thatll leave us with their 1070 successor as the 1180/2080 with matching price hike, of course... yay....

Sent from my Xiaomi Mi Max 2 (Oxygen) using Tapatalk

 

I'll respond fully after I finish doing two long benchmarks to show software errors for monitoring software for Tanware their morning. Part of the response will be the response curves that show the trade off between improved performance or energy efficiency.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Hmm... I have to wonder slightly about that.
The head of Radeon group says they are going after high performance, and on the other hand, relatively unsubstantiated rumors seem to tell that Navi will be replacing Polaris as a mid-range GPU.
Which one do you think is the more credible source?
Head of Radeon division or rumors?

Though, I have to say it does make a certain amount of sense for Polaris to be replaced.

But hang on... if Navi will be using Infinity Fabric to interconnect two GPU chips for example... wouldn't that give AMD the ability to compete in the high end space as well?
Looks to me like a single Navi chip could easily equate 1070/1080/1080ti level of performance (depending on the TDP brackets and core/hbm frequencies AMD gives each Navi chip)... with higher end being reserved for multi-chips connected through IF - and Navi might have lower number of CU's - not drastically lower, but just enough to help free up power for gaming capabilities).
Navi could simply be shrunk down V56 for example with sufficiently increased frequencies on the HBM and core to equate V64 and possibly 1080ti.
That... or possibly even shrunk down and overclocked Polaris with Infinity Fabric?
Mid-range Navi might be using GDDR6, while high end would be using HBM.

Remember that Vega supposedly underwent some internal optimizations, so if that gives it lets say 10% bump up in performance (which is possible), that would be on top of the 35-40% performance increase as allowed by 7nm, and then again EXTRA bump up to reach specified TDP (because of the 14nmLPP limitations).

Will be interesting to see how much of this is wrong, and just how much correct.
I'm not trying to raise anyone's hopes, I'm merely extrapolating (hopefully within reason) on what we know.

 

i guess its all in the definition of "high performance". if the goal is simply to beat 1080 and maybe 1080 Ti, then right now thats totally "high performance". once 1180/2080 is out, thatll only be midrange ^^ so depending on the point of view, both statements might be true in the end.

 

What do you see when you see this image? You can either reduce energy by 55%, or you can gain 40% performance at the same power draw. It is an and/or situation, trying to find an intermediate in the trade off. If you have a 35% performance increase and reduce power consumption by 50%, notice how that would intersect outside of the new curve for 7nm. THAT is what I was discussing. Please revise your comments, then restate them after you have done this, and please go back and read my comments on where performance increases came from in light of this new understanding.

Source: https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/641/iedm-2017-globalfoundries-7nm-process-cobalt-euv/

 

I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't make too much sense for GPU's... for CPU's yes.

For GPU's, AMD will use 7nm TSMC process, which offers 35% increase in performance over 16nm TSMC process (and realistically, more on both ends when compared to 14nmLPP).

And yes, I understand that 'usually', you get that kind of performance increase at same power draw... but my point was that 14nmLPP limitations resulted in Vega's lower yields, which ended up with higher stock voltages and the process was not suitable for driving high clocks in the first place.
Shouldn't we take those factors into account as well, considering that TSMC has far better experience with GPU production?
Plus, 1 company won't have the pressure of creating both GPU's and CPU's (aka Glofo - who struggled to supply proper yields for AMD gpu's for a long time now).

http://www.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/technology/7nm.htm

That's why I'm saying that we're likely not getting the full picture in terms of process comparisons, performance enhancements and power draw reductions.

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/misc_hardware/tsmc_starts_7nm_volume_production/1

Granted, I could very easily be wrong.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-intel-on-leading-edge-process-nodes.2461425/

"TSMC 7nm vs 16FF+ - 30-35% higher performance at same power or 55-58% lower power at same performance."

 

This is GF announcing how it works at an international transistor conference. This IS NOT up for debate. You either get more performance, or you cut energy consumption, or a mix. You can NOT get the max on both.

Now, as I said, the HBM2 being used is 1.2GHz, which is 30% higher than the 950MHz or 800MHz variants used on the original generation of Vega. Overclocking the HBM2 was shown, in quite a few cases, to be as potent or more potent than your core overclock. So, you can easily say that 10% of the 35% comes from the memory bandwidth increase alone. It could be 15% or so.

That means you have 20-25% of performance to account for. If they took 50% reduction in power, that left 5-10% of power savings on the table. Those would go into increasing the frequency. That can account for 5-15% of the boost in performance, leaving maybe 10-20% unaccounted for, depending on how sharp it curves up on total power relative to the normalized frequency.

So, literally I have explained already the majority of the performance gains without any allusion and while complying WITH THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND PUBLISHED PROCESS INFORMATION BY THE FOUNDRIES. You do not make the information agree with each other, which leads to absurdity. I've taken you to task before on this very topic.

Now, for the last bit of performance, there are factors like making the architecture work with the node, using potentially a hybrid node which would increase the footprint of the die, so that even though transistors density increases, it is still spread out on the die, which can aide in allowing heat to also be transferred off die more efficiently (the problems of miniaturization and transistor density relative to heat are well known; if the density doubled, but the die size only decreases 31%, you are using 19% of space that otherwise would not have needed to be used, spreading out parts of the die to a degree using a hybrid node, which can be part of lessening the heat buildup in specific areas, which then can potentially allow for more frequency to be achieved). Then, you have the potential that the energy efficiency allowed for better results at a set energy draw than expected to make up the rest, or tweaks to caches and IF, etc. All of that makes sense.

But, what makes no sense is saying they took it all in performance, rather than focusing on power reduction, yet magically cut the power consumption in half.

I also brought up the use of higher stock voltages to qualify dies, not you originally. That, with smaller die sizes, allows for an easier way to absorb losses on die costs.

As to what the process was suitable for, it is NOT all about high clocks. There is IPC, memory and cache bandwidths, latencies, etc. that all play into the performance calculations. If the IPC is high enough, a lower clock can outperform a higher clocked chip with a very low IPC. With that said, there is a bit of truth to this, and that too could play into the 35%, but is but one contributing factor to it.

I already covered them being similar and I also covered that GF changed the transistor pitch to accommodate having designs able to be manufactured at either plant. GF has a slight density advantage at 7nm and a slightly better percentage on power reduction or normalized frequency increase at the same power draw. So, I will stick with my explanation over yours as it does better at getting the known factors accounted for, then pointing at what is left to explain, WHICH IS A BETTER EXPLANATION.

 

Again,GLOFO 7nm will be used for CPU's... not GPU's - so, yes, 40% increase in performance is valid for same power draw (over Ryzen1).
GPU's will use 7nm TSMC which according to their own technical information gives 35% performance increase over 16nm TSMC process on same power draw.

There is no magic involved here... we know the reasons for Vega's larger power draw:
1. 14nmLPP which resulted in high power draw on relatively low clocks because the process was designed for low clocks and mobile parts (hence why Vega is far more efficient at lower frequencies) - 7nm TSMC is designed for high performance and efficiency instead.
- You couldn't push the clocks very high on 14nmLPP because the process can't handle it and you end up pumping up higher voltages to sustain them when compared to Intel's 14nm and TSMC 16nm.
2. 14nmLPP lower yields resulting in high voltages.
3. 40% higher CU's.

Can you demonstrate that the graph is displaying performance gains when used on Zen2 CPU's... or upcoming Vega and Navi GPU's?
The article in question is comparing Glofo 14nmLPP and Glofo 7nm (latter will be used for CPU's... not gpu's).

 

You are so wrong, it is starting to annoy.

1. The power consumption was cut in half to 150W, about. Since it is an and/or situation, TSMC having 35% at the same power draw IS IMPOSSIBLE HERE. That is what you seem to be missing, as if no matter how many times I repeat that, you ignore it.
2. Then why is there not higher than 35% performance gains considering HBM2 clocked at 1.2GHz is used? Just overclocking HBM2 a little gave 5% or so on performance, and this is with 50-150MHz on it. So, you now have a problem explaining this performance increase missing from the product.
3. Power consumption, as a measure, is often in W. W=VxA. So, to cut the power consumption in half, you MUST reduce voltage and amps, or some from each, etc.
4. Low yields have NO RELATION to high voltages. Qualifying voltage for specific operation DOES effect what counts toward yields. Now, with the power consumption focus, and improving that so much, they could have tightened what qualifies a die as a pass. Also, because of costs, they may have had to raise voltage tolerance to qualify a die for 14nm because of the company's financial situation at the time of release. But that is not what you are saying with your second statement.
5. If the compute units are the same on Vega 7nm and Vega 14nm, how is this a point?

And yes, I can show that if I have the hardware to test for empirical evidence or using the estimate using the idealized curve, as the prior image showed. This is based on physics. It isn't magic.

Also, AMD clearly said they will use both and differentiate on products. Never did they say only GPUs at TSMC and only CPUs at GF. If you can show me an article showing AMD said that, I'll eat my words, but I doubt you can. Why? Because this is what Su said:

"So in 7nm, we will use both TSMC and GlobalFoundries. We are working closely with both foundry partners, and will have different product lines for each. I am very confident that the process technology will be stable and capable for what we’re trying to do."
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/misc_hardware/amd_plans_to_tap_globalfoundries_and_tsmc_for_7nm/1

Instead, there are rumors of differentiating the product stack between consumer and compute products, which would suggest more accelerators and product stacks. For graphics cards, they have low and mid, then high, then commercial tiers. They used GF for practically all of this stack and all of their CPUs at 14nm. You are assuming that means all graphics cards will be at TSMC, but that is an assumption. Better assumptions are that Vega 7nm is being done at TSMC because they are already in volume production, but AMD is a key partner for GF, helped to create the tools for it, used its sway to get GF to change their fin pitch to match TSMC, etc. and likely designed within that range. So, start there and move some over to GF after up and running there makes sense. Then there is a rumor of a 7nm card being made at GF, due to comments made to a reporter visiting GF.

So, you are building in assumptions that may or may not be true and using false information as the power draw was reduced. That is what I'm trying to get through to you.

Edit: Now, if you are saying they stopped the practice of increased volts to qualify, which drops the watts used from 280-300W+ down to what the average undervolt achieved, which was closer to 220W, thereby making the energy reduction about 35%, thereby easily explaining the portion of the performance increase that I speculated contributed OVER the amount of 10% for the HBM2 frequency, the increased bandwidth due to interface, and the 5-15% performance increase still coming with the 50% power reduction relative to the maximum possible power reduction on the curve, I'd say you may have a point. But that, also, is not what you said.

 

This is a very shallow / quick on the fly in the Conference Demo Booth review that didn't have time to test a range of games or benchmarks, nor does it tune any of the AMD CPU / GPU tunables - or even mention if they can be tuned.

It's early days, and like the first Asus G702ZC Ryzen + RX580 software updates improved tuning and performance.

It is nice to see the big time reviewers have an interest, and hopefully Gordon and other reviewers will do more in depth testing, including performance and thermal tuning using AMD / Acer software.

I wonder how much the mobile Ryzen 56 as indicated it uses can be tuned?

We just tested the all-AMD Acer Predator Helios 500 gaming laptop
Here's how fast the new Predator Helios 500 is with Ryzen 7 2700 and Radeon Vega 56 graphics
By Gordon Mah Ung Executive Editor, PCWorld | JUN 6, 2018 7:12 AM PT
https://www.pcworld.com/article/327...d-acer-predator-helios-500-gaming-laptop.html

"The new Acer Predator Helios 500 has enthusiasts of both Intel and AMD covered. That’s because you can now choose from the model shown here, which is built around an Intel CPU and Nvidia graphics, or go all AMD with the version you see at the top of this article.

The AMD version of the Helios 500 features a 17-inch, 144Hz FreeSync Panel; 32GB of DDR4; a 256GB M.2 SSD; and 1TB HDD. And most importantly for AMD fans, it features an 8-core Ryzen 7 2700 and Radeon Vega 56 graphics.

The CPU is the desktop Ryzen 7 2700. It’s an 8-core chip with SMT for 16-threads of computing power. It’s also likely the fastest CPU around for many multi-threaded loads. In Cinebench R15, for example, we saw the Helios 500 spit out a score of 1,512.

(For reference, a Ryzen 7 2700X is in the 1,800 range. That X part does hit higher clock speeds, though.)

As far as we’re concerned, the performance of the Radeon Vega 56 chip is even more interesting. We know from our review of the desktop part that it punches beyond its class, and likely caused Nvidia to release the GeForce GTX 1070 Ti in response.

Although we thought the Radeon Vega 56 was a re-purposed desktop chip, we were told that, no, it’s a part that always been intended for mobile use.

That tells us it may very well be the very first sighting of the Radeon RX Vega Mobile chip that AMD talked up at CES. Mind you, this is not the same graphics core used in Intel’s Kaby Lake G, that unprecedented Intel/AMD collaboration.

As its name implies, the Radeon Vega 56 should be a full Vega 56 part. We only had one benchmark available to run, but it’s pretty modern—Ubisoft’s Far Cry 5. We set the laptop to 1920x1080, selected Ultra and also switched off FreeSync to prevent it from interfering with any results.

We know public results of a desktop GeForce GTX 1060 6GB cards are in the 70 fps range and GeForce GTX 1070 cards sit in the 90 fps range. The Vega 56 in the Helios 500? It hit a pretty respectable 80 fps, but it’s still definitely short of a full desktop Vega 56, which actually pushes the 110 fps range in this game.

Given the thermal limitations of laptops, we have to assume the chip in the Helio 500 is running the GPU at lower clock speeds.

The last detail we’ll mention is the battery, a 74-watt hour cell. Like most desktop replacement gaming laptops with big screens and big GPUs and CPUs, we’d expect that you’d be lucky to get an hour under heavy loads. But that’s actually typical."

Acer Predator Helios 500 with Ryzen and Vega plus benchmarks
PCWorldVideos
Published on Jun 6, 2018
Gordon shows you the Predator Helios 500 with Ryzen 2700 and Vega 56. He even got his hands dirty and pulled benchmarks for Cinebench and Far Cry 5. Melissa already did a hands-on with the Intel and Nvidia option, and now Gordon has all the AMD fans covered.

 

For reference:

Spoiler

So the Vega 56 in that Acer must be clocked at ~1000MHz.

 

You have a point for the most part... and I already conceded this before.
However, a few things I'd like to address:

1. I DO understand what you're saying, but you might want to have a look at this and tell me your thoughts about it:
https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-7nm-gpu-vega-gaming,news-58593.html

"The new process also affords a 2x increase in power efficiency and AMD also claims it provides a 1.35x increase in performance. "

Note that the article treats both the 2x increase in efficiency and 35% performance increase as separate... they don't appear to be treating them as if you can only have one of the two, and not both.

I realize that its usually a cut in power consumption OR increase in performance (at the same power draw), but this is not Glofo 7nm process... and TMSC's process was superior to 14nmLPP in several ways (especially in comparison to GPU's).
Glofo technical specs clearly stated that its 14nmLPP process was designed for low clocks and mobile parts... whereas the 16nm process details its designed for high performance and efficiency - you cannot simply waver this as a 'inconsequential' because it prevented Ryzen from overclocking reliably beyond 4GhZ in the first place, couldn't sustain more than 200MhZ boost across all cores, and the fact that Pascal was clocked much higher than Vega on the core (though, to be fair, the 40% higher number of CU's on Vega could have also eaten away at that while massively increasing power draw).

2. Possibly due to the premise that HBM heats up quite a bit when you overclock it... but we won't know how far up AMD clocked the HBM until Navi is fully released. All we saw was a preliminary benchmark that could have been anything.
Also, if AMD indeed clocks HBM to 1200MhZ on Navi, that would be 27% higher HBM speed vs Vega 64 (air)... couple that with a core clock of about 1200 MhZ for example (with a possibly undefined boost speed and of course hypothetical undisclosed IPC gains from optimizations) and you get decent performance increase... how much exactly we won't know until the product launches.
But I digress, if AMD doesn't change number of CU's, this could be all we could get.

3. This is why I mentioned that AMD might be able to achieve the 35% increase in performance or more alongside claimed power reductions because the voltages would likely drop by default on these new GPU's. Specifically because TSMC as a company has experience in producing them on their manuf. process and had better yields - but this is open to change.

4. Wait a second... I was under the impression that AMD had to raise operational voltages to 1.2V specifically because of process limitations which increased the number of functional GPU dies as a result (and also radically increased power consumption)
Nvidia didn't have this problem due to using TSMC process that was already tailored towards GPU production and was suited for high clocks (hence why it could operate on lower voltages and higher clocks in comparison to Polaris and Vega).

It was published that Zen 2 will be produced using Glofo 7nm and that GPU's will be made on TSMC 7nm process... and in addition to that, it was also published that since Glofo won't be able to meet upcoming demand, CPU production would be delegated to TSMC due to process similarities.

5. Emphasis on 'if'. We don't know if AMD will retain same number of CU's for Navi... they might. However, in hindsight, recall that Intel is able to achieve much higher boost frequencies across all cores vs Ryzen, and that in comparison to Ryzen, Intel doesn't suffer from a proverbial 'overclocking wall' (because the more you bump up the clocks, the hardware requires REALLY high voltages on 14nmLPP- Intel can for example overclock with a smaller bump up in voltages due to their 14nm process being more efficient and suited for high clocks - this is also evident on Pascal which was clocked 32% higher on the core and ran with lower voltages out of the factory due to NOT suffering from yield issues).

 

Sources: AMD Created Navi For Sony's PlayStation 5, Vega Suffered

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasone...nys-playstation-5-vega-suffered/#361c8fb124fd

Huh... this would pan well into the most recent tidbits that we're getting into how Vega is undergoing optimizations specifically for AI... but if Navi is targeted at consumers, then what would 'we' get as a result once Navi is launched performance-wise?
A replacement GPU for Polaris that would effectively give Vega 56/64 performance?
If that's the case... then the design is probably somewhat different than Vega... possibly more optimized towards gaming (given it might have been designed for PS5).

 

Ok, I am breaking this out so that I can address it, as I think I know where the confusion has been on your part now. Whenever a product is made on a process, it has a voltage curve. It is the point at which for a given frequency, the voltage must be increased. Think of it like when you undervolt a CPU, or overclock a CPU at specific multipliers.

As an example, my 1950X has this for the voltage requirements at these multipliers
3950MHz = 1.175
4000MHz = 1.225
4050MHZ = 1.2875

If you notice, between the first and second step, it is almost the same voltage as the step between the second and third, but that step takes slightly more voltage to reach than the first step taken. At some point, the voltage increase for the same frequency increase will sharply jump up. That is what the power efficiency/performance curve is. You can either take the power reduction at the same frequency of a set amount for a process, or you can take the performance/frequency boost with the same energy consumption. You CANNOT take both. Then, you can take a little of each and wind up somewhere on that curve, like say if you have a 60% energy efficiency or a 40% performance increase, you could take a 50% energy efficiency boost and a 10-15% boot in performance, or you could take a 30% boost in performance and a 20% reduction in energy, etc. It is wherever it falls on that line for the tradeoffs on the energy/performance curve on that process. Does that make more sense?

Once again, you use a logical fallacy to ignore the curve, which is a hard fact, to appeal to TSMC process, which is HORSE HOCKEY! You still have not proven what products, with absolute certainty, are coming from TSMC, making it a bad statement AND relying on magic. TSMC has their own curve on performance or energy efficiency, which you referenced a couple posts back. What you are missing is that those numbers refer to two points on a curved line. That means that even TSMC is subject to the same physics that GF is. Finally, the idealized power curves are NOT compared against each company. Why? Too many variables. The only way to remove the architecture, implementation of different aspects of the chip, etc., would be to create the same design at both fabs, which is impossible because you require a redesign to move to a different fab due to process differences. At 7nm, you will have the first chance to test the theory you put forth on process efficiencies, etc. Now, there could be some changes, yes, but you are speculating and need to say you believe, not say it as fact because it IS NOT fact proven empirically, it is a theory based on two different companies producing two different architectures with many different features on those architectures produced on two different processes and two different nodes at two different companies. Have you controlled for all of those variables? No (save you the time of trying to say anything but the truth that those have not been controlled for). Now, in the event that both AMD and Nvidia wind up with roughly equal frequencies while being produced on the same process and node at one company, you have helped solve only partial control on those factors. You still would not have controlled for using the process at the other FAB though. If AMD produces their gaming cards at one company and their compute at another, then you have almost a control there, but because they are diverging the designs for these cards, the architecture can vary, which means frequency can vary, just like size of die and number of cores can vary the end result due to heat production, etc. Are you starting to understand how difficult it is to say what you are parroting so cavalierly? You are acting like certain facts of physics don't apply to both companies.

As to the clocks on the GF sheet, it said 3GHz on HPC and SERVER chips. Even Intel's chips didn't clock much above that on HPC and Server, especially when they started their 14nm designs. You are confusing looking at what is being made using the process as meaning something it didn't say, and using generalized statements from TSMC that do not correspond to what you point out on the other data sheet to then draw a conclusion not exactly founded on that basis. Then you point to a company's decision on base and boost clocks, which are made independent of the process as a marketing decision, to try to bolster this. Then you try to reprieve a little pointing to architectural differences, which is one of the factors I mentioned in the last paragraph. In other words, stop using what people have been saying for the past year or so and start thinking critically. That is what is missing here.

2. Actually we do know what the HBM2 clocks will be. We know that Vega 56 had 800MHz or so, Vega 64 had 950MHz, and that the second gen HBM2 are clocked around 1250MHz, which is a significant increase in speed, meaning higher bandwidth. We also know they are using the quad stacks instead of two, meaning they are likely using dual interposers instead of single for each stack (so two stacks to one instead of one), which would allow for double that throughput, further increasing bandwidth, if I am remembering correctly from HBM timeframe (I'd like to double check on the interposers used, so that needs tested, but the speed of the HBM2 is a known, try looking it up).

Also, this isn't about Navi, this is about Vega. Stop deflecting from the conversation by injecting a variable like a new architecture.

And yes, you can extrapolate estimates from what people have gotten on performance increase by plotting out what they received from overclocking the HBM2 in increased performance relative to the frequency increase on the HBM2. Many received around 5% on a 50-150MHz overclock, IIRC. So estimating around double that, even though not perfectly linear, is not unreasonable.

3. Palm to forehead again here. You are literally ignoring the curve and not understanding that taking the power efficiency LITERALLY MEANS reducing the voltage. It also cuts the frequency that can be reached which means less performance. Hence why I reference the curve over and over again. You get one or the other, not both. If it looks like you got both, then you need to examine the other contributing factors that led to getting both, as it is NOT JUST THE PROCESS the die was made on that is causing it.

Then you bring up TSMC here which is not relevant to the curve line you just said. They are not connected quite in the way you are trying to say. In fact, this second sentence brings up other variables, like TSMC's manufacturing process and potential yields on that process, which is more related to my comment in discussing AMD increasing voltage to qualify more dies, to a degree, although there are other factors than die defect density at play here, which I am supposing you were meaning in part with your statement.

4. Once again, do you have proof of this statement, such as an article, or is it speculation. Known facts are most AMD Vega's can undervolt and reduce wattage down to around 220 without harming performance, whereas there are few in the line that this is not possible. That means that although the majority of cards would qualify with the lower voltages, the higher voltage was used to qualify more dies as passing. You then assume it is to blame on the process itself, then start throwing around statements addressed above.

Where was it published on CPU at GF and GPUs at TSMC. Don't say it, I showed you an article that did not say that. Show me an article that proves your assertion.

Also, you are an idiot on the statement on what the article meant for a shared fin pitch. Where did the article saying that say CPU production would be at TSMC also. SHOW ME THE DAMN ARTICLES because I believe you are making **** up at this point for the articles I've read on the matter.

5. You have NO ****ING POINT here bringing up Intel and dragging a third process into this. You want an explanation on process differences that can explain the extra boost, how about the cobalt layer being a major difference which then can lower voltage to a degree, thereby allowing for a higher boost frequency for the same power draw. STOP SAYING STUPID ****!

 

Wccftech strikes again!
https://wccftech.com/exclusive-amd-navi-gpu-roadmap-cost-zen/

 

This is BS. What none of these assholes realize is that the multi-die aspect of Navi is to repeat the same success of Zen by doing a multi-die design to try to increase performance and yields per wafer due to defect density while beating Nvidia to a smaller node, which then allows a low embedded type GPU to be used to scale to all parts of the market, from commercial down to the PS5. Also, notice how older articles said Navi was Koduri's baby, now there are articles saying he was upset with 2/3rds of the engineering team on Navi, and low design hours and pay, blah blah blah. This literally contradicts everything from the past year. But, yes, let's not look for the logical development of aiming for designing embedded, low power solutions and moving the zen architect to work on Navi, which directly suggests multi-die is coming, instead focus on bad journalism on rumors off the record and no analysis. That makes more sense, right?

 

Bad journalism aside, we did get prior indications towards multi-die design through use of Infinity Fabric which as you say can scale from low to high end... however, they do seem to be ignoring the multi-die design aspect, question is why?

AMD did mention in its older slides (if I remember accurately) that Navi is supposed to be scalable... so, yes, in that regard this 'rumor' doesn't make too much sense.

 

You made your point... but there's really no relevance in using profane words in getting it across.
Also, I proposed a hypothesis, not a theory... and extrapolated on previously known data based on what I understood... if my extrapolations and knowledge were wrong (which I admitted they could be) then they are wrong.
Next time, I suggest you get your point across in a different capacity as I'm hardly your enemy.

I'd make a more detailed reply, but there's no point... too exhausted from working on a new job and not having sufficient sleep in the process.

 

@ajc9988
The following is just for reference sake (not to reignite the discussion).

This is where it was published that Vega will be made on TSMC 7nm:
https://www.extremetech.com/computi...ews-amd-moves-7nm-gpu-production-back-to-tsmc

There were previous articles that mentioned Zen2 on Glofo 7nm and Vega on TSMC 7nm, but I'm having issues finding them at the moment.

Ah... here's one:
http://digiworthy.com/2018/03/10/amd-7nm-zen-2-matisse-cpus-5ghz/

Also, just as a quick reference on 14nm P spec info from GLOFO on it being suited for mobile products (not desktop ones) and higher end SOC systems:
https://www.globalfoundries.com/technology-solutions/cmos/performance/14lpp

• Cloud / Data Center servers
• CPU and GPU
• High-end mobile processors
• Automotive ADAS
• Wired and wireless networking
• IoT edge computing

For comparative purposes, here is what TSMC published on 16nm:
http://www.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/technology/16nm.htm

"Compared to TSMC's 20nm SoC process, 16/12nm is 50 % faster and consumes 60% less power at the same speed. It provides superior performance and power consumption advantage for next generation high-end mobile computing, network communication, consumer and automotive electronic applications."

 

The profanity was from frustration. I think now that you understand what I was meaning on the power curve a little bit better, you get why I was saying that the curve is the starting point, but if you are getting the benefit of the max on both (performance at a fixed power point relative to the other process and a reduction of power of a specified amount for a process which is measured at the original frequency), then there are other factors in play. This also means you can analyze further than what you read, by using other data points, such as HBM2 second gen (meaning the second generation of the second generation HBM, not redundantly saying HBM2) speeds, other differences in qualifying voltages for the dies, etc., which should give a better idea on what may be coming down the chute. You often do well and you brought up what the news often repeated, but there is also a difference from going off of journalists stories and becoming closer to an analyst to figure out what is going on, even if analysts work off of public information often coming from journalists. I do apologize, I am a crass individual and the recent uptick in temp in my daily environment may be part of it, but I also am crass.

The answer is simple, they are parroting what they are told, which is that the performance of a GTX 1080, or rather of Vega, is what Navi will have (which isn't a low end card), but that this is targeting embedded first and potentially replacing Polaris at the low end, which will be coming first. This is where WCCFtech's bad rumor mill comes in. There are only two things of note in that article (ignore the dates on which the variants will be released), which is 1) there is a Navi 14 planned (or rather three variants, which if the Navi 20 is like the Vega card, it will target commercial, not consumer), and 2) that allegedly this is the replacement to the current GCN. The first suggests that initially we will get a single die card released to the market. If they then do like TR and Epyc, and they are going multi-die, it means that the release of a multi-die would come after the initial release. The second brings up the articles about super-SIMD coming soon, which could increase performance a fair amount in and of itself, potentially, especially for compute such as doing ray tracing. Those need better sources for confirmation, but it is a start on a potential lead on what may be done. I'll address the last one on what the references said in another post in a minute. Working on another project ATM and need to check on it.

 

The days of casual overclocking are numbered
by Jeff Kampman — 4:45 AM on May 17, 2018
https://techreport.com/blog/33653/the-days-of-casual-overclocking-are-numbered

"...
AMD has long talked about improving the intelligence of its chips' on-die monitoring to lift unneccessarily coarse electrical and thermal restrictions on the dynamic-voltage-and-frequency-scaling curve of a particular piece of silicon. Its Precision Boost 2 and XFR 2 algorithms are the most advanced fruits of those efforts so far.

Put a sufficiently large liquid cooler on a Ryzen 7 2700X, for example, and that chip may boost all the way to 4 GHz under an all-core load. Even if you manage to eke out another 200 MHz or so of clock speed from such a chip in all-core workloads, you're only overclocking the chip 5% past what its own monitoring facilities allow for. That performance comes at the cost of higher voltages, higher power consumption, extra heat, and potentially dicier system stability, not to mention that the 2700X is designed to boost to 4.35 GHz on its own in single-core workloads. Giving up any of that single-core oomph hurts.

When the difference between a Ryzen 5 2600 and a Ryzen 5 2600X is just $20 today, and a Ryzen 7 2700 sells for just $30 less than its X-marked counterpart, I have to wonder whether the tweaking is really worth the time.

If one can throw $100 or so of coolant and copper at the problem to extract 95% of a chip's performance potential versus hours of poking, prodding, and testing for stability, well, I know what I'd rather be doing, to be honest.

As I get older, I have less and less free time, and if it's down to gaming or not gaming, I'm going to do the thing that lets me game more.
...
AMD, to its credit, is at least not working against casual overclockers' chances with TIM under its high-end chips' heat spreaders or by segmenting its product lines through locked and unlocked multipliers, but that regime may only last as long as large amounts of clock-speed headroom become exposed through better microarchitectures and process technology. The company's lower-end APUs already feature TIM under the heat spreader, as well, limiting overclocking potential somewhat. More capable Precision Boost and XFR algorithms may ultimately become the primary means of setting AMD CPUs apart from one another on top of the TDP differences we already come to expect.

As we run harder and harder into the limits of silicon, today's newly-competitive CPU market will require all chip makers to squeeze every drop of performance they can out of their products at the factory to set apart their high-end products and motivate upgraders. We'll likely see similar sophistication from future graphics cards, too.

Leaving hundreds of Hertz on the table doesn't make dollars or sense for chip makers, and casual overclockers likely will be left with thinner and thinner pickings to extract through manual tweaking.

If the behavior of today's cutting-edge chips is any indication, however, we'll have more time to game and create.

Perhaps the end of casual overclocking won't be entirely sad as a result."

 

As I said......

 

right... not entirely sad only for people who consider overclocking hardware a one click affair. for the ones where ocing is actually PART OF THE FUN not so much...

 

I see overclocking as a game in and of itself. It is just like tuning a car or similar hobbies. You do all this work and maintenance, then you hook up to a dyno or take it out on the track. Same thing with tweaking, then running benchmarks. You have just as much pride from OCers as gamers. You have people talk shop with each other on how to tweak windows, how to get their ram stable on OC, people learn about how voltages change functions in these chips even though they are not scientists or engineers, etc. And the interest in the area IS growing, partially with the growth of e-sports and gamers slowly realizing that if done properly, they can get more performance for their high hz displays.

Also, as more people have become financially squeezed in different ways, they want more from their products. This extends the times between buying new devices, etc.

With that said, I also can agree with leaving less performance on the table. Intel is pretty egregious with that. But, what I want to see most of all is both companies creating the tools needed so that we can increase single core clock and create our own tiering on single, double, quad, etc. so that if manually overclocking, we can get more. I often found Intel's one voltage for core, but doing steppings, to be problematic on stability. In this regard, a per core voltage that is variable between being in single vs double or quad or 8 or 16 core, etc. would be nice, with some safe guards that you cannot have the voltage further than a certain amount to make sure it doesn't give too hard a spike in voltage, etc. would be nice. I definitely understand some of the difficulties for this implementation. So, 6 of one, half dozen of another. ...

 

@ajc9988

What do you make of this:

AMD’s Navi will be a traditional monolithic GPU, not a multi-chip module

https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd-navi-monolithic-gpu-design

Granted, the author also only says that Navi is a mere successor to RX 580, but doesn't state that the performance will likely be in the range of 1080 and possibly 1080ti (or in between the two?).
The author also mentions that Navi 'probably' won't be able to go up against the upcoming 1180, and yet, Nvidia clearly said its not going to release any GPU's for a long time:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/nvidia-volta-specs-release-date-rumours-2952823
https://gizmodo.com/nvidia-ceo-says-new-gpus-wont-be-available-for-a-long-t-1826569249

So, not sure what to make of this article.
It's not exactly concise on Navi, because little (to nothing) is yet known of its performance or overall capabilities, and its possible the new director is being intentionally vague on use of Infinity Fabric in Navi (though, it could be inferred from the text that use of IF is being looked into for future GPU's).

Btw... on Vega 20 using Infinity Fabric... do you think that's still possible considering that Lisa Su already showed the chip at computex and it didn't seem to include 2 Vega dies ... but rather just 1 with 4 HBM stacks.
https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-7nm-gpu-vega-gaming,news-58593.html

 

Sorry for the delay. I typed out part of a response, but stopped because of light headedness and an earache that has sidelined me for the past couple days. I will, in addition to addressing this, address some of the other info that came out yesterday later today, conditions willing. I am also working on backing up and tweaking the bench OS I have since @TANWare brought to my attention a M$ botch that really hit my system performance. Now, it is sitting much higher and even though I won't run my full bench suite today, it will be a day of backups, install, and making sure I do not kick the performance issue on the OS. Should have better baseline numbers to compare Gen 1 TR too by the release in August! That is always a good thing when comparing generations.

Also, we may need to bring this up to GN, JayzTwoCentz, Hardware Unboxed, Tom's Hardware, etc., because if they were having an issue on scores being lower, or are not aware of it on their AMD drives for benches, it really can effect how AMD measures compared to Intel (or even Intel to AMD on certain processors effected, which include the 8700K).