Currently Online 
| thismeintiel said: Ryzen launched only a few months before the X did. No way would they have a CPU of that quality just months after it launched itself. Like you said, the cost would have been crazy. Forget $499, it would have been the PS3's $599 all over again. I'm sure it would have also taken more effort from MS, making sure that every game ran correctly on a new CPU with a different architecture. |
Ryzen was taped out long before the Xbox One X even released... CPU's take years to design, test and ratify.
Microsoft would have been able to leverage Ryzen if they so wanted as the design was well and truly done and dusted, they just didn't.
| thismeintiel said: Radeon VII, on the other hand, launches next month. That's 1 1/2 years, seeing as XB2 isn't expected until late 2020, to get costs down. I'm guessing if it did use it, it would also be a slightly parred down version of it. I could definitely see this being used in the top of the line XB2, while the PS5 gets Navi, which Sony is rumored to be having input in its development. |
I hope neither console uses Navi or Vega. - That isn't next generation graphics.
| thismeintiel said: As for Navi, I have a feeling MS may not have access to it. Sony is rumored to be working pretty closely with AMD on Navi. |
They do have access to it.
Navi is Graphics Core Next, just another iterative update to the core architecture, it's nothing revolutionary.
It is also an AMD technology, not a Sony one... All Sony will be doing is presenting AMD with design goals of what they would like out of a part... Then AMD's semi-custom division will get to work trying to meet those goals.
| thismeintiel said: I kinda doubt they would want all of their input to go into their competition's machine. I would imagine Sony is going to have console exclusivity on Navi, at least for the beginning of the gen. |
Navi is Graphics Core Next. An AMD technology, patented by AMD. - Sony doesn't really have any say in the matter.
If you think Sony is having transistor-level input on the layout of Navi, then you are highly mistaken.
| haxxiy said: I would bet anything that RX 3000 rumor is bollocks. It isn't going to nearly double 7 nm Vega in efficiency. AMD would be shouting to the market with years to spare if they had anything good; Zen was less impressive than that and that's what happened. Navi is just another GCN architecture. Thus, it's shit at this day and age. The best thing you can expect from shit is a pretty morning mushroom to sprout from it, and nothing more. Otherwise, it's just another step in RTG's staircase of disappointment. |
It won't double 7nm Vega, Navi is a replacement for Polaris not Vega. - What it will do is bring Vega 64 (14nm) to essentially a 150w TDP, Vega 7 will still be 25-40% faster.
Vega is actually efficient... At lower voltages and clockrates, AMD just decided to throw efficiency out the Window and dial everything to the max, otherwise they would risk having Vega 7 running against the Geforce 2070 rather than the 2080... And that isn't going to sit well when you have 16GB of stupidly expensive HBM memory.
Same reason why they ported the Radeon RX 480 to 12nm with the Radeon RX 590, they took the clockrate headroom when moving from 14nm to 12nm (And because they are similar processes, actually easy to do!), dialed the voltages up to get as much performance as possible without any regard to power consumption.
| shikamaru317 said: The TDP rating on the Radeon 7 is probably higher than it's actual power usage, they probably just rated it higher than it actually uses to be on the safe side and to have extra room for overclockers. I'm not buying that it has the same power consumption as Vega 64 Air Cooled when it is on the 7nm process as opposed to 12nm for Vega 64, afterall, it only has about 1.2 tflop more power than the Vega 64. Tflops are far from the best measure of real world performance, but I'm only expecting about a 30-35% improvement over Vega 64 in AMD optimized games and probably only a 15-20% improvement over Vega 64 in Nvidia optimized games, so there is just no way it has the same power consumption despite being on 7nm. |
Keep in mind they are the same GPU. Vega 7's TDP is certainly real-world and comparable to Vega 64.
Vega 7 wasn't built specifically for 7nm remember, Vega's successor will... And that means the chip layout will be better optimized for the 7nm process.
Another thing to keep in mind is that nVidia, AMD and Intel and all the other chip manufacturers actually calculate TDP differently, so none are directly comparable.
| shikamaru317 said: As for Navi, this is more than a simple refresh like RX 500 series was, Navi is to Polaris what Polaris was to Volcanic Islands. The gap in years between Polaris and Navi is actually 1 longer than the gap in years between Volcanic Islands and Polaris, and we went from 190 watt TDP on the R9 285 to 150 watt TDP on RX 480 with an increase from 3.3 tflops up to 5.2 tflops. RX 3080, or whatever the top end Navi chipset will be called might not be quite as impressive as the rumors suggest (2070/Vega 64 tier performance at 150 watt TDP for $250) but I'd bet it will have at least 2060/Vega 56 tier performance at 170 watts for $250. And that is the chipset that Sony will be using in PS5 most likely, all signs point to Navi for PS5. MS needs to offer something with the same or better performance that doesn't use so much more power that the cooling fans sound like a jet engine (*cough* PS4 Pro *cough*). |
The RX 480 wasn't much of an upgrade over the R9 390X though. But it did use significantly less power.
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1746?vs=1748
In short, the improvements that Polaris had over Volcanic Islands was pretty inconsequential on the performance front.
As for cooling... Microsoft has it's shit sorted on that front, they learned a lesson from the Xbox 360 I think... Hence why the Xbox One, Xbox One S and Xbox One X are all fairly whisper quiet and reliable.
Bofferbrauer2 said:
Different price point, certainly, targeted audiences, not so sure. Sure, they just showed only gaming benchmarks, but I wouldn't have done any different - don't want to steal the thunder of the just newly released Radeon Instinct MI50 and MI60 which are much more expensive. Titan was good for professionals and prosumers, very good even. RTX Titan both cut that down and locked it behind the driver, making it in practice a pure gaming card. You want to work with that? Buy a Quadro RTX 6000 or 8000; same chip but with drivers unlocked to actually be able to work with it. And if you need FP64, still better to get the predecessors as this gen it got radically cut down even in the Quadro line. Btw, FirePro are pure server cards by now (since 2017 and Polaris), you might have meant their workstation successors, the Radeon Pro series. |
The point I am making is that... If you showcase a brand new shiny GPU... With gaming benchmarks... Then you are marketing your GPU to gamers. It really is as simple as that...
And if your GPU doesn't measure up to the competition, then you bring ridicule and condemnation upon yourself... And you really have no one else to blame but yourself.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
