| JEMC said: The fact that Sony and MSoft have gone with UDNA doesn't really say much about it, besides the fact that it's going to be AMD's only architecture going forward, making it the only choice both console makers had, besides sticking to a, by then, old RDNA4 architecture for their machines. If you have any source that describes UDNA, to compare it to both RDNA4 and CDNA and see to which one it looks more like, I'd appreciate it. In any case, my comment wasn't about the architecture itself, but the fact that, sometimes, what sounds good on paper or simulations, doesn't translate into real world performance. We've seen it with both AMD and Nvidia in the past, with cards that should deliver more performance than they actually did based on the specs they had, but they didn't because there was an unnoticed bottleneck that hindered the overall performance. And then, there's also the node it will use. It shouldn't happen, but we may find that in such dense chips, the promised extra speed or lower consumption isn't quite there. |
The console architectures definitely have extra budget attached to them when it comes to RTG and their meager R&D. Always have had all the way back to the Xbox 360.
AMD has already released CDNA products on N3 and Nvidia seems pretty confident that they can squeeze 67% higher performance with Rubin vs. Blackwell (admitedly, very likely with increased power consumption) from the same node, so I'd wager they have a pretty good idea on whether or not they'll hit target by now in that regard.
