Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [KG/TT] AMD also rumored to be using GDDR5x on new 14nm GPUs (Updated)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[KG/TT] AMD also rumored to be using GDDR5x on new 14nm GPUs (Updated) - Page 4

post #31 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by zealord View Post

Yeah they could be great cards for 499$ to go Crossfire. In that regard they really shine. The scaling is great.

But AMD can't go to 499$ because the cards are too expensive for them and the supply is limited anyways. (Well in Europe they are in stock everywhere basically).

What's funny is the I don't think HBM helps the cards at all, so if they had went with GDDR5 they could have been priced at $499 or less and really given Nvidia a run for the money based on price.

What's funny too is that the phenomenal Nano is not selling well and looks like some are getting a price reduction already here in the states.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131679&cm_re=Fury_nano-_-14-131-679-_-Product

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202162&cm_re=Fury_nano-_-14-202-162-_-Product
Super P's rig
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5960x ASUS X99-A II Asus GTX 1080 Ti Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
MyDigitalSSD BPX NVMe Samsung 850 EVO Seagate Momentus XT 500 GB External DVDRW 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
EK-XLC Predator 240 Swiftech 240mm Radiator Windows 10 Samsung 40" 4K - UN40KU6290 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G710+ EVGA SuperNOVA 850G2 Fractal Design Define S G700s 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Vipamz Extended XXXL Asus U7 M-Audio AV40 Sennheiser HD 439 
  hide details  
Reply
Super P's rig
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5960x ASUS X99-A II Asus GTX 1080 Ti Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
MyDigitalSSD BPX NVMe Samsung 850 EVO Seagate Momentus XT 500 GB External DVDRW 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
EK-XLC Predator 240 Swiftech 240mm Radiator Windows 10 Samsung 40" 4K - UN40KU6290 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G710+ EVGA SuperNOVA 850G2 Fractal Design Define S G700s 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Vipamz Extended XXXL Asus U7 M-Audio AV40 Sennheiser HD 439 
  hide details  
Reply
post #32 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by criminal View Post

What's funny is the I don't think HBM helps the cards at all, so if they had went with GDDR5 they could have been priced at $499 or less and really given Nvidia a run for the money based on price.

What's funny too is that the phenomenal Nano is not selling well and looks like some are getting a price reduction already here in the states.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131679&cm_re=Fury_nano-_-14-131-679-_-Product

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202162&cm_re=Fury_nano-_-14-202-162-_-Product

this.

afaik all hbm did was make the furys small and gave us a new metric size/performance. oh and limit overclocking on memory.

shame that amd won't make a fury with gddr5.

could have been something.
Gaming Rig
(15 items)
 
Sons Rig
(11 items)
 
File Server
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD Ryzen 1700x ASUS Prime X370 Pro Gigabyte GeForce GTX 980 Gigabyte GeForce GTX 980 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
16gb's Team Select 3200Mhz RGB  Crucial M500 SSD 240gb Corsair H55 Windows 7 Ultimate 
MonitorMonitorPowerCase
ASUS PB287Q 4K Monitor HTC Vive Coolermaster Silent Pro M 1000W Rosewill Blackhawk Ultra 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Deathadder 2013 Steelseries Qck Mass Super Thick Cloth Mouse Pad Genius SW-G2.1 1250 4PC Gaming Speakers 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Core i7 3770k Asus P8Z68 Deluxe Galaxy Geforce GTX 780 Galaxy Geforce GTX 780 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
16 Gb's G.Skill DDR3 1866 Crucial M500 SSD 240Gb Coolit ECO C240 Windows 7 Ultimate 
MonitorPowerCase
Benq G2420HD Coolermaster Silent Pro 1000 Watt Deepcool Kendomen 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i3 2120 Supermicro X9SCM-F 4 Gb Kingston 1600mhz DDR3 ECC 12 Segate 2tb drives (RAID 6) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSPower
ADATA SP600 SSD 24 Toshiba DT01ACA200 drives (2 RAID 6's) Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit. OCZ ZT750 Supermicro PWS-665-PQ 
CaseOtherOtherOther
Norco 4020 and Norco 4224 LSI 9260-4i Raid Card Intel RES2SV240 20 port Expander. HP SAS 24 por... Voltaire 410Ex Hca Infiniband HBA 
  hide details  
Reply
Gaming Rig
(15 items)
 
Sons Rig
(11 items)
 
File Server
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD Ryzen 1700x ASUS Prime X370 Pro Gigabyte GeForce GTX 980 Gigabyte GeForce GTX 980 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
16gb's Team Select 3200Mhz RGB  Crucial M500 SSD 240gb Corsair H55 Windows 7 Ultimate 
MonitorMonitorPowerCase
ASUS PB287Q 4K Monitor HTC Vive Coolermaster Silent Pro M 1000W Rosewill Blackhawk Ultra 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Deathadder 2013 Steelseries Qck Mass Super Thick Cloth Mouse Pad Genius SW-G2.1 1250 4PC Gaming Speakers 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Core i7 3770k Asus P8Z68 Deluxe Galaxy Geforce GTX 780 Galaxy Geforce GTX 780 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
16 Gb's G.Skill DDR3 1866 Crucial M500 SSD 240Gb Coolit ECO C240 Windows 7 Ultimate 
MonitorPowerCase
Benq G2420HD Coolermaster Silent Pro 1000 Watt Deepcool Kendomen 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i3 2120 Supermicro X9SCM-F 4 Gb Kingston 1600mhz DDR3 ECC 12 Segate 2tb drives (RAID 6) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSPower
ADATA SP600 SSD 24 Toshiba DT01ACA200 drives (2 RAID 6's) Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit. OCZ ZT750 Supermicro PWS-665-PQ 
CaseOtherOtherOther
Norco 4020 and Norco 4224 LSI 9260-4i Raid Card Intel RES2SV240 20 port Expander. HP SAS 24 por... Voltaire 410Ex Hca Infiniband HBA 
  hide details  
Reply
post #33 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by criminal View Post

What's funny is the I don't think HBM helps the cards at all, so if they had went with GDDR5 they could have been priced at $499 or less and really given Nvidia a run for the money based on price.

What's funny too is that the phenomenal Nano is not selling well and looks like some are getting a price reduction already here in the states.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131679&cm_re=Fury_nano-_-14-131-679-_-Product

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202162&cm_re=Fury_nano-_-14-202-162-_-Product


Someone on this forum told me that HBM is essential for this card. The way it was designed was with HBM in mind so the card wouldn't work with GDDR5. It has something to do with the power. With GDDR5 the card would use like 350W or something.

Sorry can't remember the details, but it was something along the lines.
current rig
(4 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsGraphicsKeyboard
2500k R9 290X Tri-X GTX 680 Filco Majestouch 2 Brown Ninja 
  hide details  
Reply
current rig
(4 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsGraphicsKeyboard
2500k R9 290X Tri-X GTX 680 Filco Majestouch 2 Brown Ninja 
  hide details  
Reply
post #34 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocknut View Post

Micron's GDDR5x killed HBM2 adoption rate. biggrin.gif

Pretty much. Unless HBM falls down in price and availability is a non issue, I can see GDDR5X being a primary choice for Nvidia (and maybe AMD).

GDDR5X offer twice the bandwidth of GDDR5.
384bit cards can do 660GB/s which is faster than HBM1 at 512GB/s. 512bit cards can do around 800GB/s which is not far from HBM2 at 1024GB/s. No upcoming card with require more bandwidth than HBM1 anyway, so there goes that advantage.

Then add the fact that HBM only draw 20-25W less than GDDR5. GDDR5 runs on 1.5V while GDDR5X runs on 1.35V, so HBM advantage over GDDR5X is probably 10W or something, which makes the energy savings on HBM moot.
post #35 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

Pretty much. Unless HBM falls down in price and availability is a non issue, I can see GDDR5X being a primary choice for Nvidia (and maybe AMD).

GDDR5X offer twice the bandwidth of GDDR5.
384bit cards can do 660GB/s which is faster than HBM1 at 512GB/s. 512bit cards can do around 800GB/s which is not far from HBM2 at 1024GB/s. No upcoming card with require more bandwidth than HBM1 anyway, so there goes that advantage.

Then add the fact that HBM only draw 20-25W less than GDDR5. GDDR5 runs on 1.5V while GDDR5X runs on 1.35V, so HBM advantage over GDDR5X is probably 10W or something, which makes the energy savings on HBM moot.

For GDDR5 to scale up to 660 GB/s, you would be burning through the pcb at 144 watts.
The Machine
(14 items)
 
Nexus 7 2013
(11 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10 6800K Asus F2A85-V MSI 6870 Hawx, VTX3D 5770, AMD HD6950(RIP), Sap... G.skill Ripjaws PC12800 6-8-6-24 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Seagate 7200.5 1TB NEC 3540 Dvd-Rom Windows 7 x32 Ultimate Samsung P2350 23" 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Seasonic s12-600w CoolerMaster Centurion 5 Logitech G600 Auzen X-Fi Raider 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Quad Krait 300 at 1.5Ghz Qualcomm APQ8064-1AA SOC Adreno 320 at 400mhz 2GB DDR3L-1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
32GB Internal NAND Android 5.0 7" 1920X1200 103% sRGB & 572 cd/m2 LTPS IPS Microsoft Wedge Mobile Keyboard 
PowerAudio
3950mAh/15.01mAh Battery Stereo Speakers 
  hide details  
Reply
The Machine
(14 items)
 
Nexus 7 2013
(11 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10 6800K Asus F2A85-V MSI 6870 Hawx, VTX3D 5770, AMD HD6950(RIP), Sap... G.skill Ripjaws PC12800 6-8-6-24 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Seagate 7200.5 1TB NEC 3540 Dvd-Rom Windows 7 x32 Ultimate Samsung P2350 23" 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Seasonic s12-600w CoolerMaster Centurion 5 Logitech G600 Auzen X-Fi Raider 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Quad Krait 300 at 1.5Ghz Qualcomm APQ8064-1AA SOC Adreno 320 at 400mhz 2GB DDR3L-1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
32GB Internal NAND Android 5.0 7" 1920X1200 103% sRGB & 572 cd/m2 LTPS IPS Microsoft Wedge Mobile Keyboard 
PowerAudio
3950mAh/15.01mAh Battery Stereo Speakers 
  hide details  
Reply
post #36 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

Pretty much. Unless HBM falls down in price and availability is a non issue, I can see GDDR5X being a primary choice for Nvidia (and maybe AMD).

GDDR5X offer twice the bandwidth of GDDR5.
384bit cards can do 660GB/s which is faster than HBM1 at 512GB/s. 512bit cards can do around 800GB/s which is not far from HBM2 at 1024GB/s. No upcoming card with require more bandwidth than HBM1 anyway, so there goes that advantage.

Then add the fact that HBM only draw 20-25W less than GDDR5. GDDR5 runs on 1.5V while GDDR5X runs on 1.35V, so HBM advantage over GDDR5X is probably 10W or something, which makes the energy savings on HBM moot.

This reminds me of the HDDVD vs BluRay debate a little. I guess we'll see who wins.
Big Timmah
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 5 1600 Asrock x370 Killer SLI/AC Sapphire Radeon Nitro Fury CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 16GB 3200mhz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
PNY 480GB SSD PH-TC12DX Black Windows 10 Pro LG 29inch Ultrawide 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair K70 Thermaltake SMART M Series 850W NZXT S340 White Steel ATX Mid Tower Case Wireless Logitech thing 
Mouse Pad
With a supple pad  
  hide details  
Reply
Big Timmah
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 5 1600 Asrock x370 Killer SLI/AC Sapphire Radeon Nitro Fury CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 16GB 3200mhz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
PNY 480GB SSD PH-TC12DX Black Windows 10 Pro LG 29inch Ultrawide 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair K70 Thermaltake SMART M Series 850W NZXT S340 White Steel ATX Mid Tower Case Wireless Logitech thing 
Mouse Pad
With a supple pad  
  hide details  
Reply
post #37 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by criminal View Post

What's funny is the I don't think HBM helps the cards at all, so if they had went with GDDR5 they could have been priced at $499 or less and really given Nvidia a run for the money based on price.

They wouldn't have had the power headroom to put as many shaders or run it as high-clocked if they had to use GDDR5, plus the extra die space they would have had to allocate to the memory controller. It would have been a less powerful card without HBM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

Then add the fact that HBM only draw 20-25W less than GDDR5. GDDR5 runs on 1.5V while GDDR5X runs on 1.35V, so HBM advantage over GDDR5X is probably 10W or something, which makes the energy savings on HBM moot.

You have to account for the memory controller power and resistance losses (due to the trace lengths) as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robenger View Post

This reminds me of the HDDVD vs BluRay debate a little. I guess we'll see who wins.

HBM (or a close derivative) is definitely going to win over time.
Edited by Forceman - 10/29/15 at 9:56am
post #38 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

Pretty much. Unless HBM falls down in price and availability is a non issue, I can see GDDR5X being a primary choice for Nvidia (and maybe AMD).

GDDR5X offer twice the bandwidth of GDDR5.
384bit cards can do 660GB/s which is faster than HBM1 at 512GB/s. 512bit cards can do around 800GB/s which is not far from HBM2 at 1024GB/s. No upcoming card with require more bandwidth than HBM1 anyway, so there goes that advantage.

Then add the fact that HBM only draw 20-25W less than GDDR5. GDDR5 runs on 1.5V while GDDR5X runs on 1.35V, so HBM advantage over GDDR5X is probably 10W or something, which makes the energy savings on HBM moot.

Power consumption is proportional to both frequency and voltage. If you don't change the voltage and double the frequency, then power consumption is doubled. It increases with the square of the voltage IIRC, so we can compare:

(1.35V / 1.5V)2 * (12GHz / 7GHz) * (100%) = 139%

Now, based on how GDDR5 works, it isn't actually running at 7GHz, but rather a fourth that at 1750MHz. It's quad-pumped, allowing it to perform four operations per cycle. That doesn't really matter though, since we're just looking for a ratio and the effective memory speeds work as well. We could take πe times the effective bandwidths and it would work out the same.

What this tells us is that GDDR5X will require 40% more energy than GDDR5. I'm not familiar with the actual power consumptions of GDDR5 and HBM however, so it's difficult to tell by how much this amplifies HBM's relative efficiency. I'd guesstimate that this puts HBM at a 40+/-5W advantage over GDDR5X though, assuming your numbers are true.

Also lol at the bolded. Technically yes, they won't need additional bandwidth. But it certainly helps. It pushes the tech forward and it allows for much higher resolutions than previously possible. I mean, AMD went from the 384-bit @ 5.5GHz effective 7970 to the 4096-bit @ 1GHz effective Fury X in just two generations, doubling the memory bandwidth. Nvidia has gone from the 256-bit @ 6GHz effective 680 to the 384-bit @ 7GHz effective Titan X in two generations as well, with a smaller but still respectable 70% increase.
Triumvirate
(20 items)
 
Osmium
(8 items)
 
For Sale: [FS] Z97 system: Xeon and RAM
$160 (USD) or best offer
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7-5775C ASUS Sabertooth Z97 Mark 2 Sapphire RX 480 (reference) MSI Low-Profile 750Ti 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Corsair Dominator Platinum - 2x8GB Crucial M500 - 960GB Samsung 840 - 250GB WD Scorpio Blue - 1TB 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingOS
ADATA SP900 - 64GB Scythe BIG Shuriken 2 Rev. B PNY Quadro 600 blower Windows 10 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
ASUS VE247H - 1080p Gateway FPD1960 - 1280x1024 Samsung S20D300 - 900p, portrait Rosewill RK9000I - Cherry MX Blue 
PowerCaseMouseOther
Rosewill HIVE 650W Riotoro CR1080 SteelSeries Rival 100 CyberPower 1500PFCLCD 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD A10-7870K ASRock FM2A88X-ITX+ G.Skill Ripjaws X - 2x4GB @ 2400MT/s Samsung 840 120GB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Evercool EC-HPS-810CP Windows 7 Pro 64-bit PicoPSU-120-WI-25 Mini-Box M350 
  hide details  
Reply
Triumvirate
(20 items)
 
Osmium
(8 items)
 
For Sale: [FS] Z97 system: Xeon and RAM
$160 (USD) or best offer
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7-5775C ASUS Sabertooth Z97 Mark 2 Sapphire RX 480 (reference) MSI Low-Profile 750Ti 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Corsair Dominator Platinum - 2x8GB Crucial M500 - 960GB Samsung 840 - 250GB WD Scorpio Blue - 1TB 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingOS
ADATA SP900 - 64GB Scythe BIG Shuriken 2 Rev. B PNY Quadro 600 blower Windows 10 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
ASUS VE247H - 1080p Gateway FPD1960 - 1280x1024 Samsung S20D300 - 900p, portrait Rosewill RK9000I - Cherry MX Blue 
PowerCaseMouseOther
Rosewill HIVE 650W Riotoro CR1080 SteelSeries Rival 100 CyberPower 1500PFCLCD 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD A10-7870K ASRock FM2A88X-ITX+ G.Skill Ripjaws X - 2x4GB @ 2400MT/s Samsung 840 120GB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Evercool EC-HPS-810CP Windows 7 Pro 64-bit PicoPSU-120-WI-25 Mini-Box M350 
  hide details  
Reply
post #39 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcn77 View Post


For GDDR5 to scale up to 660 GB/s, you would be burning through the pcb at 144 watts.

Here from Anandtech.
Quote:
By AMD’s own metrics, HBM delivers better than 3x the bandwidth per watt of GDDR5 thanks to the simpler bus and lower operating voltage of 1.3v. Given that AMD opted to spend some of their gains on increasing memory bandwidth as opposed to just power savings, the final power savings aren’t 3X, but by AMD’s estimates the amount of power they’re spending on HBM is around 15-20W, which has saved R9 Fury X around 20-30W of power relative to R9 290X. These are savings that AMD can simply keep, or as in the case of R9 Fury X, spend some of them on giving the card more power headroom for higher performance.
post #40 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

Here from Anandtech.
I referenced TSMC. I think they need to hire some editors to replace their engineers.
The Machine
(14 items)
 
Nexus 7 2013
(11 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10 6800K Asus F2A85-V MSI 6870 Hawx, VTX3D 5770, AMD HD6950(RIP), Sap... G.skill Ripjaws PC12800 6-8-6-24 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Seagate 7200.5 1TB NEC 3540 Dvd-Rom Windows 7 x32 Ultimate Samsung P2350 23" 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Seasonic s12-600w CoolerMaster Centurion 5 Logitech G600 Auzen X-Fi Raider 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Quad Krait 300 at 1.5Ghz Qualcomm APQ8064-1AA SOC Adreno 320 at 400mhz 2GB DDR3L-1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
32GB Internal NAND Android 5.0 7" 1920X1200 103% sRGB & 572 cd/m2 LTPS IPS Microsoft Wedge Mobile Keyboard 
PowerAudio
3950mAh/15.01mAh Battery Stereo Speakers 
  hide details  
Reply
The Machine
(14 items)
 
Nexus 7 2013
(11 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10 6800K Asus F2A85-V MSI 6870 Hawx, VTX3D 5770, AMD HD6950(RIP), Sap... G.skill Ripjaws PC12800 6-8-6-24 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Seagate 7200.5 1TB NEC 3540 Dvd-Rom Windows 7 x32 Ultimate Samsung P2350 23" 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Seasonic s12-600w CoolerMaster Centurion 5 Logitech G600 Auzen X-Fi Raider 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Quad Krait 300 at 1.5Ghz Qualcomm APQ8064-1AA SOC Adreno 320 at 400mhz 2GB DDR3L-1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
32GB Internal NAND Android 5.0 7" 1920X1200 103% sRGB & 572 cd/m2 LTPS IPS Microsoft Wedge Mobile Keyboard 
PowerAudio
3950mAh/15.01mAh Battery Stereo Speakers 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [KG/TT] AMD also rumored to be using GDDR5x on new 14nm GPUs (Updated)