Tuesday, May 21st 2019

Sapphire Reps Leak Juicy Details on AMD Radeon Navi

A Sapphire product manager and PR director, speaking to the Chinese press spilled the beans on AMD's upcoming Radeon Navi graphics card lineup. It looks like with Navi, AMD is targeting the meat of the serious gamer market, at two specific price points, USD $399 with a "Pro" (cut-down) product, and $499 with an "XT" (fully-fledged) product. AMD has two NVIDIA products in its crosshairs, the GeForce RTX 2070, and the RTX 2060. In the interview, the Sapphire rep mentioned "stronger than 2070", when talking about performance numbers, which we assume is for the Navi XT variant - definitely promising. The $399 Navi "Pro" is probably being designed with a performance target somewhere between the RTX 2060 and RTX 2070, so you typically pay $50 more than you would for an RTX 2060, for noticeably higher performance.

Sapphire also confirmed that AMD's Navi does not have specialized ray-tracing hardware on the silicon, but such technology will debut with "next year's new architecture". They also suggested that AMD is unlikely to scale up Navi for the enthusiast segment, and that the Vega-based Radeon VII will continue to be the company's flagship product. On the topic of Radeon VII custom designs, Sapphire commented that "there is no plans for that". On the other hand, Sapphire is actively working on custom designs for the Navi architecture, and mentioned that "work on a "Toxic" version of Navi is complete, and it is watercooled". Many people have speculated that AMD will unveil Navi at its Computex keynote address on May 27. Sapphire confirmed that date, and also added that the launch will be on 7th of July, 2019.
Source: Zhihu (Blog)
Add your own comment

119 Comments on Sapphire Reps Leak Juicy Details on AMD Radeon Navi

#26
THANATOS
So It looks like there won't be a $330 card with RTX2070 level of performance and that leak was a fake. For me that's not surprising, but these new prices are quite high. It means Navi should perform quite well, but price/performance ratio won't be great.

Let's say the "Pro" is right in the middle between RTX2060 and RTX2070 and "XT" is 10% over RTX2070 then It would look like this:
(Performance was calculated based on Performance summary in 4K from this review: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_1650_SC_Ultra_Black/27.html)
RX 570 4GB - 52% ($130) -> 159% price/performance ratio
GTX 1060 6GB -59.5% ($200) -> 118% price/performance ratio
RX 580 8GB - 62% ($190) -> 130% price/performance ratio
RX 590 8GB - 69% ($220) -> 124% price/performance ratio
GTX 1660 6GB - 70.5% ($220) -> 127% price/performance ratio
GTX 1660Ti 6GB - 81% ($280) -> 115% price/performance ratio
Vega 56 8GB - 93% ($320) -> 115% price/performance ratio
RTX 2060 6GB - 100% ($350) -> 113% price/performance ratio
Vega 64 8GB - 103.5% ($400) -> 103% price/performance ratio
Navi "Pro" 8GB - 110.5% ($399) -> 110% price/performance ratio
RTX 2070 8GB - 121% ($480) -> 100% price/performance ratio
Navi "XT" 8GB - 133% ($499) -> 106% price/performance ratio

Turing was criticized because of Its price/performance ratio and now look at this. If the performance and price is correct then It doesn't look good for Navi. I am not sure If It's a successor to Vega or to Polaris or to both, but Polaris is much better and even Vega 56 has a bit better performance/price ratio.
Posted on Reply
#27
Vya Domus
GoldenX, post: 4051185, member: 160319"
The Linux radeonsi driver got updates, so it's still GCN for sure.
You do know GCN is nothing more than a label, right?
Posted on Reply
#28
Melvis
Sitohas Wang, post: 4051173, member: 187817"
It means it will be another underwhelming, power-hungry product again just like Radeon VII, it claimed to beat 2080 but actually beaten badly by it.
Not as much now it seems
Posted on Reply
#29
Valantar
Pretty disappointed by these prices TBH, even if I'd be happy with the performance. Given the well-established terrible value of the RTX series, I find it entirely reasonable for AMD to undercut them on price at the same performance - even with a more expensive process they have the advantage of not having mostly useless* RT cores and Tensor cores making the die twice the size it needs to be.

*For now, at least - we'll see in 2-3 years if RTRT catches on.

Vya Domus, post: 4051251, member: 169281"
You do know GCN is nothing more than a label, right?
Uhm, no. It's a core architecture, which AMD has iterated on since they abandoned the previous TeraScale architecture. There are many variants, but they share a core framework and a lot of functionality. No GCN variant is fundamentally different from any other - just improved upon, added features to, etc. That's why AMD's early GCN cards have had such excellent longevity.
Posted on Reply
#30
Vya Domus
Valantar, post: 4051253, member: 171585"
It's a core architecture, which AMD has iterated on since they abandoned the previous TeraScale architecture. There are many variants, but they share a core framework and a lot of functionality. No GCN variant is fundamentally different from any other - just improved upon, added features to, etc.
So there is a God written rule that they need to name it in a specific way ? GCN 5 is drastically different from GCN 1 in pretty much every way, they are worlds apart both in feature set and microarthitectural differences that change the clocks/power etc. It's a label that they may chose to keep using or not, it doesn't mean anything in particular if they do.
Posted on Reply
#31
Manu_PT
THANATOS, post: 4051250, member: 184835"
So It looks like there won't be a $330 card with RTX2070 level of performance and that leak was a fake. For me that's not surprising, but these new prices are quite high. It means Navi should perform quite well, but price/performance ratio won't be great.

Let's say the "Pro" is right in the middle between RTX2060 and RTX2070 and "XT" is 10% over RTX2070 then It would look like this:
(Performance was calculated based on Performance summary in 4K from this review: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_1650_SC_Ultra_Black/27.html)
RX 570 4GB - 52% ($130) -> 159% price/performance ratio
GTX 1060 6GB -59.5% ($200) -> 118% price/performance ratio
RX 580 8GB - 62% ($190) -> 130% price/performance ratio
RX 590 8GB - 69% ($220) -> 124% price/performance ratio
GTX 1660 6GB - 70.5% ($220) -> 127% price/performance ratio
GTX 1660Ti 6GB - 81% ($280) -> 115% price/performance ratio
Vega 56 8GB - 93% ($320) -> 115% price/performance ratio
RTX 2060 6GB - 100% ($350) -> 113% price/performance ratio
Vega 64 8GB - 103.5% ($400) -> 103% price/performance ratio
Navi "Pro" 8GB - 110.5% ($399) -> 110% price/performance ratio
RTX 2070 8GB - 121% ($480) -> 100% price/performance ratio
Navi "XT" 8GB - 133% ($499) -> 106% price/performance ratio

Turing was criticized because of Its price/performance ratio and now look at this. If the performance and price is correct then It doesn't look good for Navi. I am not sure If It's a successor to Vega or to Polaris or to both, but Polaris is much better and even Vega 56 has a bit better performance/price ratio.
Once again AdoredTV was wrong. How surprised I am. Also, if PS5/Xbox 2 have a RTX 2070 equivalent GPU, and retail for 400€/500€, they can be great products for the price tbh. Will be interesting to see what happens in the next 12 months.
Posted on Reply
#32
bug
Vya Domus, post: 4051255, member: 169281"
So there is a God written rule that they need to name it in a specific way ? GCN 5 is drastically different from GCN 1 in pretty much every way, they are worlds apart both in feature set and microarthitectural differences that change the clocks/power etc. It's a label that they may chose to keep using or not, it doesn't mean anything in particular if they do.
I don't know, I'm looking at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Core_Next
and I don't see those drastic differences. Little additions and resources reshuffling, yes, but nothing more.
Posted on Reply
#33
B-Real
Sitohas Wang, post: 4051173, member: 187817"
It means it will be another underwhelming, power-hungry product again just like Radeon VII, it claimed to beat 2080 but actually beaten badly by it.
Beaten badly = 7%. LOL.

https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1791/bench/2080.png

Power-hungry? Check rumours and check real power consumption of Vega. Green fanboy.
Posted on Reply
#34
THANATOS
Manu_PT, post: 4051256, member: 168799"
Once again AdoredTV was wrong. How surprised I am. Also, if PS5/Xbox 2 have a RTX 2070 equivalent GPU, and retail for 400€/500€, they can be great products for the price tbh. Will be interesting to see what happens in the next 12 months.
They would be fantastic for that price, but let's be honest, that price is too low for the leaked specs(8C, 16-24GB Ram, SSD, ~Vega 64 performance).
Posted on Reply
#35
Countryside
It's important that AMD won't screw up the launch like they did with VII
Posted on Reply
#36
HwGeek
Why should AMD care about RTX 2080Ti competitor? it's not economical for resource limited company like AMD who needs to fight 2 giant like Intel and Nvidia.
They have the Gaming Consoles, Game Streaming (MS/Google), and will try to catch as much market possible with APU's for low end graphic and up until Vega64 performance level with competitive Navi cards, isn't it most of the market?
Posted on Reply
#37
Joss
Sapphire is actively working on custom designs for the Navi architecture, and mentioned that "work on a "Toxic" version of Navi is complete, and it is watercooled"
This doesn't bode well.
Sapphire usually has excellent air cooling solutions, their tri-fan cards are legendary.
If they need to water cool it may mean out of control power consumption.
Posted on Reply
#38
THANATOS
B-Real, post: 4051259, member: 170068"
Power-hungry? Check rumours and check real power consumption of Vega. Green fanboy.
I checked the real numbers of power consumption and compared to RTX2080 It's slower and It consumes 69W more while It's manufactured using the newest 7nm process and It uses the more efficient HBM2.
https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1789/bench/Power.png
So why can't It be called as power hungry?
Posted on Reply
#39
Vayra86
kings, post: 4051242, member: 180022"
If true, it will be interesting to see what the people of "a mainstream card should not cost more than $250" will have to say...
Same as before, they will just sit on it for another X period of time. History repeats. If there's nothing suitable to upgrade to, you simply don't upgrade. For GPU, relative price/perf is always an item, because really that's all there is.

B-Real, post: 4051259, member: 170068"
Beaten badly = 7%. LOL.

https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1791/bench/2080.png

Power-hungry? Check rumours and check real power consumption of Vega. Green fanboy.
Yes its underwhelming. There is no new price point, no new performance metric, no RT development and its practically the same arch on a shrink. And it still has lower perf/watt than its competitor that is on a larger node. Its just further postponing the inevitable really while leaving the playing field mostly to Nvidia.

Check rumours... :slap: that's all we ever do isn't it, until the product is released and most of it gets confirmed.
Posted on Reply
#40
ppn
Radeon vii is barely any faster than 2070. Navi will be on par with 1660Ti on 7nm or 2660ti performance wise. And 2x power.
Posted on Reply
#41
Vya Domus
Joss, post: 4051277, member: 152251"
If they need to water cool it may mean out of control power consumption.
GTX 1070 had watercooled versions didn't it ? And it was what, 150W ?
Posted on Reply
#43
Joss
Vya Domus, post: 4051286, member: 169281"
GTX 1070 had watercooled versions didn't it ? And it was what, 150W ?
Read my post fully.
Sapphire has no tradition in WC cards; their forte is triple fans.
They may have chosen to go water, or they may have been forced to.
Posted on Reply
#44
IceShroom
Sitohas Wang, post: 4051173, member: 187817"
It means it will be another underwhelming, power-hungry product again just like Radeon VII, it claimed to beat 2080 but actually beaten badly by it.
Are you talking about Nvidia's current generation. Cause most of current Nvidia cards have 3 Fans. 3 Slot wide cooler and some has AIO watercooling and some even has custom water block to cool them. If Nvidia cards runs cooler, is there any need of 3fan ,3 slot and water cooling? :confused::confused::confused:
Or they dont run cool?
Posted on Reply
#45
HwGeek
Maybe they went WC since this 7nm is very dense and WC is very beneficial as seen on Radeon VII and it makes more sense rather current GPU's that can already OC great with just air-cooling? (NV cards boost no problem over 2000Mhz).
Posted on Reply
#46
Zubasa
Joss, post: 4051288, member: 152251"
Read my post fully.
Sapphire has no tradition in WC cards; their forte is triple fans.
They may have chosen to go water, or they may have been forced to.
Sapphire had many Atomic cards that were AIO cooled, it is only after Fiji that they stop making them.
Posted on Reply
#47
Joss
Zubasa, post: 4051293, member: 30988"
Sapphire had many Atomic cards that were AIO cooled
If memory doesn't fail me those were mostly X2 cards, double GPU.
Please don't misread me, I'm not being fanboish, I'm just calling attention for a detail that may be significant.
Posted on Reply
#48
Vya Domus
Joss, post: 4051288, member: 152251"
Read my post fully.
Sapphire has no tradition in WC cards; their forte is triple fans.
They may have chosen to go water, or they may have been forced to.
Watercooled does not mean power consumption out of control. That's all I have to say.
Posted on Reply
#49
bug
Vya Domus, post: 4051304, member: 169281"
Watercooled does not mean power consumption out of control. That's all I have to say.
More like, that's what you need to believe.
Because surely you have noticed there's a dearth of water cooled RX 560 or GTX 1030 cards.
Posted on Reply
#50
Vayra86
Aren't you all correct here about AIOs?

Yes, its possible to air cool 300W just fine on a PCIe slot form factor.
Yes, WC might do it with less surface area and with a lower maximum temp under load, at a higher build cost and higher failrate.

The reason you see WC on a 1070 was because AIOs are all the rage for some and the midrange can be sold at premium. They sell. The reason you saw it on the Fury X was because AMD considered it the best option given the tradeoff to an air cooler (bulky/weight wise, even despite the higher cost) - so that dóes indicate that WC was related to high power consumption. Then, with Radeon VII they showed us that they can do the air option just fine as well with a large triplefan setup- and its likely cost played a major role here because the margin on that card isn't great.

The reason we don't see WC on low-end is because there is no way you will sell budget cards at premium price.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment