Wednesday, October 21st 2020
AMD Radeon RX 6000 Series Specs Leak: RX 6900 XT, RX 6800 XT, RX 6700 Series
AMD's Radeon RX 6000 series graphics cards, based on the RDNA2 graphics architecture, will see the introduction of the company's first DirectX 12 Ultimate graphics cards (featuring features such as real-time raytracing). A VideoCardz report sheds light on the specifications. The 7 nm "Navi 21" and "Navi 22" chips will power the top-end of the lineup. The flagship part is the Radeon RX 6900 XT, followed by the RX 6800 XT and RX 6800; which are all based on the "Navi 21." These are followed by the RX 6700 XT and RX 6700, which are based on the "Navi 22" silicon.
The "Navi 21" silicon physically features 80 RDNA2 compute units, working out to 5,120 stream processors. The RX 6900 XT maxes the chip out, enabling all 80 CUs, and is internally referred to as the "Navi 21 XTX." Besides these, the RX 6900 XT features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory across a 256-bit wide memory interface, and engine clocks boosting beyond 2.30 GHz. The next SKU in AMD's product stack is the RX 6800 XT (Navi 21 XT), featuring 72 out of 80 CUs, working out to 4,608 stream processors, the same 16 GB 256-bit GDDR6 memory configuration as the flagship, while its engine clocks go up to 2.25 GHz.
A notch below the RX 6800 XT is the RX 6800 (Navi 21 XL), which cuts down the "Navi 21" further, giving it 64 compute units or 4,096 stream processors; the very same 16 GB of 256-bit GDDR6 memory interface, and up to 2.15 GHz engine clocks. The RX 6900 XT, along with the RX 6800 series, will be announced in the October 28 presser.
The next chip AMD is designing is the 7 nm "Navi 22" silicon, which features 40 compute units. On paper, this count looks similar to that of the "Navi 10," and it remains to be seen if this is a re-badge or a new silicon based on RDNA2. The RX 6700 XT maxes this chip out, featuring 40 CUs or 2,560 stream processors; while the RX 6700 features fewer CUs (possibly 36). The interesting thing about these two is their memory configuration—12 GB of 192-bit GDDR6.
Source:
VideoCardz
The "Navi 21" silicon physically features 80 RDNA2 compute units, working out to 5,120 stream processors. The RX 6900 XT maxes the chip out, enabling all 80 CUs, and is internally referred to as the "Navi 21 XTX." Besides these, the RX 6900 XT features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory across a 256-bit wide memory interface, and engine clocks boosting beyond 2.30 GHz. The next SKU in AMD's product stack is the RX 6800 XT (Navi 21 XT), featuring 72 out of 80 CUs, working out to 4,608 stream processors, the same 16 GB 256-bit GDDR6 memory configuration as the flagship, while its engine clocks go up to 2.25 GHz.
The next chip AMD is designing is the 7 nm "Navi 22" silicon, which features 40 compute units. On paper, this count looks similar to that of the "Navi 10," and it remains to be seen if this is a re-badge or a new silicon based on RDNA2. The RX 6700 XT maxes this chip out, featuring 40 CUs or 2,560 stream processors; while the RX 6700 features fewer CUs (possibly 36). The interesting thing about these two is their memory configuration—12 GB of 192-bit GDDR6.
191 Comments on AMD Radeon RX 6000 Series Specs Leak: RX 6900 XT, RX 6800 XT, RX 6700 Series
Reality check, Nvidia probably didn't plan to use GA102 for the 3080 but rather a fully enabled GA104 like they always did which could have made room for a 3080ti. For some unknown reason (let's leave it at that for the time being) they decided GA104 wasn't enough so the whole stack got pushed up. There is no room for "ti" variants, or at least not for any that would matter. There is potential room for a 3070ti but that's because they disabled more SMs than usual, the 3070 was meant to be the 3080 and 3090 the Titan.
Now you're down to semantics. You can certainly call it a supply issue when demand is significantly higher than the supply, as long as you don't mislead people into thinking there are production or shipment issues (which are different kinds supply issues), which several earlier posts have alluded to.
Where they screwed the pooch I think was going with Samsung 8nm. Its just an extension of their 10nm which wasn't very good anyways.
Samsung yields are shit and GDDR6X is in short supply too.
With reports that Nvidia will be switching to TSMC 7nm for possible Super variants of the cards I think things will turn around for Ampere.
10GB of vram is fine. GDDR6X too and a lot more bandwidth.
Having said all that, my new build early next year with a 5800x, will probably also get a 6900XT.
1) Demand is too high
2) Supply is terribly bad
One needs hell of a green reality distortion field not to notice #2 (not even pre-orders are accepted)
From what I understand, GDDR6X is in very short supply. Only Micron is making it right now. Also Samsung 8nm (10nm+) yields are pretty bad.
Or Nvidia is purposefully reducing the supply. If thats the case, itll just hurt Nvidia in the end since most people will just buy these new AMD cards if the performance is there.
It is GDDR6x and not that oversized GA102 chip that is the reason.
Surely, $699 for a GPU 20-30% aster than $1200 card is nothing unusual either, totally expected and there are no reasons to see that something doesn't quite add up here.
Demand for new cards this year seems way way higher than previously and I'm not entirely sure why.
They didnt expect people to buy that extremely well priced extremely fast card? Who calculates expected demands over there? First year business school students? No, they made promises which they knew they wouldnt be able to keep.
Of course there are production issues, how could you deny that?
It's not importent if its Samsungs or Microns fault that there are almost no cards available. Nvidia wasnt ready to launch and they did anywasy. I really hope AMD sells a shitload of cards while Nvidia still cannot deliver for months!
6900 XT = 5% slower than 3090, $650 16GB RAM
6800 XT = 5% slower than 3080, 5% slower than 6900XT $450 16 GB RAM
6800 = 10~15% faster than 3070, 5% slower than 6800 XT $400 16 GB RAM
6700 = 10 % faster than 3060 TI, 10% slower than 3070 $325 12 GB RAM
AMD wins at price/performance at every tier. Not to mention 99% games optimized for consoles on AMD hardware.
Best Card for price/performance = 6800 vanilla
It's not a matter of wanting to produce chips, the limit is wafer capacity in the foundries. You can be sure Nvidia ordered as much as they could. If you want to blame someone, blame Samsung who didn't make the factory larger when they planned it >5 years ago.Logic fail.
Waiting wouldn't have increased the total number of cards shipped to date.I certainly do hope AMD makes good cards, and for once make decent volumes. AMD cards have been in much shorter supply than Nvidia cards in the past five years, and very little of that can be blamed on miners.
1. Ampere was not ready for September, but just wanted to create hype before RNDA2
2. nVidia will supply the market when they are ready for the 20GB models of 1000+$, and that was the goal from start. After the prices of RDNA2 of course.
Good supply but great demand...!!! I'm laughing...
nVidia did not fail...
Just didnt want to sell a 700$ MSRP flagship GPU...
I just clicked on your name and read the last coupe of posts you wrote. Our little chat ends right here, as i don't really see you as someone who discusses. You are someone who is just always right and I can't compete with that. And I really share none of the opinions I read you have.
Don't get me wrong, caching works, it improves performance. But it's different from bandwidth. I mean, look at Intel's CPUs. Those have had pretty smart caches (three levels of them) that do a pretty good job. But they still only hide latency, they're not a substitute for bandwidth.
Of course, GPU usage patterns are "a little" different, but I hope you get the idea.