• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Discussion RDNA 5 / UDNA (CDNA Next) speculation

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
soresu said:
No, I mean how is it a shader when it isn't shading anything anymore?
Click to expand...
Shading in the current day and era means doing generic IEEE SPFP math, so yeah.
Fundamentally, you don't need fixed-function h/w to do graphics, but it's gonna be slow without some of it.
 
adroc_thurston said:
Shading in the current day and era means doing generic IEEE SPFP math, so yeah.
Click to expand...
I can see that you lack experience outside of the IT industry specifically so I will rain on your parade.

Shading has always been a gfx term that applies generally across all graphics work, either drawn by hand or rasterised by computer.

That's why they called them shader cores or shaders in the first place.
 
soresu said:
Shading has always been a gfx term that applies generally across all graphics work, either drawn by hand or rasterised by computer.

That's why they called them shader cores or shaders in the first place.
Click to expand...
Well no, because shading became a pile of IEEE SPFP math a while ago.
Like what does this make compute shader?
 
I'd say it's fundamentally been that way since unified shaders were introduced. Ever since then the GPU cores have become more generalized with graphics just being one of many workloads the cards can accelerate.

Modern games do a lot of things that previous generations of engines didn't because a GPU is a lot more flexible. Anything that needs a lot of floating point calculations (or even small integer ones these days) is going to run well on a GPU.
 
Looking at RDNA3 32CU vs RDNA4 32CU in RT massive perf gain.
I'm assume RDNA5 will get, also big improvement especially, if they add Traversal Engine(currently in patent)
 
SolidQ said:
Looking at RDNA3 32CU vs RDNA4 32CU in RT massive perf gain.
I'm assume RDNA5 will get, also big improvement especially, if they add Traversal Engine(currently in patent)
Click to expand...
Regardless of HW we will see the most RT perf gains overall in SW from PS5 to PS6 generation based on what I have been seeing from various academic sources over the last few years.

I hope AMD/Blender hurry up and tune Cycles + HIP RT for RDNA4, because the results thus far in Blender 4.4 do not show even close to the same gains seen in RT gaming.
 
poke01 said:
Is HIP even a good framework?
Click to expand...
It's too early too tell.

You can't compare a fairly mature code base like OptiX against HIP RT.

The nu HIP/ROCm 7.0 changes are likely to bring a major version change for HIP RT too, so we'll see if that comes with any new features or perf uplifts.

Either way there isn't really any alternative that gives hw agnostic RT acceleration outside of Vulkan, which really isn't designed to build a full fledged offline RT/PT GPU renderer backend for Cycles on top of it.
 
adroc_thurston said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1933230605392863551
there it is.
yeah, it's 12 stacks of HBM4.
Click to expand...
Report by Ryan AT

marees said:
CDNA4 also brings native support for FP6 and FP4 data types to AMD’s accelerators for the first time. One of the marquee features of rival NVIDIA’s Blackwell architecture, FP6 and FP4 have become a new target for AI inference, as developers look to wring every TOP/FLOP of performance from these expensive and power-hungry GPUs. And, aiming to one-up NVIDIA at their own game here, AMD has even beefed up FP6 performance on their architecture so that it processes at twice the rate of FP8, unlike NVIDIA’s architecture where it processes at the same rate as FP8. AMD in essence built a better FP4 unit to support FP6, rather than reusing an FP8 unit to support FP6. This carries a die area penalty, but the upshot is double the performance.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1933233181039472709

morethanmoore.substack.com

AMD's AI Future is Rack Scale 'Helios'

Key Announcements from AMD Advancing AI 2025
morethanmoore.substack.com morethanmoore.substack.com
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top