AMD Radeon RX 7990 XTX?

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,350   +4,358
I received a video in my YouTube feed yesterday from Gamer Meld talking about something called the "RX 7990 XTX".
I initially thought it was just one of his crazy clickbait titles but he referred to a video from RedGamingTech and Paul's usually pretty accurate:
Then I found an article about it on notebookcheck.net. It's based on the RedGamingTech video but if watching the video isn't possible at the moment, it at least gives a nice rundown. I also figure that if notebookcheck.net is willing to write an article based on RedGamingTech, then it's probably safe to consider it at least semi-accurate.

I'm not going to read much into it but since today seems like a slow tech news day, I thought that it would make for some interesting reading.
 

neeyik

Posts: 2,417   +2,952
Staff member
While nothing is pretty impossible when it comes to what happens next with GPUs, adding a second layer of 16MB to the MCDs seems unlikely. AMD went down that route to reduce production costs as much as possible, not for performance reasons.

That said, 32MB MCDs would help improve cache hit rates, but only at 4K. Seems like a lot of additional expense, for a market that's currently stagnating in terms of sales, to create a product that will have a very small volume. If there was more money to be made from it, the MCDs would already contain more SRAM.

As for a higher clock speed RX 799999 models, well that's certainly always possible - just takes time for TSMC to fab enough high-end binned dies that will cope with the extra clocks. Hence why there was nearly a 7 month gap between the RX 6900 XT and RX 6950 XT.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,350   +4,358
While nothing is pretty impossible when it comes to what happens next with GPUs, adding a second layer of 16MB to the MCDs seems unlikely. AMD went down that route to reduce production costs as much as possible, not for performance reasons.
I don't claim to have any idea what AMD is thinking these days. I just thought it was an interesting and curious thing to look at. I'm taking it about as seriously as I take a review written by LoserBenchmark. :laughing:
That said, 32MB MCDs would help improve cache hit rates, but only at 4K. Seems like a lot of additional expense, for a market that's currently stagnating in terms of sales, to create a product that will have a very small volume. If there was more money to be made from it, the MCDs would already contain more SRAM.
That's true but the same could've been said about the RTX 4090 and yet, here we are.
As for a higher clock speed RX 799999 models, well that's certainly always possible - just takes time for TSMC to fab enough high-end binned dies that will cope with the extra clocks. Hence why there was nearly a 7 month gap between the RX 6900 XT and RX 6950 XT.
That was the thing that caught my attention. Whatever his name is from AMD said specifically that RNDA3 was "designed to hit 3GHz" but we don't see that. With the top cards coming out at only 2.5GHz at most, I do wonder why he said it. Why say that your arch is made for 3GHz after releasing cards that aren't even close to 3GHz? It's weird.
 

neeyik

Posts: 2,417   +2,952
Staff member
That's true but the same could've been said about the RTX 4090 and yet, here we are.
Well the AD102 is really designed for the professional market, the fact that it can be sold to wealthy PC gamers is just a handy bonus.
That was the thing that caught my attention. Whatever his name is from AMD said specifically that RNDA3 was "designed to hit 3GHz" but we don't see that. With the top cards coming out at only 2.5GHz at most, I do wonder why he said it. Why say that your arch is made for 3GHz after releasing cards that aren't even close to 3GHz? It's weird.
I thought that was rather odd too. I should imagine it’ll be clearer once AMD and AIB partner models are all out and we can see what the distribution of clock speeds, power, and price is like. They could have also meant that the architecture is designed for very high clocks but more for the mid-range models.

The launch presentation and accompanying slides weren’t great, to be honest; certainly not as good as the RDNA and RDNA 2 material.