Now seems like a good time to start this discussion thread. Per AMD’s earnings call yesterday, CDNA 4 is coming out mid-2025. MI350 sounds like it uses the new architecture with the same packaging/platform while MI400 is a top to bottom redesign.
RDNA 5 seems to be 18 months away minimum (late 2026 launch per leaked roadmaps.) Still, they should have the architecture locked in. Might get some info on the dies later this year when they start tape-out’s.
My main question is if these two architectures are the first step in the UDNA merge? Same base architecture heavily customized for gaming and server. Essentially what Nvidia’s been doing for years.
Not that dissimilar to AMD’s approach with Zen either. Classic core, Dense Core and modular add-ons like X3D. They can add/remove IP like AVX-512 depending on the market. Most importantly, all the variants are software compatible.
It sounds like they want to take a similar approach with UDNA. Unified software stack for a unified base architecture. My guess is, a new modular CU. Then they can insert whatever IP is appropriate for each product line. Rasterization + RT hardware for gaming. The whole shopping list of AI instructions for datacenter. Optimized density for each depending on the clock-speed targets.
David Wang made remarks about how changing the cache system resets software optimization to zero. Is it safe to assume both products lines will share a similar memory system design?
RDNA 5 seems to be 18 months away minimum (late 2026 launch per leaked roadmaps.) Still, they should have the architecture locked in. Might get some info on the dies later this year when they start tape-out’s.
My main question is if these two architectures are the first step in the UDNA merge? Same base architecture heavily customized for gaming and server. Essentially what Nvidia’s been doing for years.
Not that dissimilar to AMD’s approach with Zen either. Classic core, Dense Core and modular add-ons like X3D. They can add/remove IP like AVX-512 depending on the market. Most importantly, all the variants are software compatible.
It sounds like they want to take a similar approach with UDNA. Unified software stack for a unified base architecture. My guess is, a new modular CU. Then they can insert whatever IP is appropriate for each product line. Rasterization + RT hardware for gaming. The whole shopping list of AI instructions for datacenter. Optimized density for each depending on the clock-speed targets.
David Wang made remarks about how changing the cache system resets software optimization to zero. Is it safe to assume both products lines will share a similar memory system design?