Discussion RDNA4 + CDNA3 Architectures Thread

[DisEnchantment]

With the GFX940 patches in full swing since first week of March, it is looking like MI300 is not far in the distant future!
Usually AMD takes around 3Qs to get the support in LLVM and amdgpu. Lately, since RDNA2 the window they push to add support for new devices is much reduced to prevent leaks.
But looking at the flurry of code in LLVM, it is a lot of commits. Maybe because US Govt is starting to prepare the SW environment for El Capitan (Maybe to avoid slow bring up situation like Frontier for example)

See here for the GFX940 specific commits

History for llvm/lib/Target/AMDGPU - llvm/llvm-project

The LLVM Project is a collection of modular and reusable compiler and toolchain technologies. - History for llvm/lib/Target/AMDGPU - llvm/llvm-project

github.com

Or Phoronix

More AMD "GFX940" Enablement Work Landing In LLVM - Phoronix

www.phoronix.com

There is a lot more if you know whom to follow in LLVM review chains (before getting merged to github), but I am not going to link AMD employees.

I am starting to think MI300 will launch around the same time like Hopper probably only a couple of months later!
Although I believe Hopper had problems not having a host CPU capable of doing PCIe 5 in the very near future therefore it might have gotten pushed back a bit until SPR and Genoa arrives later in 2022.
If PVC slips again I believe MI300 could launch before it

This is nuts, MI100/200/300 cadence is impressive.



Previous thread on CDNA2 and RDNA3 here

Question - Speculation: RDNA3 + CDNA2 Architectures Thread

Man I have been dying to make this one for a while now. First rumours for RDNA3 are here so new thread time! Just going to start off with this one for now: kopite7kimi on Twitter: "@VideoCardz Ah, I mean a simple mcm design with 10240 cores is not enough. Because the lift from RDNA2 to RDNA3...

forums.anandtech.com

 

[SolidQ]

. I honestly cant tell the difference at 1440P or 4K

below i was talking about mass market 1080p, 1440+ is fine

 

[marees]

below i was talking about mass market 1080p, 1440+ is fine

There is a scenario where AI based upscaling can add 'value'

For ex: when you take a pic of moon from Samsung phone, it replaces camera's image with its own image. This way you get 'better than native' picture. DLSS & PSSR also should benefit from same mechanism. Whereas FSR tries to 'stay true' to native image & merely interpolates the same

 

[maddie]

There is a scenario where AI based upscaling can add 'value'

For ex: when you take a pic of moon from Samsung phone, it replaces camera's image with its own image. This way you get 'better than native' picture. DLSS & PSSR also should benefit from same mechanism. Whereas FSR tries to 'stay true' to native image & merely interpolates the same

Sometimes I'm a bit slow, but these days I don't know what to expect from people.

This, for example,
"For ex: when you take a pic of moon from Samsung phone, it replaces camera's image with its own image. This way you get 'better than native' picture."
is irony, correct?

 

[Mahboi]

Sometimes I'm a bit slow, but these days I don't know what to expect from people.

This, for example,
"For ex: when you take a pic of moon from Samsung phone, it replaces camera's image with its own image. This way you get 'better than native' picture."
is irony, correct?

Let me answer your question with a picture:

Do you think this looks like a good moon?
Cause all I see is a big projector here. I'd rather have had my Moon looked like a Moon.

 

[MrTeal]

Let me answer your question with a picture:

Do you think this looks like a good moon?
Cause all I see is a big projector here. I'd rather have had my Moon looked like a Moon.

That's step 1. Step 2 they replace your beach with a nicer beach, and Step 3 they replace your friends with hotter friends.

 

[Mahboi]

That's step 1. Step 2 they replace your beach with a nicer beach, and Step 3 they replace your friends with hotter friends.

Your terms are acceptable.
Actually way more than acceptable, where do I sign?

 

[igor_kavinski]

This, for example,
"For ex: when you take a pic of moon from Samsung phone, it replaces camera's image with its own image. This way you get 'better than native' picture."
is irony, correct?

Sony TV's been doing this trickery since 2019 AFAIK:

Sony 2021 TV line-up: models, sizes, specs, everything you need to know

Two Master Series Bravia TVs plus more OLEDs and LCDs, all with Google TV

www.whathifi.com

Lastly on picture, it's also worth noting that the XR Upscaler includes a texture reproduction database which its predecessor did not. That sits alongside the object-based super resolution technology from the X1 TVs and will hopefully make lower resolution content better than ever on Bravia TVs – potentially very useful for the Z9J while we wait for a wealth of 8K source material.

It's checking each frame, identifying objects and textures, cross referencing them with its two databases for objects and textures and then doing the AI fakery, all in REAL TIME.

 

[adroc_thurston]

There's a reason GB205 and GB207 are cutting core counts...

Yeah, it's area.

 

[jpiniero]

Yeah, it's area.

Which is because they are presumably making room for the additional tensor cores.

 

[adroc_thurston]

Which is because they are presumably making room for the additional tensor cores.

No, new fatter more useful higher perf SM costs area.

 

[maddie]

Your terms are acceptable.
Actually way more than acceptable, where do I sign?

Man, I'd hate to be living where you are now.

 

[Mahboi]

Man, I'd hate to be living where you are now.

?

 

[maddie]

?

You desire all artificial and contrived surroundings. Implies reality is not nice.

 

[Aapje]

That's step 1. Step 2 they replace your beach with a nicer beach, and Step 3 they replace your friends with hotter friends.

If the tech gets good enough, most people will sign up for this.

How many men will prefer the women that are actually attracted to them, with all the effort it involves and sacrifices that have to be made, over her:

 

[igor_kavinski]

How many men will prefer the women that are actually attracted to them

Attraction isn't even necessary. Men like women who do as they are told. Universal truth. If some guy likes to be controlled and dicked around by a woman's whims, he's not right in the head.

 

[Mahboi]

You desire all artificial and contrived surroundings. Implies reality is not nice.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh wow.

You've been playing games, watching movies, listening to music, that has entirely, for literal decades, been fake.
Your games were pixellated or rasterized. Raster is a false imitation of reality. Devs manually tuned the look, feel, style of every game you've ever played. It was all subjective and fake.
Your movies were sampled, had their colour retouched, had their photography artificially tuned and their editing arranged. Even the actors don't act like they want to mimic real conversations.
Your musics were sampled and limited into 0s and 1s within data size constraints.
Even when you're on the phone talking to someone, it's not their voice, it's a shrunken imitation of the person you're talking to, with your brain doing mostly imaginary work for completion.
You have 4000+ messages on a hardware forum. And you go "oh wow, you desire all artificial and contrived surroundings. Implies reality is not nice. I'd hate to be living where you are now.".

No, no.
I merely have enough intelligence to realise that it was all fake. It always was fake. Most of what we've been doing since the 80s is growing machines into making more convincing fakes.

I recently watched Le Samouraï, an old 60s movie. It was a profoundly interesting movie, but the horrible grain on my entirely legally and respectfully stolen torrent was just bad.
I have taken a picture of the Moon, and it looked like a bland white disc because the lens is not capable of accurately capturing the details of the full Moon due to extreme brightness contrast.
I have been hesitating between recording with CQP 20 or CQP 30, since 20 gives me barely better visual detail and costs twice the HDD space, but colours pop out that much more than 30.

I wish Le Samouraï had no grain.
I wish my Moon, the one I saw with my own eyes, was pictured the way it looked to me.
I wish I could have CQP 1 and still have enough HDD space to just not care.

It was always fake. It's just a question of how well the fakeness is built. Looking down on people for wanting credible AI fakeness instead of your old classic fakeness is not a sign of loving reality, it's just showing that all your life, you haven't been able to understand that you were looking at fake things yourself. But I have. So I'll have the AI Moon, I'll have the AI details, I'll have whatever it is that makes it look more like what I want it to look like.

 

[Mahboi]

If some guy likes to be controlled and dicked around by a woman's whims, he's not right in the head.

The better question being which one of us is still "right in the head"...

 

[gdansk]

I see another big downside of adding AI crap to RDNA: A bunch of off topic posts.

 

[igor_kavinski]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh wow.

You've been playing games, watching movies, listening to music, that has entirely, for literal decades, been fake.
Your games were pixellated or rasterized. Raster is a false imitation of reality. Devs manually tuned the look, feel, style of every game you've ever played. It was all subjective and fake.
Your movies were sampled, had their colour retouched, had their photography artificially tuned and their editing arranged. Even the actors don't act like they want to mimic real conversations.
Your musics were sampled and limited into 0s and 1s within data size constraints.
Even when you're on the phone talking to someone, it's not their voice, it's a shrunken imitation of the person you're talking to, with your brain doing mostly imaginary work for completion.
You have 4000+ messages on a hardware forum. And you go "oh wow, you desire all artificial and contrived surroundings. Implies reality is not nice. I'd hate to be living where you are now.".

No, no.
I merely have enough intelligence to realise that it was all fake. It always was fake. Most of what we've been doing since the 80s is growing machines into making more convincing fakes.

I recently watched Le Samouraï, an old 60s movie. It was a profoundly interesting movie, but the horrible grain on my entirely legally and respectfully stolen torrent was just bad.
I have taken a picture of the Moon, and it looked like a bland white disc because the lens is not capable of accurately capturing the details of the full Moon due to extreme brightness contrast.
I have been hesitating between recording with CQP 20 or CQP 30, since 20 gives me barely better visual detail and costs twice the HDD space, but colours pop out that much more than 30.

I wish Le Samouraï had no grain.
I wish my Moon, the one I saw with my own eyes, was pictured the way it looked to me.
I wish I could have CQP 1 and still have enough HDD space to just not care.

It was always fake. It's just a question of how well the fakeness is built. Looking down on people for wanting credible AI fakeness instead of your old classic fakeness is not a sign of loving reality, it's just showing that all your life, you haven't been able to understand that you were looking at fake things yourself. But I have. So I'll have the AI Moon, I'll have the AI details, I'll have whatever it is that makes it look more like what I want it to look like.

Man, yours is a brain I want to peek inside of

 

[Mahboi]

I see another big downside of adding AI crap to RDNA: A bunch of off topic posts.

Training an AI to make credible off topic posts seems like an actual university assignment. 🤔 (sorry for the off topic)

 

[soresu]

I have taken a picture of the Moon, and it looked like a bland white disc because the lens is not capable of accurately capturing the details of the full Moon due to extreme brightness contrast.

The lens is not the cause of that.

The image sensor and its dynamic range is the cause of it.

Photographers combat this deficiency by taking multiple exposures at incremental f stops, and then combining them into a single HDR image.

 

[maddie]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh wow.

You've been playing games, watching movies, listening to music, that has entirely, for literal decades, been fake.
Your games were pixellated or rasterized. Raster is a false imitation of reality. Devs manually tuned the look, feel, style of every game you've ever played. It was all subjective and fake.
Your movies were sampled, had their colour retouched, had their photography artificially tuned and their editing arranged. Even the actors don't act like they want to mimic real conversations.
Your musics were sampled and limited into 0s and 1s within data size constraints.
Even when you're on the phone talking to someone, it's not their voice, it's a shrunken imitation of the person you're talking to, with your brain doing mostly imaginary work for completion.
You have 4000+ messages on a hardware forum. And you go "oh wow, you desire all artificial and contrived surroundings. Implies reality is not nice. I'd hate to be living where you are now.".

No, no.
I merely have enough intelligence to realise that it was all fake. It always was fake. Most of what we've been doing since the 80s is growing machines into making more convincing fakes.

I recently watched Le Samouraï, an old 60s movie. It was a profoundly interesting movie, but the horrible grain on my entirely legally and respectfully stolen torrent was just bad.
I have taken a picture of the Moon, and it looked like a bland white disc because the lens is not capable of accurately capturing the details of the full Moon due to extreme brightness contrast.
I have been hesitating between recording with CQP 20 or CQP 30, since 20 gives me barely better visual detail and costs twice the HDD space, but colours pop out that much more than 30.

I wish Le Samouraï had no grain.
I wish my Moon, the one I saw with my own eyes, was pictured the way it looked to me.
I wish I could have CQP 1 and still have enough HDD space to just not care.

It was always fake. It's just a question of how well the fakeness is built. Looking down on people for wanting credible AI fakeness instead of your old classic fakeness is not a sign of loving reality, it's just showing that all your life, you haven't been able to understand that you were looking at fake things yourself. But I have. So I'll have the AI Moon, I'll have the AI details, I'll have whatever it is that makes it look more like what I want it to look like.

Sure man, that's what you meant. Love the wordsmithing.

 

[blackangus]

Attraction isn't even necessary. Men like women who do as they are told. Universal truth. If some guy likes to be controlled and dicked around by a woman's whims, he's not right in the head.

Not a universal truth, I like women with a mind of their own. So at least 1 person does!

 

[blackangus]

Your movies were sampled, had their colour retouched, had their photography artificially tuned and their editing arranged. Even the actors don't act like they want to mimic real conversations.
Your musics were sampled and limited into 0s and 1s within data size constraints.
Even when you're on the phone talking to someone, it's not their voice, it's a shrunken imitation of the person you're talking to, with your brain doing mostly imaginary work for completion.

Accepting a reduction of quality from a true source is not the same as accepting something that wasn't real or correct to the original source to begin with.
I think that is a pretty clear difference in the scenarios above.
For a movie the "true source" is what was put out to the public as that is the product that was produced.
For music the digital to analog conversion is measurable lossless to the level of our hearing assuming you have good gear.
Talking on the phone is simply accepting something that lower quality for the cost you want to pay because its good enough.

Adding detail that was never there is very different.

 

[Mahboi]

Accepting a reduction of quality from a true source is not the same as accepting something that wasn't real or correct to the original source to begin with.
I think that is a pretty clear difference in the scenarios above.

There isn't. I'm not going to repeat the whole argument if you didn't get it the first time.

In my picture the Moon is just a white disc.
In an AI enhanced one, the Moon would look like the Moon, as it did when I took the picture.
There's literally no other component, it's a lesser fake vs a better fake. You can argue how to make an even better fake I.E an even closer to the original Moon, but in the end it's all fake.

I find it insane that you actually have people here arguing that they don't live in a world full of fakeness and approximations.
Also as gdansk said that's enough off topic for a position that was entirely silly in the first place.