![]() ![]() ![]() However, it would certainly have made some difference with a latency gap as wide as 45%. (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) The results below are from our previous version of the GPU benchmarks hierarchy, using a different test suite and test PC (Core i9-9900K) and combining results. We can't say how much faster a theoretical RX 7900 XTX would be with a monolithic die, especially since some of the latency improvements can be attributed to the RX 7600's smaller die size overall. On the bright side, at least the RX 7600 shows us what a more streamlined RDNA 3 GPU looks like with the advantages offered by a monolithic design. None of this changes the fact that the RX 7600 is a rather unexciting GPU, with underwhelming performance for the price you have to pay. It also cut down the PCIe interface to x8 rather than the full x16, also saving on die area. Instead, AMD kept Navi 33 on TSMC's N6 node rather than moving to the latest N5 process. The RX 7600's Navi 33 die is significantly smaller than the Navi 31 die used in the RX 7900 XT and XTX, so it wouldn't have made sense to use a multi-chiplet approach on Navi 33. Some of the latency advantage for the RX 7600 comes from AMD's cost-optimized design. ![]() It would have been more expensive to go the monolithic die route, though it would have been interesting to see what that would have done for performance. The RX 7600 shows how AMD opted for higher latency cache and memory access with the chiplet variants of the RDNA 3 architecture. It's still an interesting look at how two GPUs within the same generation stack up at a low level. Larger caches mean fewer VRAM accesses, and it's possible to hide higher latency with other techniques like data pre-fetching. That's a significant difference, though ultimately it all boils down to real-world performance. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |