Report: Big Navi Engineering Sample Points to 16 GB GDDR6 Memory

(Image credit: Bilibili)
Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Niels Broekhuijsen
Contributing Writer

Niels Broekhuijsen is a Contributing Writer for Tom's Hardware US. He reviews cases, water cooling and pc builds.

  • wr3zzz
    Considering AMD put 16GB HBM on the $700 Radeon VII, it's probably not a cost killer putting 16GB on big Navi. Nvidia must got a really good deal on GDDR6X from Micron given that HBM is already on the DTX Ampere.
    Reply
  • Avro Arrow
    The only thing I could think about once I saw that picture of it was "What the hell kinda GPU cooler setup IS THAT?". It looks like they strapped a CoolerMaster Hyper 212 directly to the GPU but it hangs down so it wouldn't work very well because trying to draw heat down is never a very efficient cooling solution.

    Crazy man, crazy!
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    wr3zzz said:
    Considering AMD put 16GB HBM on the $700 Radeon VII, it's probably not a cost killer putting 16GB on big Navi. Nvidia must got a really good deal on GDDR6X from Micron given that HBM is already on the DTX Ampere.
    HBM2 is still very expensive. Just the RAM costs probably twice as much as GDDR6, maybe even twice GDDR6X. Then you have to add in the silicon interposer as well. There are rumors that Vega 56 / Vega 64 were basically selling at near-cost when they were in the $300-$400 range. Basically, HBM2 really only makes sense financially when you can sell a lot of cards at $500 or more each.
    Reply
  • evdjj3j
    I'm not buying it, look how filthy that case is. I can't see that being their test rig.
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    evdjj3j said:
    I'm not buying it, look how filthy that case is. I can't see that being their test rig.
    That PSU looks like an older Thermaltake Grand 1000W ... which incidentally is what AMD sent out to reviewers for the initial Threadripper launch if memory serves. If so, it's been used for at least three years, and a bit of dust (even in a testing lab) isn't out of the question. But there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical.
    Reply
  • tennis2
    Shame it's not GDDR6X...
    Reply
  • hotaru.hino
    tennis2 said:
    Shame it's not GDDR6X...
    As long as whatever it has can feed the beast and thensome, it doesn't matter.
    Reply
  • sizzling
    I feel AMD adds more RAM than is required to some of their GPU’s as a pure marketing gimmick even if the card has no hope of ever using it all.
    Reply
  • tennis2
    sizzling said:
    I feel AMD adds more RAM than is required to some of their GPU’s as a pure marketing gimmick even if the card has no hope of ever using it all.
    Sometimes they're a bit too...forward thinking, but that only helps the card age better as VRAM requirements increase. Nvidia still uses VRAM more "efficiently". AMD generally takes a more "brute-force" approach to GPU design thus far.
    Reply
  • sizzling
    tennis2 said:
    Sometimes they're a bit too...forward thinking, but that only helps the card age better as VRAM requirements increase. Nvidia still uses VRAM more "efficiently". AMD generally takes a more "brute-force" approach to GPU design thus far.
    Maybe. For example if we look at the 1060 6gb vs 580 8gb. Very similar performance but has there ever been a scenario with playable FPS where the extra 33% of RAM on the 580 was beneficial? Not that I have seen.

    I still think it’s more to do with giving their gpu’s a selling point over NVidia that can be used for marketing. Just my opinion though.
    Reply