Details about 28-nm mobile AMD GPUs leak out

Earlier this week, the guys at SemiAccurate served up a leaked list of 28-nm mobile Nvidia graphics chips scheduled for next year. Showing it doesn’t always discriminate, the site has now posted a similar list of AMD’s future 28-nm mobile parts.

Apparently, AMD won’t have its new mobile parts out for very long before Nvidia. Word is that AMD expects samples of the slower variants in early September, with shipments due in December. Higher-end parts will sample and a ship a month later than their siblings. (By contrast, Tuesday’s story said much of Nvidia’s 28-nm mobile lineup will sample in early October and hit mass production in late December. Shipments will presumably follow some time after that.)

In terms of specs, SemiAccurate’s latest list shows mobile, 28-nm Radeons with 2GB to 4GB of RAM, memory interface widths of 128 and 256 bits, and power envelopes of 25W to 80W. 3DMark Vantage scores will purportedly go all the way up to P1600. All of that RAM sounds a bit over the top, especially considering laptop displays almost never go beyond 1080p. At least the 4GB model is said to use GDDR5 RAM, though—unlike some products we could mention.

Comments closed
    • VILLAIN_xx
    • 8 years ago

    Looks like it wont be in time for BF3. 🙁

      • DancinJack
      • 8 years ago

      I think you may have misread this. This release is about the mobile parts.

        • VILLAIN_xx
        • 8 years ago

        whoops!

        [url<]http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/ecards/oopssorry/embarrassed.jpg[/url<]

    • Theolendras
    • 8 years ago

    I have a few hypothesis are putting that much RAM in their product.

    A) I think AMD and Nvidia are putting more RAM to put their products in better light in Crossfire. It is also a misleading some uninformed customers, but hey, they might buy because it has more RAM and RAM is cheap these days.

    B) Maybe something big in GPGPU is coming next year. Maybe a big push is coming with Windows 8 and DirectCompute.

    C) These information relates to the FireGL product line.

      • crabjokeman
      • 8 years ago

      It’s all about the $’s. Load up your graphics card with RAM, pass the cost of it to the customer, and get better bulk discounts from your memory supplier. Outmoded, ignorant thinking that more RAM is always useful doesn’t hurt either.

        • Farting Bob
        • 8 years ago

        1GB is fine for current and near future games at 1080p. higher than that and you will ideally want more, but still not many games that need more than 1GB vram at the moment. i can see why mid-high cards offer more though, it doesnt cost much and likely sells more.

    • Arclight
    • 8 years ago

    So we got N13E-GTX at 70-75W scoring 20000 in 3DMark with mass production in May 2012
    [url<]http://semiaccurate.com/2011/08/23/nvidias-28nm-mobile-lineup-leaked/[/url<] And we got Wimbeldon (shouldn't it be Wimbledon?!) at 80W scoring 16000 in 3DMark Vantage with shipping in December 2011 [url<]http://semiaccurate.com/2011/08/24/amds-28nm-mobile-lineup-leaked-too/[/url<] Since i don't use this kind of software benches which score is better?

      • Farting Bob
      • 8 years ago

      Higher is better, but how can you benchmark a product that is still months away from being sampled? Answer: You cant. Any working chips right now will be engineering chips with specs probably quite a way off what the retail ones will end up with.

        • Game_boy
        • 8 years ago

        Why is Nvidia’s best several months after? I bet they’re relying on yield increases or process revisions to get the better number from the same chip in the same TDP as the second best model, but who knows if those improvements will come.

      • Goty
      • 8 years ago

      AMD TDP != NVIDIA TDP

      AMD claims 250W for the 6970 while NVIDIA claims 244W for the 580, but the 580 consumes much more power under load than the 6970 (to the tune of around 30-70W more, depending on where you look), so it’s not entirely unreasonable that NVIDIA’s “lower” TDP part could perform better since it will likely be drawing more power than the AMD solution (this is of course ignoring any architectural inefficiencies from either side).

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        You really need to go back to school for another logic class. You can’t take one comparison and wildly extrapolate the results in a completely different comparison with the comments that it’s “likely” to be the same.

          • Goty
          • 8 years ago

          Go lose an argument in some other thread, please.

            • SPOOFE
            • 8 years ago

            What a brilliant retort! It’s like Auto-Win without the win!

            • Brother Michigan
            • 8 years ago

            fail reply, wrong post

          • Brother Michigan
          • 8 years ago

          too bad he’s right in this case

    • wingless
    • 8 years ago

    I have no problem with GPU RAM overkill as long as it doesn’t impact battery life in huge amounts (we know it won’t). AMD seems to be the first company that understands that capable gaming with the laptop form factor will likely save the PC. Overkill > underkill any day.

      • Arclight
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]AMD seems to be the first company that understands that capable gaming with the laptop form factor will likely save the PC[/quote<] Save PC from what?

        • wingless
        • 8 years ago

        Are you being facetious? Save from console and mobile gaming (smart phones and tablets) devices that are taking attention away from the PC and laptop form factors.

          • stdRaichu
          • 8 years ago

          You can’t slouch on a sofa and pick up a controller with a laptop any more (or less) than you can a gaming tower. The “problem” with PC gaming isn’t the form factor of the box itself, it’s what’s in the box – namely heterogeneous hardware and a user-configurable OS – which the developers and especially publishers hate.

          Mobile graphics are just there for people who prefer to get their PC gaming done on a laptop if that’s the form factor they prefer, that’s all. Sure, with better mobile GFX you might get more people buying a laptop rather than a desktop but I doubt it’ll do much to stay the onslaught of consolitis, which itself is purely down to a race-to-the-bottom follow-the-money mindset currently endemic to the big publishers, rather than any serious attempts to push the gaming envelope. Medicority sells, innovation doesn’t.

          As a related aside, been really pleased with the way the new Deus Ex has been treated for the PC. Definitely a worthy successor to the original… actual story, actual [i<]choices[/i<], actual level design and none of that awful "press the red button on your controller... I mean mouse! Keyboard, even!" nonsense.

          • flip-mode
          • 8 years ago

          Um, that’s crack-smoking, paint-sniffing BS. Laptops and consoles are not direct competitors. A console is something that hooks up to your TV and then does not move for the next 3 or more years. It has a couple buttons, takes a couple controllers, and constitutes an extremely stable and consistent platform to develop for. Does that sound anything like a laptop to you? No, not even close. I doubt there is anyone out there that is asking themself, “Hmm… which should I get – the Xbox, or the laptop”. And notice, Microsoft is now giving away the Xbox if you buy a laptop. Heck, if you want to “save PC gaming”, you might start with it’s greatest ailment – Microsoft itself.

            • stdRaichu
            • 8 years ago

            I find it ironic that he thinks AMD are “saving the PC” when in fact they’re also making graphics chips for consoles too. Anyone would think that graphics chips was AMD/ATI’s core competency or something…

            • derFunkenstein
            • 8 years ago

            When it comes to gaming, they are absolutely competitors. When the choice comes down to $200 for an Xbox 360 or a good graphics card, they’re competing for the same money because they’re effectively filling the same purpose.

            • xeridea
            • 8 years ago

            Cept you don’t need a $200 graphics card to play games. I have never spent more than $125-150 on a card (since the 9800 Pro back 9 years ago), and have always been able to play any game I wanted, @ max settings @ high res (currently 2048×1152). High end cards are generally overkill for most games. Also you fail to mention the controller cost, and other accessories.

            • SPOOFE
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]When the choice comes down to $200 for an Xbox 360 or a good graphics card, they're competing for the same money because they're effectively filling the same purpose.[/quote<] Except there are more consumers that would spend money on a console but never on a graphics card. Consoles appeal to a broader market than PC gaming.

          • Arclight
          • 8 years ago

          They’re all PCs, even consoles use CPUs and GPUs, idk what you are talking about. PC is not dying, the “desktop” is just one form of PC…..and it (the desktop) has been predicted to die 10 times over and yet it’s still here.

            • xeridea
            • 8 years ago

            Tru Dat.

            It will be predicted to die 100 times over and will not ever die. Predictions are from raving lunatics who thinks that no one actually does anything productive with computers anymore. Tablets are not productivity machines at all (despite what some want you to think). I don’t even feel tablets are really convenient, since if I was doing anything for more than 2 minutes it would take me less energy to walk a few feet to the desktop and increase activity 5x. Laptops are totally capable of productive things, but people in many fields are a lot more useful with a desktop.

            • SPOOFE
            • 8 years ago

            Where there are processing cycles, there will be games. This will always remain true.

    • Jigar
    • 8 years ago

    Those 3DMark Vanage scores should P16000 not 1600. 🙂

      • DeadOfKnight
      • 8 years ago

      If this is true, it looks like AMD is about to smoke NVIDIA in the mobile segment.

        • Jigar
        • 8 years ago

        Here is the direct link to that table. [url<]http://semiaccurate.com/assets/uploads/2011/08/AMD_28nm_mobile.png[/url<]

        • Deanjo
        • 8 years ago

        Nvidias top part scores 20k according to Semi’s own chart.

          • Jigar
          • 8 years ago

          You should read again, this are mobile part that this charts are talking about.

          • xeridea
          • 8 years ago

          Nvidia will never win in mobile market, for the same reason that all 3 next gen consoles are AMD GPUs, and AMD wins in dual GPU cards, their TDP is through the roof, with no end in sight. If AMD used the same TDP as Nvidia in all their cards they would creme them in every department (except GPGPU).

            • BlackStar
            • 8 years ago

            BitCoin GPGPU implementations run roughly 5x faster on AMD than Nvidia [1][2]. The 6850 performs faster than the GTX590, which is ridiculous considering the price and power difference.

            Pretty much the only reason why Nvidia has the GPGPU mindshare is that they released CUDA before AMD had something equivalent out (AMD Stream existed before CUDA, but it was much harder to program).

            [1] [url<]http://hardocp.com/article/2011/07/13/bitcoin_mining_gpu_performance_comparison/2[/url<] [2] [url<]https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_Hardware_Comparison[/url<]

          • Game_boy
          • 8 years ago

          They both have stupid TDPs at the high-end, the laptop would get about 20 minutes of battery life while not plugged in.

          Look at the scores at comparable and low (<40W) TDPs to determine which arch is more efficient. Looks like AMD by a small amount to me, if the scores can be compared like that which I doubt.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This