The AMD Radeon R9 290X Review
by Ryan Smith on October 24, 2013 12:01 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
- AMD
- Radeon
- Hawaii
- Radeon 200
A Bit More On Graphics Core Next 1.1
With the launch of Hawaii, AMD is finally opening up a bit more on what Graphics Core Next 1.1 entails. No, they still aren’t giving us an official name – most references to GCN 1.1 are noting that 290X (Hawaii) and 260X (Bonaire) are part of the same IP pool – but now that AMD is in a position where they have their new flagship out they’re at least willing to discuss the official feature set.
So what does it mean to be Graphics Core Next 1.1? As it turns out, the leaked “AMD Sea Islands Instruction Set Architecture” from February appears to be spot on. Naming issues with Sea Islands aside, everything AMD has discussed as being new architecture features in Hawaii (and therefore also in Bonaire) previously showed up in that document.
As such the bulk of the changes that come with GCN 1.1 are compute oriented, and clearly are intended to play into AMD’s plans for HSA by adding features that are especially useful for the style of heterogeneous computing AMD is shooting for.
The biggest change here is support for flat (generic) addressing support, which will be critical to enabling effective use of pointers within a heterogeneous compute context. Coupled with that is a subtle change to how the ACEs (compute queues) work, allowing GPUs to have more ACEs and more queues in each ACE, versus the hard limit of 2 we’ve seen in Southern Islands. The number of ACEs is not fixed – Hawaii has 8 while Bonaire only has 2 – but it means it can be scaled up for higher-end GPUs, console APUs, etc. Finally GCN 1.1 also introduces some new instructions, including a Masked Quad Sum of Absolute Differences (MQSAD) and some FP64 floor/ceiling/truncation vector functions.
Along with these architectural changes, there are a couple of other hardware features that at this time we feel are best lumped under the GCN 1.1 banner when talking about PC GPUs, as GCN 1.1 parts were the first parts to introduce this features and every GCN 1.1 part (at least thus) far has that feature. AMD’s TrueAudio would be a prime example of this, as both Hawaii and Bonaire have integrated TrueAudio hardware, with AMD setting clear expectations that we should also see TrueAudio on future GPUs and future APUs.
AMD’s Crossfire XDMA engine is another feature that is best lumped under the GCN 1.1 banner. We’ll get to the full details of its operation in a bit, but the important part is that it’s a hardware level change (specifically an addition to their display controller functionality) that’s once again present in Hawaii and Bonaire, although only Hawaii is making full use of it at this time.
Finally we’d also roll AMD’s power management changes into the general GCN 1.1 family, again for the basic reasons listed above. AMD’s new Serial VID interface (SIV2), necessary for the large number of power states Hawaii and Bonaire support and the fast switching between them, is something that only shows up starting with GCN 1.1. AMD has implemented power management a bit differently in each product from an end user perspective – Bonaire parts have the states but lack the fine grained throttling controls that Hawaii introduces – but the underlying hardware is identical.
With that in mind, that’s a short but essential summary of what’s new with GCN 1.1. As we noted way back when Bonaire launched as the 7790, the underlying architecture isn’t going through any massive changes, and as such the differences are of primarily of interest to programmers more than end users. But they are distinct differences that will play an important role as AMD gears up to launch HSA next year. Consequently what limited fracturing there is between GCN 1.0 and GCN 1.1 is primarily due to the ancillary features, which unlike the core architectural changes are going to be of importance to end users. The addition of XDMA, TrueAudio, and improved power management (SIV2) are all small features on their own, but they are features that make GCN 1.1 a more capable, more reliable, and more feature-filled design than GCN 1.0.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
396 Comments
View All Comments
Sandcat - Thursday, October 24, 2013 - link
Perhaps they knew it was unsustainable from the beginning, but short term gains are generally what motivate managers when the develop pricing strategies, because bonus. Make hay whilst the sun shines, or when AMD is 8 months late.chizow - Saturday, October 26, 2013 - link
Possibly, but now they have to deal with the damaged goodwill of some of their most enthusiastic, spendy customers. I can't count how many times I've seen it, someone saying they swore off company X or company Y because they felt they got burned/screwed/fleeced by a single transaction. That is what Nvidia will be dealing with going forward with Titan early adopters.Sancus - Thursday, October 24, 2013 - link
AMD really needs to do better than a response 8 months later to crash anyone's parade. And honestly, I would love to see them put up a fight with Maxwell at a reasonable time period so they have incentive to keep prices lower. Otherwise, expect Nvidia to "overprice" things next generation as well.When they have no competition for 8 months it's not unsustainable to price as high as the market will bear, and there's no real evidence that Titan was economically overpriced because it's not like there was a supply glut of Titans sitting around anywhere, in fact they were often out of stock. So really, Nvidia is just pricing according to the market -- no competition from AMD for 8 months, fastest card with limited supply, why WOULD they price it at anything below $1000?
chizow - Saturday, October 26, 2013 - link
My reply would be that they've never had to price it at $1000 before, and we have certainly seen this level of advancement from one generation to the next in the past (7900GTX to 8800GTX, 8800GTX to GTX 280, 280 GTX to 480 GTX, etc), so it's not completely ground-breaking performance increases even though Kepler overall outperformed historical improvements by ~20%, imo.Also, the concern with Titan isn't just the fact it was priced at ungodly premiums this time around, it's the fact it held it's crown for such a relatively short period of time. Sure Nvidia had no competition at the $500+ range for 8 months, but that was also the brevity of Titan's reign at the top. In the past, a flagship in that $500 or $600+ range would generally reign for the entire generation, especially one that was launched half way through that generation's life cycle. Now Nvidia has already announced a reply with the 780 Ti which will mean not one, but TWO cards will surpass Titan at a fraction of it's price before the generation goes EOL.
Nvidia was clearly blind-sided by Hawaii and ultimately it will cost them customer loyalty, imo.
ZeDestructor - Thursday, October 24, 2013 - link
$1000 cards are fine, since the Titan is a cheap compute unit compared to the Quadro K6000 and the 690 is a dual-GPU card (Dual-GPU has always been in the $800+ range).What we should see is the 780 (Ti?) go down in price and match the R9-290x, much to the rejoicing of all!
Nvidia got away with $650-750 on the 780 because they could, and THAT is why competition is important, and why I pay attention to AMD even if I have no reason to buy from them over Nvidia (driver support on Linux is a joke). Now they have to match. Much of the same happens in the CPU segement.
chizow - Saturday, October 26, 2013 - link
For those that actually bought the Titan as a cheap compute card, sure Titan may have been a good buy, but I doubt most Titan buyers were buying it for compute. It was marketed as a gaming card with supercomputer guts and at the time, there was still much uncertainty whether or not Nvidia would release a GTX gaming card based on GK110.I think Nvidia preyed on these fears and took the opportunity to launch a $1K part, but I knew it was an unsustainable business model for them because it was predicated on the fact Nvidia would be an entire ASIC ahead of AMD and able to match AMD's fastest ASIC (Tahiti) with their 2nd fastest (GK104). Clearly Hawaii has turned that idea on it's head and Nvidia's premium product stack is crashing down in flames.
Now, we will see at least 4 cards (290/290X, 780/780Ti) that all come close to or exceed Titan performance at a fraction of the price, only 8 months after it's launch. Short reign indeed.
TheJian - Friday, October 25, 2013 - link
The market dictates pricing. As they said, they sell every Titan immediately, so they could probably charge more. But that's because it has more value than you seem to understand. It is a PRO CARD at it's core. Are you unaware of what a TESLA is for $2500? It's the same freaking card with 1 more SMX and driver support. $1000 is GENEROUS whether you like it or not. Gamers with PRO intentions laughed when they saw the $1000 price and have been buying them like mad ever since. No parade has been crashed. They will continue to do this pricing model for the foreseeable future as they have proven there is a market for high-end gamers with a PRO APP desire on top. The first run was 100,000 and sold in days. By contrast Asus Rog Ares 2 had 1000 unit first run and didn't sell out like that. At $1500 it really was a ripoff with no PRO side.I think they'll merely need another SMX turned on and 50-100mhz for the next $1000 version which likely comes before xmas :) The PRO perf is what is valued here over a regular card. Your short-lived statement makes no sense. It's been 8 months, a rather long life in gpus when you haven't beaten the 8 month old card in much (I debunked 4k crap already, and pointed to a dozen other games where titan wins at every res). You won't fire up Blender, Premiere, PS CS etc and smoke a titan with 290x either...LOL. You'll find out what the other $450 is for at that point.
chizow - Saturday, October 26, 2013 - link
Yes and as soon as they released the 780, the market corrected itself and Titans were no longer sold out anywhere, clearly a shift indicating the price of the 780 was really what the market was willing to bear.Also, there are more differences with their Tesla counterparts than just 1 SMX, Titan lacks ECC support which makes it an unlikely candidate for serious compute projects. Titan is good for hobby compute, anything serious business or research related is going to spend the extra for Tesla and ECC.
And no, 8-months is not a long time at the top, look at the reigns of previous high-end parts and you will see it is generally longer than this. Even the 580 that preceded it held sway for 14-months before Tahiti took over it's spot. Time at the top is just one part though, the amount which Titan devalued is the bigger concern. When 780 launched 3 months after Titan, you could maybe sell Titan for $800. Now that Hawaii has launched, you could maybe sell it for $700? It's only going to keep going down, what do you think it will sell for once 780Ti beats it outright for $650 or less?
Sandcat - Thursday, October 24, 2013 - link
I noticed your comments on the Tahiti pricing fiasco 2 years ago and generally skip through the comment section to find yours because they're top notch. Exactly what I was thinking with the $550 price point, finally a top-tier card at the right price for 28nm. Long live sanity.chizow - Saturday, October 26, 2013 - link
Thanks! Glad you appreciated the comments, I figured this business model and pricing for Nvidia would be unsustainable, but I thought it wouldn't fall apart until we saw 20nm Maxwell/Pirate Islands parts in 2014. Hawaii definitely accelerated the downfall of Titan and Nvidia's $1K eagle's nest.