Polaris. AMD. Getting 'back in the ring?'
Ok. AMD, outside of computer(?) have been kicked around for a while by Nvidia on the PC for a while now losing market share.
It seems they've gone back to their 'cool and low power' strategy from a good few years ago with Polaris. Technology that will cover two cards. One low end and another 'mid' range.
We say 'mid range' but it could even out perform a 'Titan' Nvidia part by leaked benches.
Could we imagine such a beat being put into an iMac.
AMD are planning to bring 'console' class performance to laptops! I'm guessing that's the 'low' end part. Which may kick around the integrated graphics by Intel? In which case, will we say the Mac Mini, laptops and entry iMac ALL have this low end part....
...and the iMac high end get Polaris '10' (I think '11', is it? That's the one for the low end...and 'ten' is, despite the numerical chronology...for the mid range...) we are finally in for a GPU that can really, REALLY kick around that 5k screen?
...and what about VOLTA (is it? Memory is sketchy on that code name...) that is the high end part due 2017. Early.
Will that go into the iMac? Or Mac Pro?
Volta should be 'the beast.' Though Polaris 10 should be very impressive if it can take down the Titan on 4k+!!! AMD are going for...cool running performance aimed for the masses. This promises to be a 'once in five years' solar eclipse of performance jolt. Shooting for the stars. Will they deliver? Delivery of Polaris is aiming for June-ish.
Will AMD do it? Or will Nvidia be waiting for them?!
Either way. For the 1st time in five years...GPUs are finally ready to take off big time in terms of performance. Maybe even 8 gig, at least, cards with HMB2 on the horizon?
Will Apple 'only' put the 'laptop' version in the iMac? Laptops? Mac Mini?
Over to you, Marv'. If you're out there...
Lemon Bon Bon.
...and the iMac high end get Polaris '10' (I think '11', is it? That's the one for the low end...and 'ten' is, despite the numerical chronology...for the mid range...) we are finally in for a GPU that can really, REALLY kick around that 5k screen?
...and what about VOLTA (is it? Memory is sketchy on that code name...) that is the high end part due 2017. Early.
Will that go into the iMac? Or Mac Pro?
Volta should be 'the beast.' Though Polaris 10 should be very impressive if it can take down the Titan on 4k+!!! AMD are going for...cool running performance aimed for the masses. This promises to be a 'once in five years' solar eclipse of performance jolt. Shooting for the stars. Will they deliver? Delivery of Polaris is aiming for June-ish.
Will AMD do it? Or will Nvidia be waiting for them?!
Either way. For the 1st time in five years...GPUs are finally ready to take off big time in terms of performance. Maybe even 8 gig, at least, cards with HMB2 on the horizon?
Will Apple 'only' put the 'laptop' version in the iMac? Laptops? Mac Mini?
Over to you, Marv'. If you're out there...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Comments
'Scuse me.
Lemon Bon Bon.
First let me say I hate AI new forums software. It really makes responding to your posts troublesome.
In any event the thing that is driving the next generation of GPU's is the move to sub 20 nm process technology. This is a really big jump from the currently used process step. This means roughly twice the performance per watt which is pretty massive for a GPU. This isn't pie in the sky numbers either, we have seen the benefits of the sub 20 nm processes in both Apples chips and Intel's APUs.
Here is the bad part though; the rise of APU's, that is CPU chips with integrated GPU's, means far fewer designs with discrete GPUs. I'm not expecting discretes in anything other than Apples highest end machines. The only possibility here is that they design a desktop machine suitable for the VR market. The Mini is too compact for this so that means a new machine. As it is I would expect a big jump in GPU performance in the Mini with the next APU anyways. Apple has put a lot of focus on much better GPU performance in their low end machines even at the expense of CPU performance. We can see this in the Mini, the Mac Book and even the 13 MBP. So I expect Apple to continue to push GPU performance at the expense of CPU performance in its APU equipped machines.
As for AMDs performance against NVidia, that is more of a marketing loss than a real difference in performance. Often AMDs cards produce better results than the same generation NVidia cards. What we see is NVidia making market with hand picked benchmarks and nobody seriously calling them out on the issue.
What AMD has had is very serious issues with their drivers but they have made considerable progress here. Of course Apple doesn't seem to give a damn about drivers so that means little on the Mac. On other platforms AMD has been very aggressive in addressing the driver issues. They have embraced open source to an extent on Linux and now have some of the better open source drivers out there. These drivers might not be as good as Intel's open source Linux drivers but they are really close and light years ahead of NVidia.
In a nut shell a lot of hand wringing over AMD seems to be the result of the position of the company years ago and don't reflect today's realities. Their hardware is very good and at times bleeding edge, for example HBM or High Bandwidth Menory.
In any event I'm still of the opinion that Apple should build a Mini with AMD inside. The reason is pretty simple really, that is to bring down the cost of the machine. In its APUs the GPU still is a better offering than Intel's though awfully close right now. The idea is even more appealing with Zen just around the corner. The right deal with AMD could see the price of the Mini slashed by more than $100 at each model increment. That would drive sales but more importantly would give them an AMD GPU in the machine.
In a nut shell as AMD moves to 14nm they will have an opportunity for massive performance per watt improvements. This across the board really effectively improving all products. Combine this with new architectures in these 14nm chips and you can imagine the jumps over old hardware will be impressive.
This forums software is so stupid it defies belief. I really have to wonder if AI even tested the damn software before implementing it. This crap turned my several paragraphs above into one hideous block of text. It is no wonder that traffic in these forums is dying.
I'll wait and see. VR is still a lot of headache, not just for players. ;-(
5 years is an epic amount of time in GPU tech'. It's improved. But due to the stall at 20nm was it? Then we're overdue a massive increase in GPU performance. PPW and actual raw performance as well. Console performance coming to laptops. True 4k performance for high end iMacs and Mac Pros.
There IS an opportunity for a chest thumping quad cpu/hi-def gpu beastly Mac Mini. It's been a while. It needs boost. CPU tech' has been glacial from Intel recently. It's here where I hope Zen lights a fire under their...
...and a good APU or Polaris '11' option.
And there's Apple's slide into integrated graphics vs discrete. But we should have Polaris options on the high end. Though it DOES seem there will be tech' there to include Polaris in a high end Mini and Apple's laptops?
AMD are becoming more aggressive with their drivers. Maybe we'll get extra performance there...
Between Zen pushing IPC performance by at least 40% and pushing the core count...and the aggressive proliferation of performance for all...in 'cool' form factors...we have a tantalising prospect of a new performance paradigm. Will Apple take advantage of it?
A Polaris 10 outperforming eg. An Nvidia Titan would be pretty incredible in a top end iMac. Enough to handle decent 4k-5k gpu performance.
...and there's the 'high end' part coming next year!
HBM2 with 8-16 gigs of VRAM?
Gamers and content creators everywhere should be hawkishly looking at reviews from late June onwards.
Lemon Bon Bon.
and why two is required is beyond me. The reason I have to switch to the plain text editor is that I need it to get beyond that quoted text so that everything I write is properly located. Sadly this issue comes and goes and doesn't depend on my IPad or my Mac running Safari. In either case it seems to be a cramp shoot as far as being allowed to properly enter in ones reply. Not to mention are the horror of trying to comment to somebody inline. As far as I can see the new forums software is a huge down grade making it difficult for users.
I'm not even going to try quoting your last post, it would be more work than it is worth with this new forums software!
However I do have some comments to consider:
- Yes CPU improvements have been slow but that is directly due to Apple demanding better GPU performance from Intel. Look at any APU type chip these days and the majority of the die space is dedicated to the GPU functionality with CPU's often filling a small subsection of the die space. It doesn't matter if it is an AMD design, Intel design, Apple design or somebody else; the GPU has become extremely important in delivering the types of performance main stream uses expect. This especially the case if video encode/decode units are considered part of the GPU.
- AMD has come a very long ways with their drivers to the point I'm a bit tired listing to all the whiners complaining about said drivers. However Apple is still Apple here and their drivers are way behind everything else in this space. When Open source drivers for Linux perform better than Apple drivers you know there are real issues at Apple. Frankly issues I don't see being addressed.
- ZEN does sound nice but they are taking forever to ship, that isn't good from a business standpoint. In any event I really do wish that Apple would give AMD serious consideration. The possibility is there because they will need an i86 partner in the future willing to work with them on high integration SoC solutions. Even Intel is doing custom work though that hasn't migrated to the desktop yet. Speaking of Intel, the last I heard is that they had 30 custom XEON designs in flight with no mention whom the chips will be delivered to. I'd like to think that Apple is one of Intels custom customer.
- Frankly I've never been an iMac fan but that doesn't stop me form thinking about what could come next. Knowing Apple they will take the power savings potential to lower the thermals in an iMac even more to thin out the machine. Then they will offer a modest performance bump as a new sales feature. In other words Apple will use the improved thermals to build a thinner iMac not a grossly are powerful one. Not that I like this idea but it is pretty obvious that the majority of iMac users like the idea.
- HBM and other similar solutions will open a new era in computing. I don't think the big deal will be for discreet GPUs though, I expect HBM solutions to power APUs in the future. If you think about Intels Crystal Well technology, it is really the flavor of things to come. In AMD's case if they build an APU with HBM2, of say 8 or 16 GB, they could corner a huge part of the market. One of the reasons I think Apple moved to soldered in RAM on many platforms is that they are looking out five years in advance knowing that external memory buses will be a thing of the past. In the not too distant future you will order a platform with the addressable memory determined by the model number of the processor you order. Frankly it has already been demonstrated that APU chips need much faster RAM so I don't see this as being off that far into the future.
- Lastly the poor Mini. I don't see Apple ever giving that machine a discreet GPU again. I can actually see the machine getting thinner. However the Mini's biggest problem is its cost so this is where I see AMD actually saving the Mini. A ZEN like APU would do wonders in this machine if ZEN lives up to the hype. However I'm also thinking that Apple does have some interest in VR and realizes the Mini will never be able to act a a platform for a GPU suitable for engaging VR. Thus I'm really hoping they wise up about the desktop and offer up a stripped down Mac Pro "LIKE" machine that can handle a single discreet GPU card. Think of this as a half sized Mac Pro if you will running desktop hardware instead of workstation hardware.
In any event that is where my mind is at the moment. Since updating to a 13" MBP last year my interest in what Apple has in the way of Macs has diminished a bit. I still have uses for a Mini like machine but Apples price structure are just to bruising for the uses I have in mind.I'm afraid this is where they're going with GPUs - sacrificing performance for battery life (even, astonishingly, on the iMac, which doesn't run on batteries :-) ). There are certainly lower-end machines that don't need discrete GPUs, but I think Apple needs four total discrete GPU machines (three of which exist), and two of them need to take gaming into account (one argument people are making is "Apple uses AMD for compute, which is great for photo and video editing, but not so much for games"). External graphics are a real option if Apple supports them well especially with increasing Thunderbolt speeds.
1.) Mac Pro - expensive, generally not purchased for gaming - GPUs need to be selected for very high performance in creative pro applications. As long as it's kept updated, the choice of workstation GPUs is fine... The biggest problem with the "trashcan" Mac Pro is that it's too elegant! An internal HD capacity of 0 in a machine like that? It should have a couple of 3.5" bays (as well as the SSD).
2.)iMac - 27" needs a discrete GPU (it's a 5k screen!!!) 21" should probably have the option (there's a very good reason to make a no discrete GPU model, as a reasonably priced home/student desktop). These ARE gamer-friendly machines, so nVidia options probably make a lot of sense. Why not use desktop GPUs for better price/performance - who cares about shaving a bit of weight off a desktop? A thicker machine could provide the cooling without being much louder... Do laptop parts actually offer better power/performance, or are they just drawing less power for less performance? I can see not offering the multi-hundred watt super-performance gaming GPUs for a mixture of environmental and cooling concerns, but it should have a lot of GPU options, not all of which are laptop parts. Could an external GPU theoretically drive the INTERNAL display? If so, what would it take to make that work? A Thunderbolt 3 port would connect the GPU (almost certain to exist on the next model) - could it feed the display signal back in on the same port? If not, what would it need for a second attachment?
3.) MacBook Pro - one discrete model (15" only) is fine, laptop GPU is (of course) fine. In my opinion, this is mostly a creative pro machine, not a gaming machine. Maybe it wants one higher-end GPU option, but what I primarily care about is that it doesn't LOSE its discrete GPU option. Thunderbolt 3 opens the possibility of external GPUs with excellent performance, and the question of the internal display is somewhat less important - the internal isn't the incredible screen the 5K iMac has, and I'd imagine either a serious gamer or a creative pro would want an external display when they went to the trouble of plugging in external graphics. One really interesting accessory Apple could make for the MacBook Pros is a 5K Thunderbolt Display with its own GPU? Is there any reason the GPU couldn't be in the display with a fast Thunderbolt connection?
4.) Midline desktop Mac. Apple NEEDS to make a screen less Mac in between the Mini and the Pro, especially with the Mini moving down the line. It could be a quad core Mini with either internal discrete graphics or enough Thunderbolt ports (on multiple buses - you don't want a GPU contending with storage) to make external graphics a good option. I'd like to see a "Mac Midi" with space for a PCI-e card and a couple of drives, but it'll never pass muster with Jony Ive. Barring a Mac Midi, a quad core Mini with plenty of Thunderbolt would serve much the same purpose - some enterprising company might even make a housing that holds a GPU and some drives and matches the Mini.
That’d make me feel better. And if it’s a proprietary Apple port (as it would be), you could just swap out blades with newer ones for upgrades.
Not going to happen, but it’s more realistic than asking for an xMac in 2016 of all things.
The present Mini is more or less a headless 13" MacBook Pro, although one generation older than the current model. Earlier Minis have been closer to headless iMacs; and even a headless version of a 21.5"iMac, let alone a 27" iMac, could be really appealing with external expansion.
With the RX480 positioned between a 390/390x at $199. That's a lot of 'bang for the buck.' If you were building your own rig. Polaris has broken cover. Bringing the former 'high end' performance of the 290/390x to the mainstream 80% of the market? 40% faster is it? With much better thermals? I'd like to see the benches on it...for the architectural improvements...
AMD has yet to flesh out the rest of the range. Going for the 'mid-range' 80% of gpu market 1st. They need the marketshare gains.
June 29th launch and we'll hear more about the rest of the range.
So, a 980/980GTX Nv' equivalent at a potent price to go.
I'm watching this with interest. Vega to come (With HBM2?) later in the year. Would this RX480 be able to go into a Mac Mini? Or low end iMac or mid-range iMac to power that 5k screen better?
And the Zen apu (for the mini in future?) was mentioned. 40% IPC improvements with 8 core! 16HT!
With AMD finally coming around the mountain with their forward thinking tech' will they finally deliver some competition in the PC space?
Lemon Bon Bon.
The Nv GTX1080 has just launched and while mainstream or high end consumer gpus used to be an option...they no longer are on Apple's 'tower' market.
And the iMac's thermals don't allow for it. I'd love a 'Pro.' But the price is insane. When I can get most of the performance of the base tower and a 5k monitor for far less in the iMac.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I sure hope Apple offers a BTO for a single Radeon RX 480 inside a future Mac mini.
I imagine Vega custom designs are being targeted this Fall for Apple inside the Mac Pro. A Dual Vega each sporting 16GB HBM 2.0 cards would be a freak of nature.
The initial Zen 8 Physical Cores/16 Threads SMT design FX, inside the AM4 socket has all the power and functionality of Intel sans Thunderbolt. I have no clue if that is what holds Apple back, but the 8 Core will add a 6 Core, then the Server/Workstation class arrives with 12 - 32 Cores: 32 physical cores targeted for Supercomputers.
The APUs with the same socket will have, at least 6 Cores + CU from whatever Polaris 11 GPGPUs that are tacked on. The Polaris 11 was not even demonstrated. It has me wondering if Apple will demonstrate a custom design [they have awarded AMD with several] at WWDC 2016. I would accept the Polaris 11 inside a Mac Mini, and definitely inside an upcoming Macbook Pro.
The Zen CPU is 40% IPC over Excavator. It is more than twice the IP of FX-8350.