For the last year,
I've been looking at the predicted performance and efficiency of the RDNA architecture(s) as those were what I was most familiar with and most interested in due to their presence in the now current gen consoles. I determined early on that there was no IPC improvement between RDNA 1 and 2 and that it was merely* a clockspeed bump that was dictating any performance increase per compute unit (CU). However, in the back of my mind I was asking myself how Nvidia's architectures stack up against one another in a similar comparison but I knew that you can't normally directly compare between architectural designs except when the comparison is abstracted via different metrics.
*I say "merely" but I still think it's impressive how far AMD were able to push the working frequency of their chips.
Luckily for me, this is exactly what I did for the final RDNA analysis - I used real world benchmarks in games and actively used frequency (
performed by TechPowerUp) to inform the relationship between performance and architectural aspects. While I wasn't able to pull as
much information due to the differences in architecture, I was still able to compare and contrast between AMD's and Nvidia's respective approaches to graphics card design and I'll try and take a look into the future to see what we might expect next, as I always do...
