This week AMD will finally unveil its chiplet-based RDNA3 GPUs. The big question is whether AMD will follow Nvidia’s lead with power-guzzling, fire-breathing GPUs, and at what price? The gaming community has been split on the RTX 4090. Some appreciate its record-breaking performance, while others have lambasted its size, power requirements, and its ability to melt power cables. However, it seems AMD might be taking a different approach with RDNA3. One of its new GPUs has been photographed, and though it’s bigger than its predecessors, it sports only two eight-pin power connectors. That seems kind of quaint in the current environment. It also flies in the face of rumors that AMD would be unleashing a monster GPU in the same vein that Nvidia has with the 4090.
Photos of an AMD engineering sample GPU have appeared on Overclock3D.net. The card is shown next to its RDNA2 sibling, and we can draw two firm conclusions from it. First, as far as power draw goes, it’s safe to assume this is a 375W GPU. It can pull 150W from each power cable, and 75W from the PCIe slot. That’s considerably less than the RTX 4090’s 450W total board power (TBP). That will likely come as good news for a lot of gamers while being a cause for concern to others. After all, AMD has stated previously that board power consumption would be going up for RDNA3. That lead a lot of people, us included, to assume it meant it was really going up. However, if it’s 375W that’s only 45W more than the current RX 6950 XT. The original 6900 XT was a 300W card though, so 75W is a decent amount.
The other conclusion we can draw is the card is actually a reasonable size. It looks like a regular dual-slot design, which actually seems small now. It’s almost, dare we say, kind of cute? With the RTX 4090, some people had to buy a new case just to make it fit. That’s because some of the partner boards are outlandishly massive, with 3.5 slot designs and unprecedented width. It’s actually exacerbated the adapter bending issue as the connector is where the side panel is on some mid-towers.
Another explanation for its size is it could be the second-tier RX 7900 XT. According to rumors, AMD is launching two GPUs this week. There will be a 7900 XT and a 7900 XTX flagship card. It’s possible the XTX version might have a higher power draw. That would be similar to some of the RX 6950 XT partner boards, which featured three connectors instead of the two found on the AMD version. It’s also worth remembering that the noted overclocking site Igor’s Lab posted a mockup of the card’s PCB previously. They said it would have three eight-pin connectors based on what their sources told them. That could very well happen with the full-sized XTX board.
Also, the pictured board is clearly an engineering sample. Its naked PCB is exposed, as it’s lacking a backplate. This suggests we shouldn’t rush to judgment just yet on its features. However, it has the same red “racing stripes” shown in a teaser during the Zen 4 launch (top). That seems to indicate this is the real deal.
There could also be a huge plot twist here: AMD has found a way to compete with the RTX 4090 with 75W less power. If that’s the case, the company has made some truly revolutionary efficiency gains. It’s already stated its goal is a 50 percent improvement in performance-per-watt for RDNA3. It calls that “industry-leading efficiency,” and it might be right about that. Nvidia isn’t exactly a slouch, though. After all, it found a way to keep TBP for the RTX 4090 the same as the 3090 Ti despite it having more than triple the number of transistors.
Still, AMD had a PR campaign for its current-gen cards stating they were more efficient than Nvidia’s. Generally speaking, it’s right about that, so it’s possible AMD could have the upper hand in terms of efficiency with RDNA3. The big question is whether that will matter to gamers.
Now Read:
- AMD Engineer Confirms RDNA3 AMD Noise Suppression For Radeon GPUs Accidentally Leaks
- MSI Yanks Video Showing Off AMD’s New AM5 Socket (Updated)
- AMD’s RDNA3 7900XT Flagship to Offer 384-bit Memory Bus, 24GB of VRAM
No comments:
Post a Comment