4 ms·

I've run over 120k AMD GPUs. They are ALL snowflakes. Even within the same model number, no two are the same and they can vary quite a bit in performance. It is

I've run over 120k AMD GPUs. They are ALL snowflakes. Even within the same model number, no two are the same and they can vary quite a bit in performance. It is actually kind of wild to see this at scale. We called it the 'silicon lottery'. I started to write code to gather data on location on the wafer that it was printed on to see if I could do a correlation there (as I heard a rumor that that the edges aren't as good), but sadly never got a chance to finish it up.

damiankennedy 4y ago
The ones from around the edge (you can tell by the distintive curve on one side) are sold as 6900 AF's
- stodor89 4y ago
  The AF (as f**k?) suffix is really powerful: it gives you 1 generation of performance increase.
nimbius 4y ago
Depends on the customer I guess. For me I'll always choose AMD for its bulletproof Linux support.
- latchkey 4y ago
  My comment wasn't intended as negative against AMD, just an interesting note about GPU performance measurements.
- izacus 4y ago
  What does that have to do with their performance variance?
tigeroil 4y ago
I've noticed this to some extent with their CPUs as well. From what I can tell this is, in part, because AMD run their chips much closer to their physical limits than say, Intel or Nvidia do. They're all redlining so to speak. As such this means that any differences in the silicon are much more likely to have an impact on performance.
- _a_a_a_ 4y ago
  I can't make sense of this. CPUs microarchitecture is run at their clock speed. If they're running close to their physical limits, either they don't fail in which case all's well, or they fail in which case it's a wipeout such as a blue screen, reboot, freezes, corruption or whatever. AFAICS they can't run correctly but somehow slower. Be good if you could explain where I'm getting it wrong.
  - doubled112 4y ago
    > run at their clock speed The clock speed for a CPU is dynamic. Both Intel and AMD CPUs will boost their clocks to as high as possible given the current conditions. Some will boost higher than others, even in the same batch. They are even labelled "up to" like a cable internet connection.
    - _a_a_a_ 4y ago
      You're right, thanks.

damiankennedy 4y ago

The ones from around the edge (you can tell by the distintive curve on one side) are sold as 6900 AF's

stodor89 4y ago
The AF (as f**k?) suffix is really powerful: it gives you 1 generation of performance increase.

nimbius 4y ago

Depends on the customer I guess. For me I'll always choose AMD for its bulletproof Linux support.

latchkey 4y ago
My comment wasn't intended as negative against AMD, just an interesting note about GPU performance measurements.
izacus 4y ago
What does that have to do with their performance variance?

tigeroil 4y ago

I've noticed this to some extent with their CPUs as well. From what I can tell this is, in part, because AMD run their chips much closer to their physical limits than say, Intel or Nvidia do. They're all redlining so to speak. As such this means that any differences in the silicon are much more likely to have an impact on performance.

_a_a_a_ 4y ago
I can't make sense of this. CPUs microarchitecture is run at their clock speed. If they're running close to their physical limits, either they don't fail in which case all's well, or they fail in which case it's a wipeout such as a blue screen, reboot, freezes, corruption or whatever. AFAICS they can't run correctly but somehow slower. Be good if you could explain where I'm getting it wrong.
- doubled112 4y ago
  > run at their clock speed The clock speed for a CPU is dynamic. Both Intel and AMD CPUs will boost their clocks to as high as possible given the current conditions. Some will boost higher than others, even in the same batch. They are even labelled "up to" like a cable internet connection.
  - _a_a_a_ 4y ago
    You're right, thanks.