![]() well that and the Warranty Guarantee., because strictly speaking both the WX and MI are "AMD" Products where-as the RX are AIB Partner Products thus are covered by 3rd Party Warranties as opposed to AMD. Typically you'll see between 15-20% Performance Difference trying to do these tasks on the "Wrong" Driver.Īs such in essence you're paying for the Larger Memory, Higher Quality Control and Professional Driver Support. the Professional and Retail Drivers DO have very noticeably performance differences between Gaming and Workstation Workloads alike. It's also unable to use the Professional Drivers, although arguably you might be able to use a Softmod in order to switch between the two. On top of this you have 2 Display Ports and 2 HDMI Ports. plus it's only guaranteed to hit 1500MHz while remaining under 95c and use less than 375w. RX VEGA 64 obviously has the least VRAM (8GB HBM2). Retail Drivers, typically are more frequently pushed out with less QA in order to keep a fairly rapid development and update Cycle but this also results in some major issues from time-to-time something that simply would be unacceptable for Professional Environments. ![]() ![]() It also operated with the Professional Drivers, which go through additional QA Process to ensure Stability. 1500MHz underload., and again will do so at ~65c while drawing no more than 265w. The WX9100 has 16GB (HBM2) VRAM, and is guaranteed to Avg. Of course it's expressly designed for a Server Blade, so has no Display Ports it also features 32GB (HBM2) VRAM. In essence the MI25 is guaranteed to operate at 1500MHz underload., and will do so at ~65c while drawing no more than 230w. Where they differ however is primarily in their Binning. This means that the RX VEGA 64 (£500), WX 9100 (£1,800) and MI25 (£3,200) are functionality speaking the same Hardware. At the moment Radeon Pro is still a mix of old and recent GPUs so open drivers more than likely had gotten closer to the closed drivers… on GeForce RTX and Quadro RTX, the open drivers are a mess.Well as a key point the Radeon (RX), Radeon Pro (WX) and Radeon Instinct (MI) Variants are on-paper identical. There are plenty of benchmarks which various Linux leaning sites mainly test mainstream GPUs with a limited number of commonly used Pro GPUs that OEMs ship their workstation models, the main downside is “open drivers” lag far behind the closed source driver when a major GPU has launched. If there were more commercial software on Linux there could be a much different environment.īut maybe any of you saw benchmarks that would indicate improved CAD performance on “pro” cards with open drivers? The greatest difference is if developers take advantage of the hardware and software SDK they can squeeze more performance out of a Pro card just like game developers are offered deals to get access to SDK for showing off eye candy of consumer GPUs. Many years ago before Nvidia locked their drivers down, it was possible to use GeForce drivers on Quadros to squeeze higher frame-rates–hardware changed rapidly in that time period of Pro cards to the point AMD/Nvidia would up the number of encoder/decoder units vs consumer. And a difference would only be visible when using pro-drivers (+ maybe ProRender SDK). So from what I gathered until now it seems like the magic is in software. Kinda relevant L1 video: Putting the Radeon Pro WX7100 to Work: Testing (Part 1) - YouTube The only detailed info I could find about actual AMD performance tuning are here: Developer Guides, Manuals & ISA Documents - AMDīut that’s mostly focused on CPUs, and didn’t really help with my original question.ĭo any of you have any Idea why something like wire-frames would be so much faster on “pro” cards?Īnd If I wanted to develop my own programs that would target “pro” cards, which API calls / instructions specifically would be faster? If the wire-frame performance is so good then which API calls are faster? Under what circumstances? But if that’s the case then what specifically is locked? It’s not like some parts of API are missing. Then I thought about silicon itself but for example Wx 4100 is a polaris 10 chip which is also used in RX 400 series consumer gpus.īut it’s possible that some silicon is just locked. So that argument would mean something opposite: less performance, but more correctness. And there are rigorous validation tests for all those cases. This usually means that all the corner-cases need to be handled correctly instead of doing something ‘kinda correct’ but enough for gaming. But from what I can tell this essentially means no corner cutting when implementing a particular API (OpenCL for example). So the FP64 argument goes out the window… ![]() WX4100 has FP64 performance of ~150 GFLOPS Specifically wire-frame performance is a sticking point. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |