Thanks for sharing here.
I posted your tweets before and I believe you were being very fair with them... it is because the RDNA 1.1 article put people on fire here.
I want to congrats your dissection on Series X SoC... I hope you do some with PS5 when you have time.
Seems like theses APUs are all mixed techs.
BTW what do you thing about what Kitty leaked in October?
1.) I saw some articles which put forward "RDNA1.1" or "RDNA1.5" but that was not my creation or claim.
I obviously have no control about how people cite my commentary or (mis)interpret my statements.
There is the possibility for further clarification and getting in touch with newswriters to recommend adjustments but personally I don't have the energy and time to do that on a wide scale.
2.) I may do some speculative PS5 analysis because there isn't an IP list for the PS5, so we can't tell for sure as on the Xbox Series X how it's build.
But yes, the PS5 is also a mixed tech chip.
3.) The render frontend setup is the same as on RDNA1 GPUs however this doesn't necessarly mean that it's identical.
The Compute Units have the physical design improvements from RDNA2, so even if from a functional perspective there would be no difference, it could be seen as an oversimplified statement.
And if you exclude the TMUs with Texture Sampler Feedback and Ray Tracing Acceleration there wouldn't be so much difference between RDNA1 and RDNA2 either way.
I would put the CUs also in a mixed domain.
I apologize, my post was indeed a bit crude and hasty. It was just based on my superficial impression, perhaps not helped by the way your posts were presented (in picemeal) here. Thanks for taking time to clarify your analyse.
I took no offense because it was rather obvious that it ties to the 1.) point above but since I was directly addressed I felt the need to lay down my actual standpoint.
