AMD’s Baffin, Weston and Banks GPUs spotted on Zauba

[El Diablo]

This was discoverd by some guy somewhere online

 

i didnt make this article

AMD Baffin XT

BAFFIN XT is based on C981 board model. It means that those who were thinking that C981 board is somehow a Fiji-successor, were clearly wrong. They were wrong because Zauba’s entry states G5, which stands for GDDR5 memory. Assuming that this card has indeed 4GB memory it could just be a new mid-range chip that will replace Pitcairn or Tonga. Baffin could therefore land in Radeon Rx 470 series.

PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD ASSEMBLY (VIDEO / GRAPHIC CARD) C98101 BAFFIN XT G5 4GB CHANNEL P/N 102-C98101-00 (FOC)

AMD Weston X3, Weston PRO S3

WESTON appears to be an entry-level GPU equipped with 2GB GDDR5 memory. There are two entries, one named X3 and the other is PRO S3. They both share the same specs of 2GB GDDR5 memory clocked at 4500 MHz. The only difference is the board number X3 is C729 and PRO is C728. The X3 could just be a typo and it should state XT.

PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD ASSEMBLY (VIDEO GRAPHIC CARD) C72951 WESTON X3 2GB 4.5GBPS GDDR5P/N:102-C72952-00 (FOC)
PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD ASSEMBLY (VIDEO GRAPHIC CARD) C72951 WESTON PRO S3 2GB 4.5GBPS GDDR5 P/N:102-C72851-00 (FOC)

AMD Banks PRO S3

BANKS shares the same board number and specs with Weston PRO S3. Either they are the same, or designed for different purpose (desktop/mobile). Weston and Banks can end up in anything between Radeon R7 360 to R5 310 series.

PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD ASSEMBLY (VIDEO GRAPHIC CARD) C72851 BANKS PRO S3 2GB 4.5GBPS GDDR5P/N:102-C72851-00 (FOC)

AMD Radeon 400 series

It’s worth noting that the rumors about Baffin are not new. Back in August first unconfirmed reports suggested that AMD is preparing three brand-new chips: Baffin, Ellesmere and Greenland. All three were confirmed in recent HWINFO software update.

Zauba’s shipping manifests confirm that such GPUs could indeed exists. However, Banks and Weston might just be a rebranded GPUs we already know. On the other hand Baffin is something that still ‘baffles’ me. Is this Tonga or Pitcairn replacement? Is it a new chip or just rebranded GPU, and does G5 mean GDDR5 or GDDR5X? Questions, questions.

My theory is that AMD has indeed two brand new chips, Baffin and Greenland, while Ellesmere could just be Hawaii with GDDR5X memory. Would Hawaii benefit from even faster memory? Hard to say, but I’m afraid it would not improve performance that much. AMD could get rid of Hawaii and Tonga altogether, it would simplify the lineup and allow Fiji to use R9 480(X) market name, leaving R9 490(X) for Greenland. For now I’m assuming Hawaii is still planned for 400 series.

Anyway this is what I came up with, just remember this is just a theory and nothing confirmed. Ah, in case you are wondering Weston, Banks and Baffin are all ‘Arctic Islands’.

AMD Radeon 400 Series Prediction (Feb 18, 2016)
Graphics Card Model	GPU	Fabrication Process	Memory
AMD Radeon R9 495(X) / R9 FURY II	GREENLAND	14nm FinFET	HBM2
AMD Radeon R9 490(X)	FIJI	28nm	HBM1
AMD Radeon R9 480(X)	ELLESMERE / HAWAII?	28nm	GDDR5(X)
AMD Radeon R7 470(X)	BAFFIN	14nm FinFET	GDDR5(X)
AMD Radeon R7 460(X)	WESTON / OLAND?	28nm	GDDR5
AMD Radeon R5 450(X)	WESTON / OLAND?	28nm	GDDR5/DDR3
AMD Radeon R5 440(X)	BANKS / OLAND?	28nm	DDR3

[El Diablo]

Im feeling the 490x is the badboy fury x

 

the un-gimped fury x

 

the fury x has been delibratly slowed down, it can do way more than its currently capable off

 

my fury x maxes out at 50c,  the core can do way more but im feeling its 280x voltage regulator is holding it back,,or something else on the card is seriously bottlenecking it

[WereCat]

7 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

Im feeling the 490x is the badboy fury x

 

the un-gimped fury x

 

the fury x has been delibratly slowed down, it can do way more than its currently capable off

 

my fury x maxes out at 50c,  the core can do way more but im feeling its 280x voltage regulator is holding it back,,or something else on the card is seriously bottlenecking it

As was said before I think it is ROP count that is one of the mains bottleneck.

 

I dont think that we will see 490x on 28nm.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

The text is nearly unreadable in the night theme. Can you try resetting the text colors please?

[raphidy]

No for rebrands! We need new architecture for all graphics card in the new r9 400 line.

[byalexandr]

1 hour ago, El Diablo said:

Im feeling the 490x is the badboy fury x

 

the un-gimped fury x

 

the fury x has been delibratly slowed down, it can do way more than its currently capable off

 

my fury x maxes out at 50c,  the core can do way more but im feeling its 280x voltage regulator is holding it back,,or something else on the card is seriously bottlenecking it

I know, that many transistors and that much raw compute, something is up.

[byalexandr]

Looks like I'm picking up a 495X/Fury II this June  

[El Diablo]

1 hour ago, WereCat said:

As was said before I think it is ROP count that is one of the mains bottleneck.

 

I dont think that we will see 490x on 28nm.

How?

[El Diablo]

8 minutes ago, raphidy said:

No for rebrands! We need new architecture for all graphics card in the new r9 400 line.

We guna get rebrands for a while

 

rebrands arent all that bad,, if they include new other features like a newer VCE , or DX12.3 or other new stuff

 

however the 280X apparently had nothing new

 

 

[El Diablo]

57 minutes ago, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

The text is nearly unreadable in the night theme. Can you try resetting the text colors please?

i didnt make it bro

 

sorry

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

12 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

i didnt make it bro

 

sorry

What is that supposed to mean? I had asked you to reformat the OP for readability on the night theme, and it is under your obligation to do so, regardless of where it is from.

 

As well, you should put that type of information in a quote box.

[DocSwag]

That table flies straight off the page....

Also, I honestly doubt AMD will use any 28 no GPUs in the 400 series. They know they can't afford to due to the terrible effiency and the performance gap between it and new GPUs from itself and Nvidia. As well, 28nm chips are 2 times larger for the same performance (approximately) and so AMD would be paying more for the chips since less of them could be printed on one wafer and having to sell them at the same price as smaller chips. It just isn't practical. It'd be better for them to just order more smaller chips.

[WereCat]

39 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

How?

Fury X has the same ROP count as Hawaii and when looking at various DX12 benchmark we can see Hawaii usualy gets a lot of performance boost while Fiji gets almost none. That makes me and some other people think that the ROP is the issue there. Hawaii gets most of its raw performance unleashed in DX12 but Fiji cant because the ROP is insufficient (I am not really good at explaining this, sorry).