erulabs 5 minutes ago

Lower power consumption on a desktop monitor is an interesting technical challenge but I do wonder “Cui bono?” - obviously I’d want my gaming machine to consume less power but I’m not sure I’ve ever considered mouse-idle monitor-on power consumption when considering eg AMD versus Nvidia for my gaming machine.

Don’t get me wrong this is very interesting and AMD does great engineering and I loath to throw shade on an engineering focused company but… Is this going to convert to even a single net gain purchase for AMD?

I’m a relatively (to myself) a large AMD shareholder (colloquially: fanboy) and damn I’d love to see more focus on hardware matmul acceleration rather than idle monitor power draw.

syntaxing 4 hours ago

More curious, does RDNA4 have native FP8 support?

  • krasin 3 hours ago

    I refer to the RDNA4 instruction set manual ([1]), page 90, Table 41. WMMA Instructions.

    They support FP8/BF8 with F32 accumulate and also IU4 with I32 accumulate. The max matrix size is 16x16. For comparison, NVIDIA Blackwell GB200 supports matrices up to 256x32 for FP8 and 256x96 for NVFP4.

    This matters for overall throughput, as feeding a bigger matrix unit is actually cheaper in terms of memory bandwidth, as the number of FLOPs grows O(n^2) when increasing the size of a systolic array, while the number of inputs/outputs as O(n).

    1. https://www.amd.com/content/dam/amd/en/documents/radeon-tech...

    2. https://semianalysis.com/2025/06/23/nvidia-tensor-core-evolu...