I doubt the Navi33 on N6 was supposed to reach much higher clocks than the RDNA2 predecessors on N7, considering the massive jump in clocks these had already brought compared to RDNA1.
How the RX 7600 XT on N6 averages >2.7GHz in games, almost +1GHz over the RX5700XT in N7, sounds super impressive to me. According to TSMC, N6 vs N7 should provide only 7% higher clocks at ISO power.
For the 100000000000000000000000000000th or so time, the core problem in RDNA 3 is voltage handling, or some part of the power handling within the arch itself.
Meaning every single RDNA 3 product from a 7640hs to the XTX is clocked necessarily about 20% lower than it should've been and consumes way more power.
The announcement was "50% more perf, 50% better power efficiency". It was a bold lie and the real announcement should've been "50% more perf, 0% better power efficiency".
If it's got RDNA 3 in it, you can be sure that it is underclocked to cover for the horrid power draw. If you don't believe me, simply get a 7600 or xt and watt it up to 300W and try and see if you can't get 3.1Ghz easily.
The node is irrelevant in this. The arch itself is clocked to compensate for the electrical problems. If it got factory clocked at 2.5Ghz and 170W, you can be sure that it could do 3Ghz if you were willing to feed it 300W.
AMD wasn't a quitter in 2008 when they held back on a top-end product but launched the cost-focused RV770 cards that wouldn't compete on the high-end against the massive Tesla GT200 with a 512bit bus. On the contrary, it was a period when AMD gained a lot of marketshare for releasing a product with much better price/performance than the competition.
Nobody's saying AMD are quitters. I'm saying AMD's policy of desperately pinching every penny for their products and releasing only when they are sure of comfortable margins isn't getting them any appreciation.
Nvidia releases fat, expensive monolithic dies way bigger than anything AMD has done in over a decade. They don't care if it's "not as economical". This is a company philosophy problem, not a technical one. Nvidia goes big or goes home, AMD goes as small as possible and that's getting tiring.
Interestingly save for the R300 / Radeon 9700 era and the crypto craze anomalies, it's whenever AMD focuses on less SKUs without competing at the high-end that they've been able to recoup marketshare.
That's not surprising since Nvidia's "go big" philosophy tends to build large, expensive products and to then find the markets to pay for them.
Whereas AMD's "maximise value" policy tends to build reasonable, smaller dies that are meant to satisfy 80% of the market instead of pushing the market their way.
The former makes for great top dies, while the latter makes for great midrange and low size stuff.
I should make a complete explanation of why Nvidia keeps winning against AMD because apparently nobody noticed yet: it's not about the product, it's about the way you get it sold. Nvidia selfishly pushes the market and tech where it wants to. Fermi and CUDA, later VR, streaming and AI. The general effort of Jensen has been to provide things to a sometimes non-existant market and then to hype the heck out of it. This is a highly risky strategy because you're basically creating something out of pure will, and it is kind of an obnoxious thing to push everyone to do things your way, but clearly Jensen is very good at it.
AMD meanwhile patiently waits for Nvidia to innovate and follows, or for Sony to make a request, or for a market to present itself. This is a fundamental difference in company culture, and is what thoroughly disvalues adroc or branch_suggestion's opinions on "AMD will just build the biggest, fattest GPU and they'll just win". I have never seen AMD make an unreasonably fat and risky thing unless they were 100% sure that it would sell. This is why they're always N°2, because the competition sees the prey and leaps, while AMD waits to be sure that the prey has been correctly identified in the bush, has been mapped, weighed, geolocated by satellite, genetically tested, and then only jumps after all the securities have been taken.
In clear: whatever AMD will output with RDNA 5, I just expect Jensen to go "go bigger, go harder, go even if it is stupid, but just go".
Of course, not competing at the high end brings problems for brand value, product ASP and raw margins. However AMD desperately needs to increase dGPU marketshare at the moment. Being in the 10-15% marketshare probably makes it very hard to be profitable with spending all the money needed to put new chips out there.
I don't know, last I looked GPU client still brought in some profits. I honestly think that AMD's game right now is to navigate on sight and follow where Nvidia went while penny pinching every single step of the way, outside of a few techs that unfortunately aren't important enough to really move the market.