• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Polaris architecture – GCN 4.0

I have no problem with AMD going for the mid- and lower end. In fact I'm still debating whether or not I want to spend more than £150. Previously I'd been thinking about £250-£300, but I'm leaning towards spending less than that now.

So I don't care if AMD want to go for the low-mid rage.

But what I do care about is perf/£. If their £200 cards are barely an improvement on what we've got; if 390/X perf still costs £250+... then we'll have to see what nV has to offer instead.

I'll wait to see what AMD are offering, and they'll be my first choice... but they need to give me the perf/£ I'm looking for. For people like me, that's the #1 criteria. Size, no, power consumption, no, which company has the perf crown... no. Just give me great bang for buck.

So the latest rumours of 390 perf for a tiny bit less than 390 £ have to be wrong if I'm getting my wallet out.

I'm sure they are wrong, because AMD made a big song and dance about making VR perf "affordable". That's 390 perf, and that perf was previously £240. So either it was all BS marketing stunt, and AMD thinks £240 already *is* affordable, or they're going to drop the price to £150-£170, which is where all us cheapskates look :p

At £200+, 390 perf would be utter crap.
 
Tbh, I'd be less worried if AMD hadn't already released the Nano at £500 :p So counting on them doing the logical thing that will please consumers cannot be taken forgranted :p
 
maonayze said:
Anyway, if rumours are true then Nvidias 1080 will be faster than Polaris 10 because the 1080 will be aimed at a higher market than the Polaris 10 anyways. P11 and P10 are aimed at the low - mid end of the market whereas 1080 is aimed at low high-end end of market. 1070 probably aimed at same market or thereabouts as P10 if I am correct in my assumptions.

The real enthusiast battle will be between Vega and 1080/Ti and that's not until End of Q4 2016 (at the earliest) or Q1 2017. AMD are aiming to get back market share where the most cards are sold.....Laptops and low-mid market.

It makes sense because they are both waiting on GDDR5X and HBM2 yields and this needs to be right for release.
:D
Click to expand...
For crying out loud !!!


None of the cards are out yet, please cease this pointless bickering.

I really don't see the point in all of this because it makes no sense at all.

AMD/Nvidia please release the cards so we can stop all this crazy speculating.
 
Seanspeed said:
For crying out loud !!!


None of the cards are out yet, please cease this pointless bickering.

I really don't see the point in all of this because it makes no sense at all.

AMD/Nvidia please release the cards so we can stop all this crazy speculating.
Click to expand...

I see what you did there.....:p
 
Seanspeed said:
No it's not ignoring these things. Quite the opposite. It is specifically taking these things into direct account, clock rate abilities aside.

AMD have told us what their general efficiency improvements have been with Polaris and the new process shrink. 2x the performance per watt. Which is pretty typical of new arch/node shrink. After that, it doesn't take anything but rough arithmetic to estimate where a card at a given chip size will be at.

Combined with specific talk about Polaris being aimed at the 'mainstream', I think a lot of what we've been talking about is hardly some 'out there' sort of conjecture.

320mm^ die vs 230mm^ die both using Finfet improvements on the general 20nm design on new architectures. Like I said, Nvidia would have had to have botched things badly, or AMD injecting some actual magic for this not to be a foregone conclusion. I dont know what the specific gap will be, but it's very hard to imagine any way that these will turn out to be equal products, much less a win in AMD's favor. I'm not saying it's physically impossible or anything, who the hell knows, but it just seems like a very long shot at this point.


A full system using an 8800 GT only used 200w *under load*.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2365/13

GPU design today has gotten a lot more beastly since then. We have midrange cards now that use more than that on their own.
Click to expand...

You're doing it again, reading something and then applying your own slant on it, by this measure your prediction is even more out.

Given that Fiji is a 250 Watt card; if Polaris is a 250 Watt card it will end up 2x the performance of a Fury-X

Half a Fury-X (Fury-X performance at Polaris power consumption) is 125 Watts

So lets do the Maths.

Polaris at 125 Watts = Fury-X performance < 2x the performance per Watt
Polaris at 190 Watts = 1.5x Fury-X performance < 2x the performance per Watt
Polaris at 250 Watts = 2x Fury=X performance < 2x the performance per Watt

whats the power-consumption of P10? is it 50 watts?, or 150 watts? maybe 200 Watts? no body knows.....

Do people even bother to think about they are saying anymore?

We do know this, the 125mm^2 P11 is a 75 Watt GPU, so the 235mm^2 must be about 135 Watts? so that must mean P10 is 1.15x Fury-X, right? No.... we don't know enough about anything to draw conclusions like that.
Oh but wait a minute, the Fury-Nano is only a 150 Watt card and is only about 15% slower than a Fury-X, now i can argue we will have 3x Fury-X performance with Polaris 10! yay for AMD fans..... :D

What a load of old.....
 
Last edited:
Humbug gets it, the only metric we have on Polaris is that we can expect 2*perf/W, so until we know the TDP of the chips we can only guess just how fast they will be.

One rumour was 100W for Polaris 10 another was 130+, the demo of Polaris 11 was using 85.6W against a 950 using 149W, that was total system power (it must be as the 950 is only a 90TDP card) so a Polaris 11 is using 20W or so in that demo.
more than that we just don't know.
 
We can't even expect 2x perf/W, marketing materials means at least one card will have 2x perf/watt, it might be a low end card that is insanely efficient, it might be another nano, downclocked/undervolted card which increases it's efficiency. Fiji is one core yet in different usage, Fury X, pro and Nano it gives fairly significantly different performance per watt.

On the other hand 2x perf/watt could merely be the worst card they have in this range, or all could exceed it. Basically it's just something in a marketing slide that could or could not apply to any specific card in the range.
 
My hope is that the smaller and cheaper 480x matches the 1070 due to the primitive discard accelerator. That would be a needed, massive swing in AMD's favour.
 
Raviolay said:
My hope is that the smaller and cheaper 480x matches the 1070 due to the primitive discard accelerator. That would be a needed, massive swing in AMD's favour.
Click to expand...

This will mainly help on minimum fps at very graphics heavy scenes.
 
humbug said:
Interesting to see that everyone already seems to know exactly where the performance of Nvidia and AMD sit before anyone knows anything about any of them.

Of course predictably the conclusion is *Nvidia better*.

Get real, stop trying to establish facts you know are utter junk.
Click to expand...

Exactly. No one knows ANYTHING really, just pure speculation.
 
Give me 980 Ti performance or greater for £300 or less and I will be very happy. Should be easy really. New architecture, huge increase in transistors, new memory. Otherwise will be a bit of a fail.
 
humbug said:
Interesting to see that everyone already seems to know exactly where the performance of Nvidia and AMD sit before anyone knows anything about any of them.

Of course predictably the conclusion is *Nvidia better*.

Get real, stop trying to establish facts you know are utter junk.
Click to expand...

Wherever the perf is at, for me coming from my 7950, its gona be amazing :D

Been a long wait though, 4 years.. but still runs my games really well :)
 
I bought my amd 7870 on 29/3/2012 for £269,and its been a fantastic card.

Games like witcher 3,fallout 4,dark souls 3 run really well.

I cant wait to see what the polaris cards can do,but im sure they will be massive upgrade to my 7870.

I just hope the polaris 10 wont be more than £250- £300.
 
karik666 said:
I bought my amd 7870 on 29/3/2012 for £269,and its been a fantastic card.

Games like witcher 3,fallout 4,dark souls 3 run really well.

I cant wait to see what the polaris cards can do,but im sure they will be massive upgrade to my 7870.

I just hope the polaris 10 wont be more than £250- £300.
Click to expand...

Damn, i paid £259 (with shipping) for my 7950 four months after that in July of 2012.
 
MyBrains said:
Damn, i paid £259 (with shipping) for my 7950 four months after that in July of 2012.
Click to expand...

You got a nice deal for the 7950,but anyway we have both had very good value for what we paid.

I just wish amd would give us details of there new cards performance and price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom