AMD Polaris architecture – GCN 4.0

Lokken86 · 13 May 2016 at 23:03

Kaapstad said:
I don't understand your post.

In my previous post I said that the top 6 cards were bottlenecked, I fail to see what the AOTS graph has got to do with it.

Oh sorry I was supposed to quote the post above yours. I got mixed up since you had the same picture. It has been edited to what it should be now

LoadsaMoney · 13 May 2016 at 23:07

D.P. said:
that is a classic AMD problem. Optimize drivers to such an extent that they close the performance gap or even take the lead - just when nvidia launching the next generation and no one cares.

The FuryX performance is now reasonable, but who on earth will buy one when you can get a 1080 that will whip its ass with twice the memory to boot.

Agree with this.

AlamoX · 13 May 2016 at 23:12

LoadsaMoney said:
Not now its not, but on launch, it was more of a competitor to it

so what was your point then ?

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 13 May 2016 at 23:12

Is this is the Fury X thread - thought this was the Polaris thread.

Seanspeed · 13 May 2016 at 23:14

Gregster said:
Change the damned record ffs. Every post is this garbage. I will pit my TX against your nano in all the games you have and lets see what is the better overall shall we?

Ashes of the Singularity has officially become the most expensive benchmarking suite out there.

Mtom · 13 May 2016 at 23:14

Lokken86 said:
You need to work on your cherry picking

I linked a DX11 bench intentionally to prevent the DX12 who cares theres only a few games debate.

Lokken86 · 13 May 2016 at 23:15

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Is this is the Fury X thread - thought this was the Polaris thread.

Oops

Gerard · 13 May 2016 at 23:17

LoadsaMoney said:
I was talking about when the hyped Titan X killer Fury launched, it was trading blows with the 980, some were saying no it wasn't, so i showed it was

It was way over hyped, even i got caught up in it, but i'll not be making the same mistake this time with Polaris

Id love it if AMD came out with a killer card, i just can't see it now

It was NOT hyped as a titan x killer, you're getting this from an image that was bs and was known to be soon after it surfaced.

^ That would be the image in question so can we stop with the "titan x killer" bs. Just a product of imagination that somehow became "fact" somewhere along the line.

Ian Evey · 13 May 2016 at 23:17

AlamoX said:
so what was your point then ?

Jeeeez! His point was the fury cards were a let down at launch. That's it, move on.

Seanspeed · 13 May 2016 at 23:21

Mtom said:
I linked a DX11 bench intentionally to prevent the DX12 who cares theres only a few games debate.

You linked a DX11 bench of a game known to favor AMD cards either way.

Cherry picking single games is always an awful way to prove which card is better. You need to look at a large variety of games.

Mtom · 13 May 2016 at 23:25

Seanspeed said:
You linked a DX11 bench of a game known to favor AMD cards either way.

Cherry picking single games is always an awful way to prove which card is better. You need to look at a large variety of games.

It was done exactly to prove that point, that cherry picking is not worth anything when someone cherry picking one single bench to prove Fury X is (was) a 980 contender.

Next time please read back a bit, put it into context and try to turn on your sarcasm detector.

AllBodies · 13 May 2016 at 23:26

Looking forward to 1 month from now when we know everything about all the new cards, and can also buy them.

It'll put an end to all the speculation and he said she said.

billyturbo · 13 May 2016 at 23:27

"I checked the benchmarks when the Fury cards were released and I must say I was super disappointed by them. So disappointed in fact that I went out and bought two".

Lokken86 · 13 May 2016 at 23:28

AllBodies said:
Looking forward to 1 month from now when we know everything about all the new cards, and can also buy them.

It'll put an end to all the speculation and he said she said.

Then we can look forward to the next 130 page+ thread about the next ones. Just thinking about page one makes me cringe.

Mauller · 13 May 2016 at 23:29

With the improvements in their driver overhead and the hardware changes in GCN4, Polaris and vega should not have such a big delta in theoretical and actual performance compared with Hawaii and Fury at launch.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 13 May 2016 at 23:39

Mauller said:
With the improvements in their driver overhead and the hardware changes in GCN4, Polaris and vega should not have such a big delta in theoretical and actual performance compared with Hawaii and Fury at launch.

Well the command processor is improved which should help and so should tessellation performance.

But if Polaris 10 is at least R9 390X level performance at a 120w to 130w TDP,what type of performance will Vega have??

If that has a 250w TDP,that would obliterate a higher TDP Fury X.

AllBodies · 13 May 2016 at 23:40

Lokken86 said:
Then we can look forward to the next 130 page+ thread about the next ones. Just thinking about page one makes me cringe.

Yeah true, especially with the rumours making the rounds that Vega will come sooner than thought. And then on top of that, if that turns out to be true Nvidia will be expected to follow with the 1080 Ti and/or Titan ASAP too.

So in a few weeks it'll be something like "Oh Polaris and middle-Pascal are cool, but HEY EVERYONE what about Vega vs big-Pascal eh? That'll be totally different and super cool right?"

It never ends

Lokken86 · 13 May 2016 at 23:50

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Well the command processor is improved which should help and so should tessellation performance.

But if Polaris 10 is at least R9 390X level performance at a 120w to 130w TDP,what type of performance will Vega have??

If that has a 250w TDP,that would obliterate a higher TDP Fury X.

Vega is projected to have an even better perf/watt than Polaris too.

AllBodies said:
It never ends

Yup. See we're at it already

Mauller · 13 May 2016 at 23:53

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Well the command processor is improved which should help and so should tessellation performance.

But if Polaris 10 is at least R9 390X level performance at a 120w to 130w TDP,what type of performance will Vega have??

If that has a 250w TDP,that would obliterate a higher TDP Fury X.

What makes you think that it will only have 390X levels of performance? or that they will only be releasing a part with up to that performance profile?

They have stated many times that they will be releasing a mixture of products across all ranges based on the Polaris architecture.

They have also stated many times that people will be very surprised with what they are doing and what they have in store. Which leads me to believe that they will be pushing up the performance by a large amount in the mainstream bracket. Which to be honest they can do if things are going well on the node change along with more simplistic and smaller PCB's and fewer memory chips in total. And if this ends up being true then they will greatly improve the performance of the total addressable market with Polaris.

humbug · 14 May 2016 at 01:04

Lokken86 said:
You need to work on your cherry picking

Haha... if thats a sarcastic joke its a good one