Which is irrelevant to actual gaming performance
-
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
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
Which is irrelevant to actual gaming performance
Remember that GCN4 brings utilisation and shader improvements, so expect the part to perform closer to its theoretical performance. And the 390X has 5.9Tflops at 1ghz and is already on the heals of a stock 980Ti.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,462
- Location
- Planet Earth
Seems what a few of us expected but the question is there an RX 480X?
Apparent leaked slide, The figures put this at 980TI - Titan X if it is real.
the same cooler as 300series ? come on ...
Here he goes. But it gives you an indication of how the card performs.
Yep, thete is just so much collaborative evidence point ting to 390-390x performance at half the power, which is exactly what Lisa Sui has made public.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,207
What else is on the market in this price segment. Nothing is the answer and they are not going to compare it to a gtx1080. These slides would have been made before the 10 series launch most likely. Even the 1070 is likely going to be priced £100 more than these.
Nope, not gonna bite.
Here you go spouting irrelevant nonsense.
The 970-980 is clearly used as the comparisk which you are completely ignoring.
If you really want to focus on the TFLOPS then compare it to a 390x. And if you really want AMD to stay competitive you need to to stop over hyping their next GPU, it will be very damaging to AMD if people have false expections.
Polaris 10 is probably going to be a fantastic card. Absolutely no need to set it up for failure before it's launched
Last edited:
i dont think so, usualy the company showcase their best performing card first, i have a feeling that this is their highest card, question is does it beat the 980 consistantly or does it trade blows.
GP106 will be the main competition. Nvidia have even released inoration amd die shots of it. That is where the debate really needs to be.
Right,
the Raw shading power of Hawaii is similar to a 980TI however Nvidia's front end is far better which is why despite the raw power differences the 980TI beats the 390X by some 25%.This is also why with A-Sync in games like Hit Man you see the 390X up there with the 980TI.
i have explained this before in this thread.
Nvidia don't gain from DX12 because they are already had full shader utilisation A-Synchronously in DX11, so DX12 doesn't make any difference.
For AMD Multi-threading helps them overcome the Draw Call bottleneck so they too get full or higher shader utilisation bringing the true power of Hawaii to the fore.
Hawaii has 2816 Shaders but in DX11 can only used at a guess about 2300 of them A-Synchronously in DX11 while the 980TI has 2880 and can use them all.
Switch to DX12 and the remaining idle shaders in the 390X are used, = higher performance.
If AMD rebuilt the front end to match Nvidia you will get higher performance in DX11 for the same number of shaders but less if any difference for DX12.
The same as Nvidia.
Where are you seeing that?Apparent leaked slide, The figures put this at 980TI - Titan X if it is real.
Also 1x6 pin. Possibly an indication they are tuning more for low power than horsepower.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,207
Yea off course but nothing much is known and this is the reason the gtx970 is used in the slides. It could suggest that the top Polaris part will be gtx970 pricing. If it is only as fast as a 390x then to me this would be overpriced at £250. It would need to be lower. At £250 it needs to be closer to Fury Pro.
Gtx980ti is 5.6 Gflops and this 480 is 5.5. It's not really comparible unless the 480 can get close to using it's peak through put.
Because it is a comparison to parts in a segment. the 390x already beats the 970 and 980 while the polaris parts should perform far closer to their theoretical performance.
I am making logical and rational deductions when all you ever do is downplay and shoot down anything positive about AMD.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,462
- Location
- Planet Earth
If the card is around r9 390x level and AMD has made improvements to DX11 performance it might be able to pip the GTX980 IMHO. If you look at the TPU review the R9 390X is around GTX980 level:
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080/images/perfrel_2560_1440.png
That would make the GTX1070 25% faster.
If we assume the GTX1070 to be Titan X level,and the cheapest aftermarket ones are £320 to £350,AMD would have to price it at £250 to £260 to have similar price/ performance to a GTX1070 and I think the latter is not the greatest price/performance increase we seen.
AMD would have to get closer to £200 to £225 to be better price/performance and also it would have a £100 gap for safety too.
nVidia went beyond just the GPU level with their DX11 performance - they are actually modifying certain DX functions before they even hit the drivers proper.
Yea, we'd be conflating AMD vs Nvidia flops basically. As enough have said already, 390X already has more flops than this.
But the Polaris parts are using an improved architecture which more than likely gets far closer to its theoretical max. You can't expect the ingame performance to theoretical flops to be the same, it should in theory be higher for the polaris parts.