• 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

AllBodies said:
No, what they were saying there was the move from 28nm to 14nm was 1.7x. So if they just shrunk the 390X etc. it'd be 1.7x. But then through their architecture changes they bumped it to 2.8x.

Similar to how Nvidia managed a ~1.5x perf/W increase on the same node going from Kepler to Maxwell.
Click to expand...

This.
 
AllBodies said:
No, what they were saying there was the move from 28nm to 14nm was 1.7x. So if they just shrunk the 390X etc. it'd be 1.7x. But then through their architecture changes they bumped it to 2.8x.

Similar to how Nvidia managed a ~1.5x perf/W increase on the same node going from Kepler to Maxwell.

EDIT: Also this means they're claiming GCN1.x to GCN4 is a ~1.64x increase, since 1.64*1.7 is ~2.8x.
Click to expand...

under the hood stuff tech :cool:
 
I've seen a few slides on different sites lately showing that p10 is small and p11 is big Polaris. I always thought it was the other way around?
 
P11 is the small one.

And will be used in laptops yes, but also will likely be used for a PCI-powered-only card (i.e. 75W max) from AMD for that market.

Imagine it'll be a significant upgrade over the 750 Ti and PCI-only 960.
 
humbug said:
I'm inclined not to believe any of those scores.

GTX 970 @ 1550/1950 Graphics score: 14,000 http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8573432 < thats a top score for any GTX 970

They cite 15,000 @ stock? @ stock they bench at around 11,000 - 12,000
Click to expand...

The guy who posted those only did it because his post got 30 likes on twitter so he had to. :rolleyes: Should tell you how reliable they are. :D

evidenceihptf.png
 
andybird123 said:
The 2.8x figure was "using AMD technologies", its similar to Nvidia's VR performance claims

The real figure is 1.7x, AMD dont exactly have a massively good history with market penetration on their AMD specific gubbins
Click to expand...

I saw one slide from Nvidia with a 3x performance per watt compared to maxwell. These numbers are really not that useful. 1.7 is the process change, then add about 20% for architecture changes.

My guess from the information is AMD Polaris will be about 20-25% behind Pascal, which is a much smaller gap than previous generations.
 
Last edited:
Toss3 said:
The guy who posted those only did it because his post got 30 likes on twitter so he had to. :rolleyes: Should tell you how reliable they are. :D

evidenceihptf.png
Click to expand...


Yeah, i thought there was something very wrong with my 970, until i looked again at Kaaps 3DMark thread and realised my 970 tops it for 970's with a score lower than his apparent stock score. :o
 
D.P. said:
I saw one slide from Nvidia with a 3x performance per watt compared to maxwell. These numbers are really not that useful. 1.7 is the process change, then add about 20% for architecture changes.

My guess from the information is AMD Polaris will be about 20-25% behind Pascal, which is a much smaller gap than previous generations.
Click to expand...

In performance or efficiency?
 
ICDP said:
Don't assume the 150w TPD is the actual power P10 will use. That is simply the power supplied by the PCIe slot and the 6 pin connecter added to get 150 (75+75).

I suspect from the leaks that 480 will be around R9 Nano performance (at least in DX12). So a great rpice/perf GPU that will get close to 1070 speeds for a lot less money.

If 480 ends up ~10%-15% slower than 1070 in DX11 and trades blows at DX12 then 1070 will need to be cheaper IMHO. This is where I'm excited for the price/perf of 480.
Click to expand...

Conversely the card can draw more than the stated 150w of PCIe and a 6pin. 75w is a min, not a max.

Not that I think that is the case. I expect power to be maybe 140w or so.

Looks like the rumours and my speculation were all accurate, 390-390x performance at around 140w. About twice the performance per watt of the 380x which is what Lisa Sui said. The price is the big winner here, I was thinking nearer $250-280.
 
AMD have always over rated thier TDP from actual power consumption, the 2/390/X are 300 Watt TDP, actual power consumption for the 2/390 is 240 Watts while the 2/390X is 275 watts.
 
Toss3 said:
In performance or efficiency?
Click to expand...

Efficiency. These theoretical numbers are always a far cry from the real world figures.

The new 14/16nm nodes gives about 70% gain and then they get about 20% from architecture improvents, in the real game benchmarks. AMD likely gain slightly more from the architecture than nvidia, mostly because they were someway behind and the 300 series were rebrands.

Things will be much closer now.
 
humbug said:
AMD have always over rated thier TDP from actual power consumption, the 2/390/X are 300 Watt TDP, actual power consumption for the 2/390 is 240 Watts while the 2/390X is 275 watts.
Click to expand...

I think you got that the wrong way round, they stated 275w but it is more typically at 300w
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom