AMD Polaris architecture – GCN 4.0

[Toss3]

The AotS benchmark doesn't report GPU utilization, it reports % time the benchmark was GPU limited or CPU limited. Even when 49% of the time benchmark was CPU bound that might still mean 99% GPU utilisation

Quoted the numbers AMD gave us on Reddit. Source.

"2x Radeon RX 480 - 62.5 fps | Single Batch GPU Util: 51% | Med Batch GPU Util: 71.9 | Heavy Batch GPU Util: 92.3% GTX 1080 – 58.7 fps | Single Batch GPU Util: 98.7%| Med Batch GPU Util: 97.9% | Heavy Batch GPU Util: 98.7%"

"//EDIT: To clarify this, the scaling from 1->2 GPUs in the dual RX 480 test we assembled is 1.83x. The OP was looking only at the lowest draw call rates when asking about the 51%. The single batch GPU utilization is 51% (CPU-bound), medium is 71.9% utilization (less CPU-bound) and heavy batch utilization is 92.3% (not CPU-bound). All together for the entire test, there is 1.83X the performance of a single GPU in what users saw on YouTube. The mGPU subsystem of AOTS is very robust."

Really confusing. but as I understand it, scaling is 1.83 times that of a single gpu, while the GPU utilization is lower because the cards are CPU bound being in crossfire (simpler batches). So if we want a valid comparison, we should probably look at the batch where GPU utilization was above 90%.

 

[D.P.]

No,because people like you are overstating the GTX1070 improvements. Stop trying to pump the GTX1070 in this thread.

People like you are using false concern and making up false performance targets to make the RX480 look worse.

The GTX1070 is 50% faster than a GTX970 and this is the UK. The GTX1070 is going to be around £320 and the GTX970 launched at £250.

50% improvement at nearly 30% price increase in the UK. Hexus puts their aggregate GTX1070 score at just under a Titan X and TPU puts the Titan X as 50% faster - so read this:

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080/images/perfrel_2560_1440.png

Even the US pricing would give you a 50% increase at least a 15% price increase.

Yet,people like you who come into a Polaris thread,pumping the GTX1070,on purpose ignore,the fact,that unfortunately for you the RX480 is launching at $199 for the 4GB version.

This is $30 cheaper than a R9 380X - even at R9 390 level performance it is close to 40% faster and at R9 390X level it is close to 50% faster.

Yet,$199 is the price point of the R9 380 4GB and GTX960. That means it even looks more favourable. See how I compared it to the faster AMD GPUs too??

People like you are under stating to the 1070 performance increase and overstating get the price increase.

970 was $329 on launch. 1070 will be from $379. That is a 15% price increase, with something like 4% purely due to inflation.

And the 1070 is 60-75% faster than the 970.


Why the need to lie

 

[Orangey]

not nvidia's fault if AUD is worth close to nothing, or the geographical position, or the tax on businesses, or the size of the market, or the average salary, if the australian gov want their citizens to have cheaper imports, or higher spending power, they can help towards that.

Or just give out GPUs at centrelink.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I feel if we are all going to be honest, that was probably the worst decision ever to use a pair of 480s running AoTS and showing it marginally faster than a 1080. If the card was fast enough, why not put it against a 980 in Aots in a card V card situation. That would have made whole lot more sense to me, or even run it against a 390.

I don't buy the "we don't want to take site traffic away from reviewers" either. I am going to put my head on the chopping block and say it is about 10% slower than a 390 at 1440P.

I get your point but there's a big plus in comparing it to the 1080 which is currently the big news item from Nvidia. Not everybody is us and we have to keep that in mind. Show it against the 980 and a lot of people will think "so they're comparing themselves to Nvidia's last gen. The 1080 blows it out of the water." Instead people are getting the message "Compared to Nvidia's flagship it's more than half the power for less than a third the price." And that's a powerful message.

Yes, the more I think about it, the more I think your statement is maybe true for OC forumites, but not at all right for the unwashed masses. Shoving it in the same sentence as the 1080 was definitely the right thing to do from a marketing point of view, imo.

 

[Ferrari100]

People like you are under stating to the 1070 performance increase and overstating get the price increase.

970 was $329 on launch. 1070 will be from $379. That is a 15% price increase, with something like 4% purely due to inflation.

The only actual real information we get will be when reviewers and us get there hands on them and can test price/performance directly.

I think it would actually be a great idea to start a price/performance thread here that can be regularly updated by members. Over time it will give some great data.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

not nvidia's fault if AUD is worth close to nothing, or the geographical position, or the tax on businesses, if the australian gov want their citizens to have cheaper imports they can.

It does not matter. Even at USD pricing the RX480 is coming in at ballpark R9 380/R9 380X level pricing.

According to AT the R9 380 launched at $199. The R9 380X launched at $229.
The RX480 is launching at $199 and $229.

The GTX1070 is launching at $379 to $449. The GTX970 launched at $329.

The problem is in the UK,the price increase is even more due to the weak pound - the GTX970 and R9 390 pricing has kept to around £250 despite that. The GTX1070 even with direct USD conversion and VAT will come close to £320. I am assuming the GTX1070 will be that price and not higher.

The R9 380 and GTX960 seem to have gone up in price again to £160 to £175. They were cheaper a few months ago. The R9 380X is slightly more expensive and is close to £190 to £200.

The RX480 is launching into favourable conditions - the weak pound and lack of dollar price increase,while the GTX1070 has increased in both metrics,means AMD does not need to do much to look much better value.

They not need to do much to get that 40% to 50% increase over the R9 380,R9 380 or GTX960.

Trying to make up performance figures that the RX480 needs to with 10% to 20% of a GTX1070 at under £200 otherwise it is a fail is false concern and disingenuous. It does not need to be anywhere near that to sell well in that segment.

 

[andybird123]

utilisation

AOTS does NOT report utilisation, it reports the % of time that the GPU was below 100% utilisation, it could be at 95% utilisation for the rest of the time but still report 51% of the time it was GPU bound (e.g. 100% utilisation)

using ANY figure from the AOTS bench to try to represent utilisation is a complete fallacy

what you can do though, is take a single card result and a dual card result and very easily tell someone what the scaling is

AMD say at 1080p extreme dual cards got 62.5fps, they also say the scaling was 1.83x
62.5 divided by the scaling of 1.83 equals 34.15fps

to calculate the scaling at 1.83x Robert MUST have divided 62.5 by 34.15 to get 1.83

AMD referring to the GPU bound time as "utilisation" is a complete misnomer, and its obviously very deliberate to get people to think that the 480 is capable of much higher frame rates, despite the scaling being pretty close to full anyway, it could only be about 9% higher with perfect scaling

 

[D.P.]

So, Pricing is fairly to moderately BS depending on your take and location. I'm tired and not inclined to argue the issue. already done 12hrs today.

nVidia will not pass on the die shrink savings where AMD will. Different reasons and market segments granted but not really disputable that 1080 is overpriced.

What die shrunk savings, the 14/16nm process is far more expensive than the mature 28nm prodess. The GP104 gpu almost certainly costs more than the GM204 980ti GPU despite being smaller.

 

[Toss3]

AOTS does NOT report utilisation, it reports the % of time that the GPU was below 100% utilisation, it could be at 95% utilisation for the rest of the time but still report 51% of the time it was GPU bound (e.g. 100% utilisation)

using ANY figure from the AOTS bench to try to represent utilisation is a complete fallacy

what you can do though, is take a single card result and a dual card result and very easily tell someone what the scaling is

AMD say at 1080p extreme dual cards got 62.5fps, they also say the scaling was 1.83x
62.5 divided by the scaling of 1.83 equals 34fps

These numbers came straight from AMD. I didn't make them up. They reported them as GPU Utilization, and they could have used a gazillion different methods for measuring that. So it doesn't matter if the benchmark isn't reporting them, as AMD sure did. So please read the reddit thread before posting.

EDIT: Taking the cf result and dividing it with the scaling is just idiotic, if you know the setup was cpu-bound in at least two of the tests used for the average score. We already have the result from a single RX 480 for 1440p running the crazy preset, and it scored 40fps. So 47fps for 1080p with 8xAA wouldn't be too far fetched. 34fps definitely isn't accurate for 1080p.

 

[Gregster]

I get your point but there's a big plus in comparing it to the 1080 which is currently the big news item from Nvidia. Not everybody is us and we have to keep that in mind. Show it against the 980 and a lot of people will think "so they're comparing themselves to Nvidia's last gen. The 1080 blows it out of the water." Instead people are getting the message "Compared to Nvidia's flagship it's more than half the power for less than a third the price." And that's a powerful message.

Yes, the more I think about it, the more I think your statement is maybe true for OC forumites, but not at all right for the unwashed masses. Shoving it in the same sentence as the 1080 was definitely the right thing to do from a marketing point of view, imo.

Yer, it was just my take on it and of course, that doesn't make it right. I am still pretty set on getting one as well. So long as it is under £200, that will do me

 

[Ferrari100]

What die shrunk savings, the 14/16nm process is far more expensive than the mature 28nm prodess. The GP104 gpu almost certainly costs more than the GM204 980ti GPU despite being smaller.

I think he is alluding to wafer quantities (and a wafer costs the same regardless of GPU size?). I guess when millions are being produced the price per produced GPU drops considerably when you can get way more than twice as many GPU's from the same wafer on a dye shrink.

 

[chroniclard]

Is there an AOTS bench on a single card?

Cant be bothered scanning the thread, when its NDA lifted for reviews ?

 

[andybird123]

These numbers came straight from AMD. I didn't make them up. They reported them as GPU Utilization, and they could have used a gazillion different methods for measuring that. So it doesn't matter if the benchmark isn't reporting them, as AMD sure did. So please read the reddit thread before posting.

the AOTS bench reports "GPU Bound" as 51%, it does not report utilisation
Robert is using the word "utilisation" as a deliberate attempt to mislead

you're the one who needs to read up about the AOTS bench

 

[Mtom]

What die shrunk savings, the 14/16nm process is far more expensive than the mature 28nm prodess. The GP104 gpu almost certainly costs more than the GM204 980ti GPU despite being smaller.

I don't think so..its half the size - 2X quantity/wafer than the old one. I don't think the new node has double cost.
Even with not that mature process they may have more bad chips, but a good chunk of those goes to the 1070 so it can't be that bad.

BTW you brought up this many times now...do you have any source to that?

 

[D.P.]

The only actual real information we get will be when reviewers and us get there hands on them and can test price/performance directly.

I think it would actually be a great idea to start a price/performance thread here that can be regularly updated by members. Over time it will give some great data.

Yeah, we have r wait to the 29th although I hope the review can go online before then.
AotS is a pretty poor benchmark even if AMD were very clear with single card performance.

 

[D.P.]

I don't think so..its half the size - 2X quantity/wafer than the old one. I don't think the new node has double cost.
Even with not that mature process they may have more bad chips, but a good chunk of those goes to the 1070 so it can't be that bad.

BTW you brought up this many times now...do you have any source to that?

Even under equal yields the new process is much more expensive. Yield differences comping that.

The sources us what I have heard from other forums with people that work within the industry.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Does not change the fact it costs more,and in the UK it is still £70 more - some here on purpose are trying to pump up the performance of the GTX1070 and downgrade the performance of the RX480 to make the former look better.

No amount of deflection is going to change that even at R9 390 to R9 390X level performance the RX480 is 40% to 50% faster than a R9 380X and will start at a lower price point in dollars.

When compared to the R9 380 and GTX960 it is even more.

The GTX1070 is closer to 50% faster than a GTX970 and that similar improvement is coming at a cost increase.

AMD does not need to do much to make the RX480 better price/performance than a GTX1070 but all the GTX1070 pumpers are not questioning the price of the GTX1070.

Out of false concern they make more and more unrealistic demands of the RX480,ie,it should be like a Fury or Fury X otherwise the GTX is the bestest.

It is getting tiresome that whatever AMD does,Nvidia pricing does not get questioned. Maybe if Nvidia dropped the RRP of the GTX1070,the RX480 would be cheaper??

I blame Nvidia for the RX480 not being £150 and Fury level!

Go and buy the GTX1070,the rest of us who don't buy £300+ cards don't care.

This is like going into a spec thread with somebody wanting to buy a £175 R9 380X/GTX960 and people saying a £330 R9 Nano is better,since it is faster. You don't say??

Well said, all of it.

 

[AlamoX]

Yeah, we have r wait to the 29th although I hope the review can go online before then.
AotS is a pretty poor benchmark even if AMD were very clear with single card performance.

we are bound to have full reviews couple weeks prior, i dont see chinese retailers getting stock without someone leaking few benchs.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

People like you are under stating to the 1070 performance increase and overstating get the price increase.

970 was $329 on launch. 1070 will be from $379. That is a 15% price increase, with something like 4% purely due to inflation.

And the 1070 is 60-75% faster than the 970.


Why the need to lie

So,if the GTX1070 is 60% faster than a GTX970,that means it is faster than a GTX1080?

That would rate the GTX1070 as 83% to 91% of a GTX1080,or 10% to 20% faster than a Geforce Titan. Ehh,no.

Lets,look at Hexus which is quite favourable to the GTX1070 as it test less titles.

Thats 50% to 60% and they consider the GTX1070 under a Geforce Titan.

It is only 45% to 50% faster than a R9 390 and even less than a R9 390X,and 35% to 40% faster.

Know it is people like you and your mates who are overstating the performance increase of the RX480 needs to be at, and overstate the GTX1070 performance so you can thread thrash this thread.

Look at how many times you and the GTX1070 pumpers who never buy cards in that price bracket bring up the GTX1070?

The moment I point out the GTX1070 costs more in both USD and GBP amounts you start deflecting.

The RX480 despite your inflation figures costs the same as the cards it replaces,so in a massive effort to pump the GTX1070 you have admitted the RX480 costs less in real terms. The GTX1070 does not.

All I see is people like you and your mates saying how a RX480 has to be faster than an R9 390X at under £200 to make any sense. It can be a R9 390 at £200 and still be no worse in value than a GTX1070,maybe even better.

Nvidia set higher pricing for the GTX1070 and GTX1080.

It means AMD does not even need to try to make the RX480 look better value.

You should not be defending the GTX1070 price as it means AMD has no pressure to really push pricing until the GTX1060 appears.

 

[james.miller]

No,because people like you are overstating the GTX1070 improvements. Stop trying to pump the GTX1070 in this thread.

i've not mentioned the 1070 once in this thread, so you're wrong about that, too. I mean i could be offended by that and tear you a new one, but honestly you're looking pathetic enough as it is - you don't need my help.