• 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

D.P. said:
Fair enougg, I didn't realize AMD regressed in efficency through gcn iterationd.
Click to expand...

I assume it was just the 270X was some kind of perfect mix of shaders, size, memory and clockspeed. So it just happened to scale the best.

I.e. Early GCN didn't scale past 200W very well, and their iterations were just catching up to their own sub-200W scaling.
 
AllBodies said:
I assume it was just the 270X was some kind of perfect mix of shaders, size, memory and clockspeed. So it just happened to scale the best.

I.e. Early GCN didn't scale past 200W very well, and their iterations were just catching up to their own sub-200W scaling.
Click to expand...

Its possibly why the had these really low clocked sub 200 watt Tahiti cards.

mind you, a lot of them overclock like nothing else at the time and for a while after.
 
humbug said:
Its possibly why the had these really low clocked sub 200 watt Tahiti cards.

mind you, a lot of them overclock like nothing else at the time and for a while after.
Click to expand...

Yeah very likely the reason the 7970 originally launched at 925 MHz.

I'm really hoping this doesn't turn out that Polaris 10 beats Pascal on perf/w, but we can only buy really low power versions of it!

I don't just want a teaser of Vega's potential, I want a decent upgrade from a GTX 780. And I think the 1070 should be at least £50 cheaper.
 
AllBodies said:
Yeah very likely the reason the 7970 originally launched at 925 MHz.

I'm really hoping this doesn't turn out that Polaris 10 beats Pascal on perf/w, but we can only buy really low power versions of it!
Click to expand...

i don't really care much now, the more information AMD put out the slower it looks, right now the 970 looks like a faster card.

I'm getting to resigning myself to saving for a 1070, or getting a used 980TI
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Wccftech has released their promised leak:

http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-faster-than-nano-980/

Apparently the RX480 is a tad faster than an R9 Nano and consumed around 100W.

The $299 cards are meant to be cards geared towards overclocking.
Click to expand...

You trying to get me back up?



Under typical gaming loads the RX 480 draws roughly 100 watts and cruises along at around 60 degrees Celsius/Centigrade in an open air bench. The reference design’s maximum power delivery through the 6-pin PCIe connector and the PCIe slot is 150W. Some custom variants will feature single 8-pin PCIe connectors while others will feature dual 6-pin PCIe power connectors. The “beast mode” AIB cards that we mentioned earlier will feature a single six pin and a single eight pin design.
Now let’s look at the performance numbers. Our source has provided us with performance figures for both the RX 480 4GB version and the RX 480 8GB version. The benchmark in question is 3DMark Firestrike Ultra 1.1. We have added our own GTX Titan X, GTX 980 OC, R9 390 OC & R9 Nano results for comparison. Our tests were conducted by our own Keith May with our newly acquired Intel i7 6800K six core Broadwell-E CPU. The RX 480 4GB & RX 480 8GB were benchmarked with an Intel Core i7 4960X six core Ivy Bridge-E CPU by the source.
Click to expand...

That puts it at the same level and 1080Mhz base clock as those Chinese leaks.

True or Falce, How much more of this?
 
Sigh...this rollercoaster. And we're still 2 weeks off 100% certainty.


Also, semi off-topic. Do we know when HDR screens are hitting shops? That's meant to be another big thing with these new cards.
 
humbug said:
You trying to get me back up?





That puts it at the same level and 1080Mhz base clock as those Chinese leaks.

True or Falce, How much more of this?
Click to expand...

These numbers fit a LOT of what we've heard and make a lot of sense. a 232mm^2 core not being able to beat at all a 438mm^2 28nm part is twaddle. Now if you lower the power range to target better efficiency and different markets it might be close but then whack up clocks/voltage and it will still be way faster.

I'm going to bet $239 cards overclocking 15% and being damn damn close to a Fury X at maybe 130W(overclocked obviously). I never thought there was a higher core, people are getting weird about shader counts on entirely different generations and deciding how many old vs new shaders as if every old shader counts the same as a new shader.

This will also gain 20% performance compared to it's rivals over the next 6 months a la a company who rewards you for buying with improving software not pushing you towards your next upgrade the second after you buy.

These cards are going to be amazing and reference ones won't be expensive or a rip off... as long as the consumers aren't stupid about how they buy.
 
humbug said:
You trying to get me back up?




True or Falce, How much more of this?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this source could be the same Chinese guy. The Chinese guy was using a 4960x was he not. The temperatures and power usage is new though and hopefully what they say is on the money. It certainly makes more sense to me than slower than a gtx970 for similar money.
 
Skribla said:
From the posts in these forums I was actually believing that it would be a bit competitive with the 1070 but doesn't look like it. Who really wants last years mid range for £230 when you can buy something that smashes it for £140 more? Vega isn't going to be cheap if the 480 is £200+ for 390 performance. Everyone's so defensive I just had my hopes up thats all and its not like every AMD fan on this forum wasn't expecting a bit more read the posts in these forums, I mean some people were in denial that this was the fat Polaris chip and they had a 490 up there sleeve lol
Click to expand...

I don't know how many people kept repeating over and over again that the 480 was not a competitor to the 1070. I know I did and I know plenty of others were as well. You had a few usual suspects setting up false expectations for it. As to who wants to buy "last year's mid-range for £230", I don't think that's fair. The 480 brings a very substantial improvement to the £200-£250 range over previous releases. The fact that stock of previous higher segments is being discounted so it can be cleared doesn't alter that.
 
h4rm0ny said:
I don't know how many people kept repeating over and over again that the 480 was not a competitor to the 1070. I know I did and I know plenty of others were as well. You had a few usual suspects setting up false expectations for it. As to who wants to buy "last year's mid-range for £230", I don't think that's fair. The 480 brings a very substantial improvement to the £200-£250 range over previous releases. The fact that stock of previous higher segments is being discounted so it can be cleared doesn't alter that.
Click to expand...

most of the numbers seem to back these new ones - DX 11 980 speed and DX 12 between nano and fury......

if the claims it will overclocks well - say to 1400+ then that's Fury X area......which is nipping distance of 1070; for a bit less.....

honestly 980+ performance for 230+ 8 gig card.....is not a bad deal with dp 1.4 its got me looking to move my 290 into my old system or sell that; and pick up 470 for old system and 480 for my system...
 
meldarthx said:
most of the numbers seem to back these new ones - DX 11 980 speed and DX 12 between nano and fury......

if the claims it will overclocks well - say to 1400+ then that's Fury X area......which is nipping distance of 1070; for a bit less.....

honestly 980+ performance for 230+ 8 gig card.....is not a bad deal with dp 1.4 its got me looking to move my 290 into my old system or sell that; and pick up 470 for old system and 480 for my system...
Click to expand...

Well if it turns out that it CAN impinge on a 1070, then I'll revise my opinions. But right now, I think such expectations are most likely to lead to disappointment. It's not intended as a high-end card, it's just a mid-range card that looks very good. Vega is what I think will really impress with performance.
 
h4rm0ny said:
Well if it turns out that it CAN impinge on a 1070, then I'll revise my opinions. But right now, I think such expectations are most likely to lead to disappointment. It's not intended as a high-end card, it's just a mid-range card that looks very good. Vega is what I think will really impress with performance.
Click to expand...

I've always put it at 980/390X speeds in DX 11 - and DX 12 between nano and fury......sounds like there's more in the tank.

Vega I think will be a beast and AMD wisely is using two chips for it; I have a feeling we will see small vega hit when zen hits around Octoberish :D
 
Diagro said:
I really would like to have an ALL AMD computer again.

ZEN and VEGA, i am expecting great things.
Click to expand...

Zen is slower than Ivy so will you be happy paying over the odds for 6 year old speed? They will be charging based on core count vs IPC, so no doubt will be trying to sell them as DX12 gaming chips.

If you want to make the most out of Vega you will need an Intel CPU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom