AMD Polaris architecture – GCN 4.0

[andybird123]

Exactly my issue with AMDs statement. It was a lie and many people assumed it was true and purchased Fury X cards on the strength of that.

While the actual OC for a 980Ti is not as great as people make out ~15-20% after ACTUAL boost clocks not advertised boost clocks. It is at least measurably superior to the "overclockers dreamnightmare" that Fiji ended up.

yours is not reference, so the fact that yours gets 1300 out of the box does not make 1300 the baseline for reference comparison... because its not reference, its factory OC'd by 104 to start with

 

[humbug]

ok, I'll try this again only slowly

a stock reference model FuryX comes at 1050mhz, and doesn't boost, and even a really good OC like Kaap's is 13% OC

a stock reference 980ti comes at 1075 and boosts to 1200... most people on here with aftermarket 980ti's are getting 1450+, looking at the bench threads on here, over 50% are getting 1500+ and even a couple at 1600, thats 20 to 33%, with most around 25%

I would say that a 25% average overclock is quite a bit be

tter than an average 10% OC, compared with reference

Your trying to pass off the top level overclocks in benchmark threads as what your average Joe can expect to run their cards at on a day-to-day basis. That they are somesort of overclocking miricals.
It's exactly what I'm saying is disingenuous. The reality is very different, not much different to the reality of what you get out of AMD.

 

[Geeman1979]

Exactly my issue with AMDs statement. It was a lie and many people assumed it was true and purchased Fury X cards on the strength of that.

While the actual OC for a 980Ti is not as great as people make out ~15-20% after ACTUAL boost clocks not advertised boost clocks. It is at least measurably superior to the "overclockers dreamnightmare" that Fiji ended up.

Yup! Hence the well deserved drumming they get. Many would've purchased on the strength of that BS statement and were ****** off to find out it was a lie. The cards weren't exactly chicken feed to purchase which makes the pill even tougher to swallow.

 

[andybird123]

Your trying to pass off the top level overclocks in benchmark threads as what your average Joe can expect to run their cards at on a day-to-day basis. That they are somesort of overclocking miricals.
It's exactly what I'm saying is disingenuous. The reality is very different, not much different to the reality of what you get out of AMD.

I can only go by what I've seen - both my cards will do 1500 24/7
I've seen a lot of people on here say the same, even conservatively people are saying 1450. 20% is still quite a bit better than 10% whichever way you cut it, with surely at least the potential for more.

 

[Gregster]

AMD released the 7970 and its base clocks were something like 950Mhz iirc and you could OC them to 1250 plus with ease and stable - That to me is an overclockers dream. Nvidia released the Titan X and its boost clocks were around 1220Mhz and could clock to 1450Mhz plus with ease and stable and that is an overclockers dream. The one card that was claimed to be an overclockers dream was the Fury X and with its base clock of 1050Mhz and for the most getting 1120Mhz stable is hard, this clearly isn't an overclockers dream.

I actually don't get the defence but then most here didn't cough up over £550 for one, so I guess they have no reason to be fed up.

 

[humbug]

I can only go by what I've seen - both my cards will do 1500 24/7
I've seen a lot of people on here say the same, even conservatively people are saying 1450. 20% is still quite a bit better than 10% whichever way you cut it, with surely at least the potential for more.

This is starting to go round in circles, mine also do 1500 mhz,but thats from 1354. an 11% overclock.

1500mhz 980ti's top the leader board. They are not Mr average will get out of his when he takes it out the box to play metro ll for 4 hours straight.
To imply he will is more than disingenuous.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It does make me wonder how amateurish AMD PR and launches can be at times. Nvidia seems to do this far more professionally IMHO. If the guy had just not blurted that out and said "we will wait for overclockers to explore that",and then AMD actually done some QC on the coolers before they launched the Fury X would have not had half the bad reputation they had.

The same with the R9 290/R9 290X. The cooler was OK when ramped up to high speed as miners used the reference cards for months fine for mining,but seriously,even though I got AMD wanted to undercut Nvidia,even an extra £10 to £20 spent on the cooler would have made it far more palatable and the gave the card a better reputation meaning it could sell for more longterm.

Then they finally realise it and thnen have a good cooler in the R9 295X2 and then screw up the Fury X without making sure QC was good enough,allowing Nvidia to have a field day. All that work and they ***** it up due to minor details at the last moment.

It worries me AMD will end up doing 95% of the legwork in getting Polaris out early and then screw with last 5% of details during the launch.

They really need to pay more attention to detail.

 

[Geeman1979]

This is starting to go round in circles, mine also do 1500 mhz,but thats from 1354. an 11% overclock.

1500mhz 980ti's top the leader board. They are not Mr average will get out of his when he takes it out the box to play metro ll for 4 hours straight.
To imply he will is more than disingenuous.

It's going around in circles because you're are feeding it. Simple fact is, the Furry is not as was described, that's it in a nutshell.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The cards upto GTX980TI tend to boost up to 1.3GHZ to 1.4GHZ,like my GTX960 which does nearly 1.35GHZ in a SFF PC. However,the GTX980TI tends to boost not as highly but will still reach about 1.4GHZ to 1.5GHZ on average like the other Nvidia cards unless you have a bad sample,hence the percentage overclock is higher for the GTX980TI in generally.

If you look at the GCN1.1 and later cards on average they tend to overclock a tad worse than the GCN1.0 which could hit upto 1.2GHZ to 1.3GHZ,but the newer ones tend to be more around the 1.1GHZ to 1.2GHZ mark it appears.

 

[andybird123]

This is starting to go round in circles, mine also do 1500 mhz,but thats from 1354. an 11% overclock.

1500mhz 980ti's top the leader board. They are not Mr average will get out of his when he takes it out the box to play metro ll for 4 hours straight.
To imply he will is more than disingenuous.

But what does a reference 970 do? you know, the ones they use in the reviews - thats the baseline here, the cards that reviewers use, so that you can add on X% to their FPS figures to try to work out where your card would actually sit

and hang on - I'm saying 1450 is a decent baseline OC, but now you are insisting on taking my 1500 figure as the only one worth talking about - 1450 is still 20%, which is still much better than 10%

I don't think its disingenuous to say "both my cards do 1500 24/7" when that is exactly what they will do, neither is it disingenuous to say most cards will do at least 1450 - because they will - and my two cards are "normal" factory OC cards, they aren't kingpins or classifieds or anything, they were both less than £550 within weeks of release

 

[humbug]

It's going around in circles because you're are feeding it. Simple fact is, the Furry is not as was described, that's it in a nutshell.

I already agreed that with you, I'm also not going to agree to perpetuate 1500mhz 980ti's for every Joe myths because it's Nvidia and I I'm happy to agree to an untruth on the AMD side,

Not everyone who is critical of AMD wants to be a shill for Nvidia.

 

[Geeman1979]

The cards upto GTX980TI tend to boost up to 1.3GHZ to 1.4GHZ,like my GTX960 which does nearly 1.35GHZ in a SFF PC. However,the GTX980TI tends to boost not as highly but will still reach about 1.5GHZ on average like the other Nvidia cards unless you have a bad sample,hence the percentage overclock is higher for the GTX980TI in generally.

If you look at the GCN1.1 and later cards on average they tend to overclock a tad worse than the GCN1.0 which could hit upto 1.2GHZ to 1.3GHZ,but the newer ones tend to be more around the 1.1GHZ to 1.2GHZ mark it appears.

From what I've seen AMD cards in general have gradually got worse with overclocking. 7970's used to clock well on average, the 280X's are ****. The early 290X's clocked well on average, the rebranded 390/390X's clock ****. The pattern continues.

 

[andybird123]

I'm not saying "everyone will hit 1500", I'm saying the vast majority will hit 1450
I'm saying odds seem pretty good that you can get 1500, but admitting that that is based on my own sample size of 2/2 of retail factory OC cards (and not even kingpin/classified/HoF etc.)

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

From what I've seen AMD cards in general have gradually got worse with overclocking. 7970's used to clock well on average, the 280X's are ****. The early 290X's clocked well on average, the rebranded 390/390X's clock ****. The pattern continues.

IIRC,the later versions seem to have a tad better performance/watt so it makes me wonder if its more a case newer chips of the same line are having less leakage meaning worse overclocking. I think I remember reading something about later HD4870 cards consuming less power than earlier ones.

But going from GCN1.0 to GCN1.3,it seems as the hardware has got more complex,the maximum overclocks do seem a bit worse overall,at least from what I gather.

 

[Geeman1979]

I already agreed that with you, I'm also not going to agree to perpetuate 1500mhz 980ti's for every Joe myths because it's Nvidia and I I'm happy to agree to an untruth on the AMD side,

Not everyone who is critical of AMD wants to be a shill for Nvidia.

Who's saying every 980Ti will do a 1500Mhz core?

 

[Gregster]

Being totally fair to AMD, they had to release the 3 series as well as the Fiji lineup and their hands were pretty much forced. The Fury X is a nice card, albeit a little pricey but nVidia had the market to themselves at the high end at least with the 970/980/980Ti/Titan X. It is good to have competition.

One thing that could well do AMD a favour is having already used HBM, they will have a bit more know how when it comes to the next round. This could well work in their favour and it will be interesting to see the top end from both AMD and nVidia.

 

[humbug]

Who's saying every 980Ti will do a 1500Mhz core?

No one is claiming anyone is.
Post 1097 claims over 1450 is what the average user should expect from 980ti's as a day-to-day clock, the reason being his own card and the extreme end of benchmark threads.
Ridiculous.

 

[Geeman1979]

No one is claiming anyone is.
Post 1097 claims over 1450 is what the average user should expect from 980ti's as a day-to-day clock, the reason being his own card and the extreme end of benchmark threads.
Ridiculous.

That won't be the only reason. He'll be going off an average from what he's seen people report across the internet. From what I've seen around here 1450+ seems the norm so his figures defenatley sounds feasible.

 

[Gregster]

An interesting read here for the Fury/X clocks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/3titmn/fury_x_overclocking_share_your_experiences_in/

And just for fairness, here is a 980Ti one.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1865303

 

[Mauller]

If you look at the GCN1.1 and later cards on average they tend to overclock a tad worse than the GCN1.0 which could hit upto 1.2GHZ to 1.3GHZ,but the newer ones tend to be more around the 1.1GHZ to 1.2GHZ mark it appears.

As the versions of GCN have increased each consecutive model that version of GCN has been in has tended to be made more dense and/or larger. which in essence increases heat density.

AMD has always managed to cram more transistors in less space compared to Nvidia, but the trade off is that it inhibits overclocking.