Caporegime
First "picture" of Polaris 10:
http://www.overclock3d.net/articles/gpu_displays/amd_polaris_10_engineering_sample_pictured/1
It is meant to be R9 Nano sized.
Wonder why they are doing DVI again, they stopped that with Fury.
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.
First "picture" of Polaris 10:
http://www.overclock3d.net/articles/gpu_displays/amd_polaris_10_engineering_sample_pictured/1
It is meant to be R9 Nano sized.
Depends lot on the exact definition of mass production and the exact time frame.
Assuming mass production means there is going to be no stock constraints and micro can ship crate loads of chips to nvidia/AMD by May then for a end June released GPU there is no issue.
Mass production doesn't mean there was no production before hand, just highly constrained small batch production a few thousand chips say.
Also, mass production start date may be simple delayed until a big order is due, e.g. Micron might be able to have mass produced 4 months ago but AMD/Nvidia only need chips this May-June so Micron don't produce until then, there is no other customer so no need to mass produce early.
Wonder why they are doing DVI again, they stopped that with Fury.
First "picture" of Polaris 10:
http://www.overclock3d.net/articles/gpu_displays/amd_polaris_10_engineering_sample_pictured/1
It is meant to be R9 Nano sized.
Hang on, wasn't the whole point of Nano's size that HBM made it possible?
If Polaris 10 has GDDR5 (and hopefully 8GB of it), then how can it be Nano sized?
Doesn't really save that much space from pcb, as you still need to place those memory modules there. Logical assumption is that they are using HBM1 if they aim that size.The fact that the new manufacturing process is nearly half the size of the one the Nano is on?
The fact that the new manufacturing process is nearly half the size of the one the Nano is on?
Wonder why they are doing DVI again, they stopped that with Fury.
Lower end cards are dramatically more likely to be bought by those on lower budgets. So they will be significantly more likely to have an older screen with DVI
I am confused, does that DVI connector is stopping you from purchasing Polaris card? Does it stop AMD to enable all those DP ports and HDMI? Is that DVI the only connector available? I think the answer is no, so why moan about it? If you are not using it, there will be people who use it.
Wonder why they are doing DVI again, they stopped that with Fury.
Looks like a 980Ti to me
Looks like a 980Ti to me
Does make me laugh this forum sometimes. Nvidia have a DVI on the 980ti, no one cares. AMD stick one on Polaris and people care.
Nvidia release cards with 4gb (and 3.5gb) and no one cares, AMD release cards with 4gb and the whole world implodes.
Why is this?
Even though I do agree that this forum can be really fickle, I'm not sure about the no one careing about the NVidia 3.5GB issue.
First "picture" of Polaris 10:
http://www.overclock3d.net/articles/gpu_displays/amd_polaris_10_engineering_sample_pictured/1
It is meant to be R9 Nano sized.