AMD Polaris architecture – GCN 4.0

Seanspeed · 12 May 2016 at 19:35

humbug said:
Can you not see how obviously pedantic this is on my part, really? does it really need a disclaimer citing my sarcasm and thus should be taken as a playful half truth teas?

But it makes absolutely no sense in context of what I said. Even if you were just being mocking, it still isn't at all relevant to what I said.

The fact that you just said:

"The problem here is Jens is not my God. and that can't be tolerated."

makes your intentions entirely clear. It was a nonsensical and overly defensive retort.

Jono8 · 12 May 2016 at 19:38

humbug said:
Can you not see how obviously pedantic this is on my part, really? does it really need a disclaimer citing my sarcasm and thus should be taken as a playful half truth teas?

Jono8 and Seanspeed, get a grip.

moving on....

So what was your point exactly? If you knew the 10x remark wasn't about relative gaming performance why are you then arguing that that is what Nvidia claimed?

You seem to be at one point saying you knew the 10x claim by Nvidia wasn't about gaming performance and then at another claiming it was, and that Nvidia lied and that Pascal is a massive disappointment :confused:

humbug · 12 May 2016 at 19:39

Seanspeed said:
But it makes absolutely no sense in context of what I said. Even if you were just being mocking, it still isn't at all relevant to what I said.

The fact that you just said:

"The problem here is Jens is not my God. and that can't be tolerated."

makes your intentions entirely clear. It was a nonsensical and overly defensive retort.

Its the only conclusion i'm left with after you lost it referring me as an AMD apologist.

That and your reaction to my 10x Jens gaff is all bonkers, given you brought in vendor royalties i surmised thats whats on your mind.

See the funny side of it or rant yourself to sleep over it.

i'm laughing my ass off over here, do the same.... it'll do you good.

I'm off to watch some TV, have fun...

faceman123 · 12 May 2016 at 19:41

Lokken86 said:
Not much difference in build quality thread days tbh.

But AMD cards have a higher failure rate and higher heat/power

Jono8 · 12 May 2016 at 19:42

humbug said:
Its the only conclusion i'm left with after you lost it referring me as an AMD apologist.

That and your reaction to my 10x Jens gaff is all bonkers, given you brought in vendor royalties i surmised thats whats on your mind.

See the funny side of it or rant yourself to sleep over it.

i'm laughing my ass off over here, do the same.... it'll do you good.

I'm off to watch some TV, have fun...

Seanspeed · 12 May 2016 at 19:49

humbug said:
Its the only conclusion i'm left with after you lost it referring me as an AMD apologist.

Your comment about Nvidia came BEFORE I said anything about that. What else was I supposed to think?

humbug said:
That and your reaction to my 10x Jens gaff is all bonkers, given you brought in vendor royalties i surmised thats whats on your mind.

Your comment made no sense in relation to mine. The only explanation was that you were being ridiculously overdefensive.

humbug said:
See the funny side of it or rant yourself to sleep over it.

i'm laughing my ass off over here, do the same.... it'll do you good.

I'm off to watch some TV, have fun...

You're not funny and you're not half as clever as you think you are.

But I will give you credit that you've successfully deflected the *actual* subject of discussion this entire time even after I've reminded you several more times. Well done. You clearly are practiced in this.

old gamer · 12 May 2016 at 19:52

faceman123 said:
But AMD cards have a higher failure rate and higher heat/power

I'm guessing you have not used many amd graphics cards, trust me it's a much of muchNess

faceman123 · 12 May 2016 at 19:55

old gamer said:
I'm guessing you have not used many amd graphics cards, trust me it's a much of muchNess

Dunno but i upgrade twice a year, Last 4 Amd cards have failed on me, maybe just me.

old gamer · 12 May 2016 at 19:59

If I had your luck I would probably feel the same but I've used mostly amd and quite a few nvidia and none of them have ever failed

AlamoX · 12 May 2016 at 20:00

faceman123 said:
But AMD cards have a higher failure rate and higher heat/power

true in 2013/2014, keep up with the change ?

Deleted User 234324 · 12 May 2016 at 20:12

faceman123 said:
Dunno but i upgrade twice a year, Last 4 Amd cards have failed on me, maybe just me.

Been using AMD since the 9800 xt never had a card fail, my nvidia ti 350 on the other hand diet a horrible smokey death

queamin · 12 May 2016 at 20:18

Only card to fail for me was my 8800 320mb card got a 9800 replacement from BFG just before they went down the pan.

KillBoY_UK · 12 May 2016 at 20:22

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/polaris-validation-failed-might-launch-in-october-now.html

I realy hope this is not true

Lokken86 · 12 May 2016 at 20:40

^^ If it's true they are done.

Mauller · 12 May 2016 at 20:49

Apparently the Validation rumour is a load of bull. Lisa Su just mentioned in the latest quarterly stock market investors presentation that polaris is on track for its original release date. The presentation was earlier today.

fs123 · 12 May 2016 at 20:52

The rumour says that the cards can't hit 850MHz. The chances of that happening are zero since any card from the current gen can easily get over 1GHz. It would be an ultimate fail to not get a good clockspeed on 14nm.

Why is it that all these AMD is doomed type rumours have started coming after Nvidia revealed their cards but prior to this we've had Polaris cards shown running games at decent speeds.

Rroff · 12 May 2016 at 20:52

Mauller said:
Apparently the Validation rumour is a load of bull. Lisa Su just mentioned in the latest quarterly stock market investors presentation that polaris is on track for its original release date. The presentation was earlier today.

You are hardly going to tell investors "uh we are ******"

(nto saying it is true).

fs123 said:
The rumour says that the cards can't hit 850MHz. The chances of that happening are zero since any card from the current gen can easily get over 1GHz. It would be an ultimate fail to not get a good clockspeed on 14nm.

Why is it that all these AMD is doomed type rumours have started coming after Nvidia revealed their cards but prior to this we've had Polaris cards actually shown running games at decent speeds.

The original rumour was that the cards aren't passing a full set of validation tests at speeds above 850MHz (which is the highest clock speed AMD have shown off so far). Though it probably isn't true that cards from current gen can manage it has little bearing as it is a completely different process with different voltage levels, transistor design, etc. so it isn't infeasible though unlikely.

Gregster · 12 May 2016 at 20:58

fs123 said:
The rumour says that the cards can't hit 850MHz. The chances of that happening are zero since any card from the current gen can easily get over 1GHz. It would be an ultimate fail to not get a good clockspeed on 14nm.

Why is it that all these AMD is doomed type rumours have started coming after Nvidia revealed their cards but prior to this we've had Polaris cards shown running games at decent speeds.

The problem being, it is something really random to come out with. Most negatives are usually click bait but this just seems to be a bit too concise. I hope it is wrong but the logical me thinks it isn't.

N19h7m4r3 · 12 May 2016 at 20:59

Rroff said:
You are hardly going to tell investors "uh we are ******" (nto saying it is true).

Lying straight to their face is also a good way to lose them once the real cards show up then, putting them in deeper trouble.

Mauller · 12 May 2016 at 21:03

Rroff said:
You are hardly going to tell investors "uh we are ******" (nto saying it is true).

The original rumour was that the cards aren't passing a full set of validation tests at speeds above 850MHz (which is the highest clock speed AMD have shown off so far). Though it probably isn't true that cards from current gen can manage it has little bearing as it is a completely different process with different voltage levels, transistor design, etc. so it isn't infeasible though unlikely.

The whole point is that they are legally accountable in investors meetings, so it holds more weight if she says they are on time compared to some rumour said by a guy on a forum. Especially when his account is only showing as a year old.

They would also have seen the characteristics of the node when making experimental dies at the end of last year. They were supposed to have had first working silicon from a full production line back in november-december some time from what i remember.

this is pretty much the original source if you wanted to read. http://www.overclock.net/t/1599305/vc-first-gtx-1080-benchmarks/1230#post_25149678