AMD Polaris architecture – GCN 4.0

Seanspeed · 23 May 2016 at 16:57

beany_bot said:
Does your business make more money than AMD lol?

What the **** kind of argument is this?

I never said they weren't bringing in money, anyways. But they've lost a lot of marketshare over the past 5 years attacking the 'value' sector.

Also, I'm pretty sure that if I went out and sold a can of beans I bought for 60 cents(that I bought for 30 cents), I'd be making more money than AMD technically.

ICDP · 23 May 2016 at 16:58

FoxEye said:
If that's true then these cards aren't going to hit stores for months.

"AIBs not allowed to show prototype boards." Did anyone pick up on the word "prototype" there? If AIBs don't have final cards yet, then there's no way AMD are launching at E3 either.

It sounds like AIBs are still waiting for AMD to give them final specs so they can start making their cards...!

Perhaps Polaris is on course for a July/August release.

The wait could be longer than we expected. But July/August is still "back to school" after all...

I would suspect it means the AIBs cannot show their prototype boards with custom coolers etc, NOT that the board is still in prototype stage. If these boards were still at prototype stage in development then the AIBs wouldn't have them to show anyway. The fact they are being told not to show their boards is an indicator they have had them a while.

h4rm0ny · 23 May 2016 at 17:00

Question for those more knowledgable. That chart (which is a projection, but lets go with it for this) shows base speeds for the Polaris cards. I.e. no turbo or overclocking, correct? Is that 1080 they're comparing it with benched at turbo? Because if so, that is a significant factor in the above. 1080 with reference throttles a lot (AIBs will be much better, I expect). If Polaris can do the above at stock, I wonder what overclocking can achieve.

chroniclard · 23 May 2016 at 17:01

beany_bot said:
Emm yes it has actually. Does your business make more money than AMD lol? They don't sell as many units as Nvidia but they are still successful.

Havent they been losing money hand over fist for a few years?

Lokken86 · 23 May 2016 at 17:04

D.P. said:
The 1070 wont be 25% slower than the 1080 tough, just because is has 25% less CU. Things never scale that linearly, there are other bottlenecks that will prevent the 1080 reaching true potential above the 1070 specs, and there are a lot of aspects of the 1070 that match the 1080 100% like ROPS. I think 20% slower is safer, 15% under some games, 25% in an extremely compute heavy synthetic test.

It was the floating point performance I was looking at, but still, I can't see the 1070 being that close to the 1080 because they would never sell it for $450 or $370 msrp . Either way it will outperform any of these cards and probably cost a lot more.

Seanspeed · 23 May 2016 at 17:05

Lokken86 said:
It was the floating point performance I was looking at, but still, I can't see the 1070 being that close to the 1080 because they would never sell it for $450 or $370 msrp .

????

Nvidia have made a habit out of making the cut-down x70 card a MUCH better value for a while now.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 23 May 2016 at 17:09

If that score for a 2304 shader part is correct,it is higher than I expected. It might explain that clearance Nano price reduction I saw somewhere.

ICDP · 23 May 2016 at 17:09

D.P. said:
The 1070 wont be 25% slower than the 1080 tough, just because is has 25% less CU. Things never scale that linearly, there are other bottlenecks that will prevent the 1080 reaching true potential above the 1070 specs, and there are a lot of aspects of the 1070 that match the 1080 100% like ROPS. I think 20% slower is safer, 15% under some games, 25% in an extremely compute heavy synthetic test.

You are constantly forgetting the fact the 1070 has DDR5 and not DDR5/X. The bandwidth on 970 vs 980 was a lot closer (197 vs 224 IIRC) or just over 10% less. The 1070 is 256GB sec vs 320GBs on the 1080 which is close to ~28% slower. Expect around current 980Ti speeds and if those Polaris 10 rumours are true then it is not that far off it for performance.

WhyCryVC · 23 May 2016 at 17:10

TheRealDeal said:
I think those results are fake as those Graphics scores are way to high. A stock 1080 gets around 21905 on Guru. I mean all the cards seem a little high for stock.

Then again it might not be Firestrike they have used but you would think so.

Guru is not using graphics, but overall scores.

drunkenmaster · 23 May 2016 at 17:12

D.P. said:
The 1070 wont be 25% slower than the 1080 tough, just because is has 25% less CU. Things never scale that linearly, there are other bottlenecks that will prevent the 1080 reaching true potential above the 1070 specs, and there are a lot of aspects of the 1070 that match the 1080 100% like ROPS. I think 20% slower is safer, 15% under some games, 25% in an extremely compute heavy synthetic test.

By lots of aspects you mean rops, which incidentally Nvidia told everyone the 970 had the same number of rops as the 980....

The 'main' specs, shaders, rops, tmus, bandwidth, only 1 is listed as the same. 25% less TMUs, 25% less shaders, 20% less bandwidth. Solely in rop limited games will it only be less than 20% slower. 20-25% is likely where it will average being slower. Even with the same rops, those rops will be fed more slowly and data processed elsewhere on the gpu 20% slower.

Seanspeed · 23 May 2016 at 17:13

ICDP said:
You are constantly forgetting the fact the 1070 has DDR5 and not DDR5/X. The bandwidth on 970 vs 980 was a lot closer (197 vs 224 IIRC) or just over 10% less.

This probably wont make as big of a difference as some think. Not unless you're playing at 4k or something.

D.P. · 23 May 2016 at 17:14

drunkenmaster said:
By lots of aspects you mean rops, which incidentally Nvidia told everyone the 970 had the same number of rops as the 980....

The 'main' specs, shaders, rops, tmus, bandwidth, only 1 is listed as the same. 25% less TMUs, 25% less shaders, 20% less bandwidth. Solely in rop limited games will it only be less than 20% slower. 20-25% is likely where it will average being slower. Even with the same rops, those rops will be fed more slowly and data processed elsewhere on the gpu 20% slower.

The TMUs I give you. We will see when benchmarks are released, i'm betting on 20% slower.

D.P. · 23 May 2016 at 17:17

ICDP said:
You are constantly forgetting the fact the 1070 has DDR5 and not DDR5/X. The bandwidth on 970 vs 980 was a lot closer (197 vs 224 IIRC) or just over 10% less. The 1070 is 256GB sec vs 320GBs on the 1080 which is close to ~28% slower. Expect around current 980Ti speeds and if those Polaris 10 rumours are true then it is not that far off it for performance.

I'm not, but the reduction in bandwidth follows the reduction in CU, and as DM pointed out to me, TMUs. There is also the fact that not even the 1080 is particularly bandwidth limited it seems.

Mtom · 23 May 2016 at 17:19

Can you please stop spamming page after page of Pascal in this thread.

D.P. · 23 May 2016 at 17:22

Mtom said:
Can you please stop spamming page after page of Pascal in this thread.

We are discussing Polaris rumoured specs and how they will match up against Pascal, in response to the question asked by Orcvader https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29533957&postcount=4802

Do you want people to stop all kinds of discussion?

Aretak · 23 May 2016 at 17:28

If those performance numbers are right and it comes in at a sensible price, I'll probably replace my 780 with a 480X. Hopefully it won't be too long until it's properly revealed.

flopper · 23 May 2016 at 17:29

Polaris king and then the new King comes with Vega
seems starstruck is a new word in gpu

Mtom · 23 May 2016 at 17:30

D.P. said:
We are discussing Polaris rumoured specs and how they will match up against Pascal, in response to the question asked by Orcvader https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29533957&postcount=4802

Do you want people to stop all kinds of discussion?

You have discussed for pages how good is Nvidias async implementaton, now thats over, its now how fast is 1070 and it wont be much slower than 1080.
You haven't mentioned Polaris once on the last two pages , just going on about the 1070.
So you haven't discussed the Polaris specs you discussed the Pascal specs.

TheRealDeal · 23 May 2016 at 17:33

WhyCryVC said:
Guru is not using graphics, but overall scores.

Yes but if you look down a little they show you the full 3dmark screen shot. That's where i got the graphics score from.

D.P. · 23 May 2016 at 17:39

Mtom said:
You have discussed for pages how good is Nvidias async implementaton, now thats over, its now how fast is 1070 and it wont be much slower than 1080.
You haven't mentioned Polaris once on the last two pages , just going on about the 1070.
So you haven't discussed the Polaris specs you discussed the Pascal specs.

I guess you missed my post https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29533921&postcount=4800

What about everyone else discussing 1070?

Anyway, I will graciously exit this thread