Possibly true. Then of course there is the marketing buzz though, because both technologies are based around a very similar 20nm node of the same dimension, 14/16n is just a marketing name so I would be curious why and what the actual difference is between the 2.
-
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.
Realistic performace expectations from both NVidia and AMD 2016 GPU's
- Thread starter bru
- Start date
Possibly true. Then of course there is the marketing buzz though, because both technologies are based around a very similar 20nm node of the same dimension, 14/16n is just a marketing name so I would be curious why and what the actual difference is between the 2.
Well the demonstration of Hitman in DX12 at capsaicin last night showed Polaris 10 running at a constant 60FPS frame capped. so we already know that it matches a 1.38ghz 980TI / Fury at 2560x1440p.
But then it was frame capped so we don't know what its upper limit is, just that it can hit that. So we know it has Fury x performance in DX12 at the least.
Also HBM2 appears to be limited to Greenlan/Vega10 early-mid next year for big polaris.
But then it was frame capped so we don't know what its upper limit is, just that it can hit that. So we know it has Fury x performance in DX12 at the least.
Also HBM2 appears to be limited to Greenlan/Vega10 early-mid next year for big polaris.
Last edited:
All we know for sure is 14nm is a teeny tiny bit smaller than 16nm (genuinely, and not just in the name).