• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD GDC2016 Thread

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
It looks promising but they didn't provide us any actual FPS measures or which settings they were using.

Still, it seems very impressive, considering that Polaris 10 is 100 mm^2 or something.
 
IllogicalGlory said:
It looks promising but they didn't provide us any actual FPS measures or which settings they were using.

Still, it seems very impressive, considering that Polaris 10 is 100 mm^2 or something.
Click to expand...
New geometry processor, memory controller, L2 cache, command processor and re-worked CUs. Yep, entirely possible.

They likely boosted utilization and reduced the amount of times the data over flows out of the cache banks and into the frame buffer.

That will invariably lead to impressive performance.
 
Silverforce11 said:
Then I don't believe it.

Polaris 10 was in the demo. -_-

There's no way a 115mm2 GPU is 390X+ class. No way!
Click to expand...

Dont forget settings. We could argue what settings were used as the earlier BFSW demo wasnt on ultra. Even at mid/high settings, its nothing to sneeze at considering the estimated TDP/power consumption of the card.

Whatever brings me the most performance in BF5 at either Vulkan (assumed) or DX12 at 960 power consumption is getting my money this round.
 
Silverforce11 said:
Then I don't believe it.

Polaris 10 was in the demo. -_-

There's no way a 115mm2 GPU is 390X+ class. No way!

😵 TOTAL WAR: WARHAMMER!! DX12 hype! lol
Click to expand...

I find it too very hard to believe. Maybe Polaris is AMD's Maxwell, super optimized for games. Leaving Vega the DP/compute monster.
 
Perhaps Polaris 10 is the bigger one (~232 mm2) and Polaris 11 the smaller one? Still that would be better than expected if it's closer to Fiji performance and something like 125-140 W.

Expect $$$ though.
 
Polaris 10 is the bigger GPU(232mm2), confirmed via WCCF moderator comments. Polaris 11(12x mm probably) was the GPU demoed in january.<br />
<br />
This Hitman performance puts Polaris 10 around R9 fury performance, something closer to three times the performance density versus GCN1.2. I would expect Pascal giving results around this, too.
 
jpiniero said:
Perhaps Polaris 10 is the bigger one (~232 mm2) and Polaris 11 the smaller one? Still that would be better than expected if it's closer to Fiji performance and something like 125-140 W.

Expect $$$ though.
Click to expand...

After they mentioned they were going to demo Polaris 10,they had a slide which mentioned price/performance,so I expect competitive pricing.
 
Last edited:
el etro said:
Polaris 10 is the bigger GPU(232mm2), confirmed via WCCF moderator comments. Polaris 11(12x mm probably) was the GPU demoed in january.<br />
<br />
This Hitman performance puts Polaris 10 around R9 fury performance, something closer to three times the performance density versus GCN1.2. I would expect Pascal giving results around this, too.
Click to expand...

This is much more believable.

232mm2 with the density of 14FF, it's equivalent to a very big GPU on 28nm.
 
I had estimated that BaffinXT would be around the same performance as Fury-X. I had thought this to be Polaris 11. I had thought that the bigger of the two chips would be Polaris 11.

I doubted that the smaller chip would give 390x performance but I guess anything is possible right now.
 
el etro said:
This Hitman performance puts Polaris 10 around R9 fury performance, something closer to three times the performance density versus GCN1.2. I would expect Pascal giving results around this, too.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind he said LOCKED 60 fps. So minimum 60. What we got from benchmarks are avg fps.
 
Sorry, my bad. I was under impression that the smaller GPU was Polaris 10.

Still, it is still very good. So, the smaller one was Polaris 11, this was 10. So the P10 is bigger GPU with supposedly 232 mm2 of die size.
 
DownTheSky said:
We don't know the clocks either. Maybe they're clocked at 1500mhz or so.
Click to expand...

Not likely. They're probably clocked closer to 1,050MHz. Higher clocks would defeat the purpose of perf/watt. That being said, they'll likely over clock Very well.
 
Silverforce11 said:
Did people really expect a massive GPU on a brand new node with yield issues that early?
Click to expand...

AFAIK its not brand new and there are no confirmed yield issues, thats all assumptions based on previous generation history. Not to mention Nvidia released massive GPUs on brand new node before, so its not like such thing never happened.
 
Concerning the power usage discussed on the first page...Isn't it pretty damn plausible that AMD is not giving a cock and bull story?

The thing just has to sit between the 7790 (XB1) and the 7870 (PS4). Consider that the 7850 fits snuggly between them, and uses around 130 watts. From the node-shrink alone, the GPU would be using around 55 watts or something.

Then factor in architectural improvements, conservative clocks, chip integration, etc., 35 watts is about right in line.
 
It is generally expected for the next gen flagship product to do better than the previous gen flagship. If the big Polaris somehow doesn't pull ahead of Fiji in nearly every categories, it would be a huge disappointment.

I really do not want to see another Bulldozer.
 
If it's a small chip, it's not really next-gen flagship. It's more a mid-range chip and if it's sold at flagship prices, it's only gamers who suffer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top