crisium
Platinum Member
- Aug 19, 2001
- 2,643
- 615
- 136
Look, you still do not understand. Going wider with lower clocks is a design decision deliberately done by AMD.
Not necessarily. That's an assumption as much as any of mine. Plenty of GF criticism out there.
It does _NOT_ mean you can overclock Polaris to insane levels.
My main issue with your argument is, that you are taking perf/area as basis - an irrelevant metric - and are only happy (see you 1700Mhz overclock statement) until perf/area of Polaris matches Pascal. Not going to happen.
That's not my expectation. I want AMD to at least match the relative perf/area gains going to 14nm that Nvidia made going to 16. This is my whole point being disappointed. Nvidia was already ahead on 28nm. It appears to me that they may have gotten more ahead.