- Oct 16, 2013
- 383
- 25
- 91
Nice but the 280X is a full Tahiti chip when RX 470 is a cut down Polaris 10. They had to compare the RX 470 to 7950 or 280, or 280X vs RX 480.
the 7950 were the version with 1792 but it didnt unlock to 7970. unlike Hawaii/Fiji do and the reduced clock speed was due to effiency and make a difference in performance given at 900MHz the difference would be very lowThe 280x can still hold it's own 4+ years later on top tier games at resolutions it was originally targeted for. Impressive.
The original 7970 was released Dec. 2011 making it 5 years old. The 280x respin brought AMD better binning (which was already very good with the 7950 mostly being 7970 chips with just the bios reducing speed due to lack of "bad" chips) and allowed higher clocks to be more easily attained. Why compare it to a 470, probably should be against a 480 imo.
In any case 280x uses a bit more power and 4 years later can still be considered mainstream. Was an awesome buy considering where its original competition now stands.
the 470 is the similar gpu to the 280x compute wise at same clock aswell SP countNice but the 280X is a full Tahiti chip when RX 470 is a cut down Polaris 10. They had to compare the RX 470 to 7950 or 280, or 280X vs RX 480.
Nah, cut down P10 has the same specs as full Tahiti, so you can make a clock for clock comparison. Main difference is the memory subsystem, and that's still going to be in favor or P10 because of memory compression even if you match bandwidth on both.
Anyway, nice gains on the same basic architecture after all these years.
Not only memory, also ROPs,DMA,GCP,HWS+ACEs,Geometry engine,multimedia engine,
also there is another comparison with GCN3 https://www.computerbase.de/2016-08/amd-radeon-polaris-architektur-performance/2/ there could be a 384 bit Tonga but only there are 256bit card on the marketOk, they opted for the same CUs as well.
There are some differences though, Tahiti had 384bit memory controllers with higher memory bandwidth than RX 470 at the same 7GHz memory but RX 470 has 4GB of memory vs 3GB for Tahiti.
Nice to see the performance gains at the same CUs/closks but it would be even more eye opening if they would also include power consumption. Because Tahiti at 1150MHz will be extremely power hungry and RX 470 still has more than 10-15% higher clocks to use.
So 17% better performance on average in 4 years with the same gpu specs?
Why does it sound like this guy thinks that's good?
Looking at the newer games they were mostly 22%+ improvement. Mafia 3 @ no change brings down the average
Polaris has some tweaks to improve minimum clock speed(1.2GHz vs 950MHz) but maybe the process needs further improvement to get higher clock speed also for Vega there could be planned something to get higher clock speed while getting less power used on idle SPsHow does this compare to Intel CPU IPC improvements? Sandybridge to Skylake is a similar time frame (close to 4.5 years).
It's nice to have IPC improvements, but they need to get past the clock barrier and high power consumption. Typical Tahiti could hit 1.15GHz+ and a golden sample Tahiti chip could hit 1.3GHz on air, iirc. Can a typical Polaris 10 even hit 1.4GHz? Not much improvement. I wouldn't ask AMD to sacrifice the marginal IPC gains, but they really need to find a way to push past the ~1.3GHz barrier.
Because that's essentially architecture only - without counting that the 280X is OC'd, the 470 is UC'd, and that the 470 - even OC'd - doesn't come close to the power consumption of the 280X. ~20% clock-for-clock gains in 4 years while significantly reducing power consumption and increasing max clocks, that's a very good result.So 17% better performance on average in 4 years with the same gpu specs?
Why does it sound like this guy thinks that's good?
That makes no sense. Wether a chip is cut-down or not makes no difference to its actual performance, relative to its actual functional components. What he's doing is comparing as similar chips as possible in terms of specs, while clocking them the same too. Which is exactly what you would want him to do. What's the point of comparing dissimilar GPUs simply due to them being, for example, the fully enabled SKU of the mid-range chip of that generation? Then you're not discussing things that make any difference to actual users.Nice but the 280X is a full Tahiti chip when RX 470 is a cut down Polaris 10. They had to compare the RX 470 to 7950 or 280, or 280X vs RX 480.
some benchmarks form anandtech shows really small difference between 7970 and 380x given the clock speed maybe in some games/graphics settings the difference is noticeable but other games arent but in computerbase review there were games which 470 had a lead even over 5% avg anandtech showsBecause that's essentially architecture only - without counting that the 280X is OC'd, the 470 is UC'd, and that the 470 - even OC'd - doesn't come close to the power consumption of the 280X. ~20% clock-for-clock gains in 4 years while significantly reducing power consumption and increasing max clocks, that's a very good result.
That makes no sense. Wether a chip is cut-down or not makes no difference to its actual performance, relative to its actual functional components. What he's doing is comparing as similar chips as possible in terms of specs, while clocking them the same too. Which is exactly what you would want him to do. What's the point of comparing dissimilar GPUs simply due to them being, for example, the fully enabled SKU of the mid-range chip of that generation? Then you're not discussing things that make any difference to actual users.
The 280x can still hold it's own 4+ years later on top tier games at resolutions it was originally targeted for. Impressive.
The original 7970 was released Dec. 2011 making it 5 years old.
So 17% better performance on average in 4 years with the same gpu specs? Why does it sound like this guy thinks that's good?
Sorry, what are you saying? I seriously can't understand you. Punctuation might help somewhat.some benchmarks form anandtech shows really small difference between 7970 and 380x given the clock speed maybe in some games/graphics settings the difference is noticeable but other games arent but in computerbase review there were games which 470 had a lead even over 5% avg anandtech shows
So 17% better performance on average in 4 years with the same gpu specs?
Why does it sound like this guy thinks that's good?
that in some benchmarks anandtech has the 380x doing barely 5% better but some other testing has been done on computerbase shows a bigger difference maybe games needs ot be programmed towards GCN3 to get the fullestSorry, what are you saying? I seriously can't understand you. Punctuation might help somewhat.
Youre saying:
a) Anandtech showed small differences between the 7970 and 380x.
b) Computerbase reviewed the RX 470 and it performed ~5% better than ... something? What?
Sorry, but I don't understand your objection to my post. And how does this relate to the video?
I still can't quite grasp the relevance of what you're saying, as neither of those cards are in the video. Sure, the 7970 is essentially the same as the 280X, just an older revision. But it's clocked lower too. Also, no one here is discussing generational gains up to gcn 1.3. We all know it was rather limited. What we're discussing is how Polaris kicked that seeming trend to the curb and shot past previous cards. The 380X is essentially a 285, which didn't outperform the 280X at all at launch (although it performed very similarly with less power consumption).that in some benchmarks anandtech has the 380x doing barely 5% better but some other testing has been done on computerbase shows a bigger difference maybe games needs ot be programmed towards GCN3 to get the fullest
The problem is we can only figure out what AMD GPUs are good in hindsight due to AMDs poor driver optimization. AMD remains competitive with Nvidia through driver optimization rather than blowing by them by optimizing drivers from the start. As a result, we can look back and say WOW Hawaii is amazing, but if AMD has simply released Hawaii with a good cooler and decent drivers from the start.....
shader functionality
What do you mean by shader functionality?