Recent content by Adored

Don't talk to me about "respect" when you're using phrases like... "If your methods are flawed then your conclusions are also flawed." "That's his theory alright. Only that it is a bunch of crap." "I will wait for an independent trust worthy source". Make sure you and your mate here spread the...

Is this the same guy who's been benching Starcraft II for years even with it's 26% faster performance between the 7700K and 7600K, or showing KL twice as fast as Broadwell-E? Anyone can run macros on a couple of PC's and chart the end results. Understanding what is being seen is another...

You should just PM Razor1 and both get your bias double-confirmed at the same time, while saving the rest of the forum from your constant bullshit. FYI, I already benched TR at low settings and I know what is going on here. At 1080p Very High the 1060 is 2 fps ahead (58 vs 56) but at 1080p...

So basically AMD has a bunch of better tech that you have a hard time seeing what makes it so special? VR SLI is a joke which has been promised by Nvidia for 18 months and yet to be delivered, it's nowhere near affinity multi-GPU. Nvidia has nothing like latest data latch and their timewarp is...

I suggest you start here as a primer - http://amd-dev.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/media/2012/10/gr_proc_req_for_enabling_immer_VR.pdf You may have heard of the author? There are quite a few other VR advantages AMD has (in both hw and sw) that I can help you with if interested.

I believe fin height can also be used for increasing performance with FinFETs and is probably the difference between the early 14/16nm and the current LPP/FF+ available now.

It's the shrinking of the transistors that saves power. Think about it in terms of smaller transistors need less energy to switch. You can get back to similar power levels as the previous node by adding more transistors (for more performance) or faster switching (higher clock speeds).

If you can't figure out that it's more difficult to beat Titan X on 16nm (with a midrange GPU) than it would be to beat the 780 Ti, it's your comprehension that's at fault. What is so difficult about that? And FYI you're like a neural network sarcasm generator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_shrink The 2nd part is basically what I said, TSMC's 16nm is 20nm with FinFET. Samsung's feature size is smaller. Overall it'll be slightly ahead of the 40nm to 28nm transition. Yes TSMC's 32nm was cancelled, it caused AMD a hell of a problem with Cayman...

40 to 28 is just one node, the old "half nodes" that used to exist. 28nm to 14nm is one full node (28 to 20) + FinFETs on the same 20nm BEOL rebranded to 14/16nm - basically more of a jump than 40 to 28 was but not two complete full node jumps like what Intel did from 32nm to 14nm.

What I said was the node was pushed further than ever before, the 600mm2 GPUs being proof of that. Previous node flagships would have stopped at the 780 Ti / 290X level, which would obviously be easier to beat on a new node.

Maybe terrible is unfair but they sure didn't help AMD's cratering market share over the past 3 years. There's no denying the power draw either, especially on Hawaii.

What? Compare Fury X and Titan X to any previous node and you'll find they are both well ahead in performance vs the earlier GPUs on the node. The node lasted longer and the area was pushed further than ever before. Yep I expect 25%.

We're not talking about GP106. Polaris 10 is AMD's true midrange GPU, not some weak wannabe. Would you also not have expected the 294mm2 680 to have blown past the 520mm2 580 by 30%? Because that's what happened.

Yes because Fury X is an awful GPU in so many ways. It barely beats that same 440mm2 Hawaii GPU in most cases - certainly not by enough to warrant HBM and the extra area. And on top of that, Hawaii is another unbalanced GPU. Doesn't even have compression, so the only real factor preventing it...