AMD: Speculation, Rumors, and Discussion (Archive)

[Gipsel]

And they give a 2.8 perf/watt increase here as well, against a chip that's now 4 years old and for sure was sold in higher performing configurations with less wattage (HD 7870, 175w or HD 7850, 130w, IIRC).

The 7870 and the 7850 had both lower performance. The 7850 is cut down as well as it runs at a lower clock, the 7870 (at least the reference, there were plenty of faster OC models around [afair up to 1.2GHz], but I guess AMD wouldn't use those) is simply clocked lower than the 270X.
The 270X runs at 1050 MHz and 5.6Gbps memory, the 7870 only at 1000MHz and 4.8Gbps memory.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Yup, I'm looking at the 470 as an upgrade for my sons 7750. I think together with his E3 1230 Xeon it will be great at 1080p.

Are there any suggestions of 470 pricing yet? At $160 (about £140 inc VAT) one would be quite appealing

If I were to taka guess, I'd say the 470 will be around 150-ish while the 460 will be around 100-ish. That gives room for AIB custom boards to go up a bit higher without clipping into 480 pricing. I could also see 470 potentially being up to 170, however.

Regards,
SB

 

[AnomalousEntity]

BTW, if you want to compute how much bandwidth you need you also need to factor in z reads/writes, overdraw, blending, geometry and more importantly texture reads. Actually is even more complex than that if the GPU supports z and/or color compression.

Exactly. You read/write multiple times from/to DRAM in a single frame. Deferred rendering pipeline typically has a lot of intermediate buffers and read/write happens multiple times in each of them. So to calculate the total bandwidth you have to include reads and writes of all these buffers and not just the final image. VR would just double everything.

 

[CarstenS]

The 7870 and the 7850 had both lower performance. The 7850 is cut down as well as it runs at a lower clock, the 7870 (at least the reference, there were plenty of faster OC models around [afair up to 1.2GHz], but I guess AMD wouldn't use those) is simply clocked lower than the 270X.
The 270X runs at 1050 MHz and 5.6Gbps memory, the 7870 only at 1000MHz and 4.8Gbps memory.

Ah, right. I was remembering only the 370, where not even the full chip was sold anymore. Still, a 4 year old chip, which was sold in almost as highly performing configurations like the HD 7870.

 

[pharma]

Known reference price and memory configurations to AMD's Radeon RX400 Series

http://www.3dcenter.org/news/preislagen-und-speicherbestueckungen-zu-amds-radeon-rx400-serie-bekannt

 

[xEx]

If we take the usual 1us = 1eu then 40 dollars for 4GBs of ram seems excessive...It would be much better to spend 40 bucks more in a custom card and get more OC headroom.

 

[Rurouni]

If we take the usual 1us = 1eu then 40 dollars for 4GBs of ram seems excessive...It would be much better to spend 40 bucks more in a custom card and get more OC headroom.

Looking at current GPU prices, I don't think $40 difference is excessive. Yes, in absolute terms, they might take some premium from the 8GB version, but it is probably the norm for GPU pricing.
I assume that what you mean is getting the 4GB custom card vs 8GB reference card? I will take the 8GB one simply because in future games (and some current games), the 4GB might be a bottleneck. But depending on how much you can OC the card, I might be swayed to get the 4GB version.
Actually, If Polaris can OC really high, I'm hoping someone would make a 470 with 8GB. I think the performance can be near a stock 480.

 

[Ryan Smith]

Ah, right. I was remembering only the 370, where not even the full chip was sold anymore. Still, a 4 year old chip, which was sold in almost as highly performing configurations like the HD 7870.

Technically a full Pitcairn is sold, just not across the globe. China has the 370X.

 

[CarstenS]

What's it's TDP?

 

[Ryan Smith]

What's it's TDP?

AMD never told me. But it's a card comparable to 270X, so I'd assume the TBP is at or near 180W as well.

 

[CarstenS]

I just hope people won't be disappointed when they hope for this factor 2.8 in perf/watt in real games/applications. According to what we've measured back then (just looked up in an old excel sheet), our HD 7870 sample was around 114 watts while gaming (BFBC2, at that time pretty taxing) and 139 watts in furmark-like load. HD 7850 was at 98 and 105 watts respectively and for some perspektive HD 7970: 185/234 watt.

So maybe, we will be seeing RX 470 at under 90 watt in Furmark load and 72 watts while gaming, but I doubt it. AMD has much refined their power adaption since then with the boost applied and has stated that they saw much less variance in 14nm for Polaris than on earlier ASICS, so by all means they should be able to much better utilize their tightened power budgets, i.e. running much closer to it.

That said, looking over the power consumption of partner boards for the 270X, most of those we had in the lab exceeded power consumption of 180 watts in Furmark and where at about 154-179 watts in gaming loads.

We'll see. I am still not convinced that a TDP/TBP comparison does tell us much.

 

[lanek]

I just hope people won't be disappointed when they hope for this factor 2.8 in perf/watt in real games/applications. According to what we've measured back then (just looked up in an old excel sheet), our HD 7870 sample was around 114 watts while gaming (BFBC2, at that time pretty taxing) and 139 watts in furmark-like load. HD 7850 was at 98 and 105 watts respectively and for some perspektive HD 7970: 185/234 watt.

So maybe, we will be seeing RX 470 at under 90 watt in Furmark load and 72 watts while gaming, but I doubt it. AMD has much refined their power adaption since then with the boost applied and has stated that they saw much less variance in 14nm for Polaris than on earlier ASICS, so by all means they should be able to much better utilize their tightened power budgets, i.e. running much closer to it.

That said, looking over the power consumption of partner boards for the 270X, most of those we had in the lab exceeded power consumption of 180 watts in Furmark and where at about 154-179 watts in gaming loads.

We'll see. I am still not convinced that a TDP/TBP comparison does not tell us much.

Offtopic, but why use Furmark ( or OCCT ); I dont know if it is still there, but they was specific profile in drivers for Furmark since years ( for both AMD and Nvidia ).. Its date from the 2900X- 8800 era ( initially for protect the gpu's when running thoses apps ).

I can imagine there's still specific profile when the drivers detect thoses one.

 

[CarstenS]

That's why I wrote furmark-like load in the beginning.

 

[dskneo]

occt runs full throttle with the 290x, dont know about its sisters.

 

[Grall]

Nordic Hardware claims RX 480 could hit 1500 O/C on air, with core voltage bump:
https://translate.google.se/transla...g-luftkylning.html&edit-text=&act=url&act=url

(Goggle Translate link. Usually works decently well, but could contain Bork Bork Bork Bork!)

 

[ninelven]

Nordic Hardware claims RX 480 could hit 1500 O/C on air, with core voltage bump:

Meanwhile.... 2 GHz+ on air is not very impressive...

 

[xEx]

A look at the RX 480 PCB and some speculation about Polaris

 

[lanek]

That's why I wrote furmark-like load in the beginning.

Sorry, i have misread it. This said, this was more aimed in general.

 

[hoom]

A look at the RX 480 PCB and some speculation about Polaris

Where did that board shot come from?

Edit: hardcore OCers are fuckin weird

 

[xEx]

Where did that board shot come from?

Edit: hardcore OCers are fuckin weird

I believe its from the E3 conference or from one of AMD official papers. Anyways it is also it this article(Yes I know that site)

http://wccftech.com/radeon-rx-480-reference-model-leak/