AMD: Speculation, Rumors, and Discussion (Archive)

Status
Not open for further replies.
eastmen said:
has it ? my 290 stuggles to hit 6 . So a 6.3 isn't bad imo
Click to expand...
Yep a different source to one I was thinking of:
In fact they measured 390 at 7.10, puts the 480 into perspective.
image060-2_w_600.png


Cheers
 
3dilettante said:
Interesting that they've gone to comparing Polaris 10 to Pitcairn.
The various benchmarks would seemingly place the 480 in the 390 range, and I'll hazard a guess at 130-140W.
Click to expand...
The power numbers in the articles I've linked are about backing up the claim of "upto 2.8x" performance per watt.

R9 270X is rated for 180W (unclear to me how that number arises), but that's what the wiki page indicates:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Radeon_Rx_200_series#Radeon_R9_270X

I don't know how they would have gotten it to 180W though as:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_270X/24.html

implies that 172W power consumption required Furmark testing (close to that 180W figure above). The maximum in a game was 122W.

I think all of AMD's claims about gains in performance per watt are solely according to rated board power. The notes for the press deck do not say that power was measured during the tests. Instead it says "Board power".
 
mini-rant:
It doesn't make much sense to have no less than 3 threads about Polaris.. where one is about Polaris in general, the other is about one Polaris 10 (RX 480) and the other is about one Polaris 10 and one Polaris 11 (RX470 + RX460).



Regardless, the RX470 is being touted as the replacement for R9 270X Pitcairn, with unsurprisingly 2x better performance at 2/3rds the power (110W).
http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-polaris-10-polaris-11-specs-performance/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
According to endnotes they tested with driver version 16.1.1 (steamVR test only if i read it correctly). Whats up with that?
 
Anarchist4000 said:
Fairly sure AMD said somewhere it was 199/229 for each model with the series falling in to 100-300 range. The bottom of that is easily the 460/470 parts. The $300 is either a liquid cooled midrange, which some partners demoed, or high OC parts. The problem was the liquid cooling part is that it's rather unjustified for a midrange product.
Click to expand...

Going out on a limb with completely made up hypotheticals. But if water cooling allowed for say, a 50% overclock (unreasonable and unlikely) that would likely justify a 300 USD price point and the use of a water cooler. Depending on the consumer if a water cooled solution offered 10% (or more) higher clocks than the best AIB overclocked on air card, they may find it compelling.

It still seems excessive for a mid-range card, but then overclockers are weird beasts. :)

Regards,
SB
 
Kaotik said:
That's simply because there's nothing to see there, Polaris doesn't support HBM-memories, since it supports GDDR5-memories, you can't fit both in the same chip.
Click to expand...
It has been claimed by AMD (I think by Raja directly) that Polaris supports both HBM and GDDR5 technologies.
LordEC911 said:
I didn't study the render but the first thing that popped into my head was GDDR5X.
256bit x 10ghz = 320GB/s

too many sixes with a 384bit bus
384bit x 6666mhz = 320GB/s
Click to expand...
I expect 64/128MB ESRAM/EDRAM (off die) about 150Gbps each way. 3.6Ghz DDR4 chips for about 170GBps.
 
Love_In_Rio said:
The worse is not it is slower than a 970, but its TDP is almost the same than a 970 at 28 nm (if a RX 470 is 110 w the RX 480 will certainly be near 150).Architecture efficiency improvement really disappointing. It seems Kyle Bennett had a point.
Click to expand...

Really a GTX 970 to a GTX 980 same chip but the 980 is clocked higher with more parts enabled. What's the power difference when running a game? Well, looking at Anandtech in Crysis 3, it's ~4 watts difference.

How about something closer to mid-range. Using a GTX 760 versus a GTX 770. Again according to Anandtech there's a 17 watt difference.

Unless they are pushing it far past the knee of the power curve (like Fury X) there's not going to be anywhere near a 25+ watt difference. There's likely to be a 5-15 watt difference between the 470 and 480.

BTW - I was going to use the 270 versus 270x for AMD but at Anandtech the slower 270 actually consumed more power than the faster 270x.

I think Dave mentioned somewhere before that salvage chips used for lower card tiers often had worse power characteristics than chips used for the intended top end version. Meaning they often had worse perf/watt despite sometimes consuming less power. Or was it that there was far more variability with higher potential for lower perf/watt? It's been a while since I read that post.

So while unlikely, it's possible for 470 to consume more power than 480.

Regards,
SB
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

hoom
AMD: Zen 4, Speculation, Rumours and Discussion
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
39K
MfA
M
Rys
Reopening Architecture and Products + rules and guidelines changes
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
16K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
D
AMD: Zen 2 (Ryzen/Threadripper 3000?, Epyc 8000?) Speculation, Rumours and Discussion
16 17 18
Replies
340
Views
153K
PSman1700
P
Shortbread
Next-Generation NVMe SSD and I/O Technology [PC, PS5, XBSX|S]
105 106 107
Replies
2K
Views
217K
Karamazov
K
L
A rambling history of AMD and nVidia's rise to the top
2
Replies
20
Views
6K
Leovinus
L
Back
Top