From here I believe:
http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-faster-than-nano-980/
Thanks. Considering the source, I'd say it's a bit thin to be in the thread's title, but hopefully it's true.
From here I believe:
http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-faster-than-nano-980/
Yes, we shall see, but its more accurate than the absolute maximum that will never be drawn.Thanks. Considering the source, I'd say it's a bit thin to be in the thread's title, but hopefully it's true.
Do you have evidence to counter WCCFTech's released data?don't we have frame rates for the r470 and the r270 same system and we now know the 2.8 perf/watt was for that in a specific app, and we can figure out the wattage of the r470..... and there is no way the r480 is 100 watts........
yeah AMD slides, the r470 is at 110 watts lol.
..strange. A 380 card with 32 rops is listed at 62GP/s. 1.266*32=40.5GP/s, which sists comfortably in the ram BW as RGBA8 needs 1266*32*4=162Gb/s.Well, VR has really high requirements:
Oculus/Vive at 90 Hz -> 1080 x 1200 x 90 x 2 X 1.4 -> ~325 MPixel/s
...
you think AMD marketing is so bad that they would make their perf/watt increase would be worst case?
No, on the contrary they inflate the number by choosing official max power draw / tdp as the metric instead of actual/average consumption, since the boost-less 270x's 180w is VERY conservative http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1070/images/power_average.png
My comment was about highlighting the fact that rendering at 4K resolution and 30 fps requires to fill roughly as many pixel as required by VR rendering today...strange. A 380 card with 32 rops is listed at 62GP/s. 1.266*32=40.5GP/s, which sists comfortably in the ram BW as RGBA8 needs 1266*32*4=162Gb/s.
Mind to explain your comment? I am not sure I grasp it.
The RX470 is looking mighty nice for my living room HTPC upgrade to a stand-alone gaming HTPC.
Or neither, unless you know the typical gaming power consumption for RX470/80.
Indeed, the amount of processed pixels are very similar - thanks for your clarification.My comment was about highlighting the fact that rendering at 4K resolution and 30 fps requires to fill roughly as many pixel as required by VR rendering today.
TBP for the last few gens was not the averaged used, the averaged used tended to be much higher. So what would expect when they give you a TDP of 150, I would think right around that number but optimistically a bit lower because we can take AMD words for it that it won't use that much. So would you expect 30% less? that is being more than optimistic .
Lets be realistic here...... You would think AMD would tout if they had a better perf/watt that Pascal right? If they got to 100 watts average on the rx480 at 390 level performance, guess what it would be very close to Pascal in the perf/watt category, it would be a no brainier for marketing use those kinds of figures, to hype their cards. Yet we don't see that.
Everything goes back to the way AMD is marketing these cards. Unless the marketing department of AMD is incompetent and couldn't figure out ways to show their cards in a good light when they could do certain things better than the competition that would be the only reason I can think of that they would make such a mistake.