AMD: Speculation, Rumors, and Discussion (Archive)

Thanks. Considering the source, I'd say it's a bit thin to be in the thread's title, but hopefully it's true.

 

Yes, we shall see, but its more accurate than the absolute maximum that will never be drawn.

 

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........

 

Do you have evidence to counter WCCFTech's released data?

 

yeah AMD slides, the r470 is at 110 watts lol.

 

That is max power draw, not actual usage though?

 

you think AMD marketing is so bad that they would make their perf/watt increase would be worst case?

 

Guru 3D have normalised the Firestrike Benchmarks for the 470 from the AMD slidepack and they look rather good compared to all the other cards. Just under the R9 290.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/radeon-rx-470-benchmarks.html

 

..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.

 

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

 

Or neither, unless you know the typical gaming power consumption for RX470/80.

 

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.

Those pixels need to be shaded as well, so looking at ROPs alone won't give you a full picture.

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.

 

The RX470 is looking mighty nice for my living room HTPC upgrade to a stand-alone gaming HTPC.

 

Mine too!
B-but I promised myself I'd never put any more gaming gear in the living room because I'll just do streaming from my desktop!

B-but this has future-proof HEVC and HDMI 2.0!

Aaaarghh I just spent a ton of money on a freesync ultrawide monitor. I can't be keeping up with all these releases, they're all too tempting...

 

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

 

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.

 

Indeed, the amount of processed pixels are very similar - thanks for your clarification.

 

They could have just used the max they could draw from the provided power inputs as a way to prevent NVidia from throwing a wrench in their plans.

The cards could be more efficient and consumers would find out at launch but it would delay any reaction NVidia could do.

 

They could. But then it's hard to imagine a power configuration limited by the systems' combination of power rails that tops out at exactly 110 watts (RX 470, as per footnotes of the slide deck, cited by guru3d.com. 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).

 

It should be notably less than 480 which starts as low as 199, so I guess 150-160-ish is a good place to start, maybe even less.