AMD has one quarter for Polaris to snag up potential marketshare (their TAM for VR) before GP106 comes out. Is that enough. And is the price/performance ratio going to be good enough, cause power usage against the gp106 most likely won't. I say this because:
I think Taylor is either unaware of or unwilling to discuss GP106, which I do not think was formally announced.
All the "what we've seen" shading to his language makes me think this is a smokescreen.
Before any one says anything about their 2.5 perf/watt advantage, that advantage is from the node, not from the architecture, so if that is what they are getting in base case, man..... I don't think anything more needs to be said.
There may be some architectural advantage, AMD has give a 70:30 split on node vs architecture. Some of the given features would seemingly have to provide some power benefit.
Did AMD have enough time after seeing what Maxwell 2 was capable of in the perf/watt categories to make changes in Polaris, I don't think they did nor did they have the ability to.
CPUs have been 4-5 years for a new design. GPUs used to be able to have turnaround that might have been 2-3 years. Off-hand comments seem to be putting the more complex design work for GPUs these days pushing them closer to CPUs.
The PS4's full hardware development time seems to have been ~4 years, with 2 years to lock down the spec, going by some statements by Mark Cerny. Possibly that leaves room for alterations in response, but hopefully there were ongoing projects for improving perf/W regardless of Maxwell 2.
There are elements in GCN3 that Nvidia is implementing or has implemented. GCN3 can address 32-bit registers and extract them at 8 or 16-bit granularity, which Pascal seems to be promising as well. What GCN3 doesn't do with that currently is provide more throughput in that mode, which is being done with FP16 and potentially with 8-bit as well with Pascal.
Whether Polaris can somehow sneak that in if its IP version at a high level is unchanged, I am unsure.
Vega, it seems would benefit given its likely focus.
One thing that stood out to me about Taylor's statements is the somewhat dismissive treatment of Nvidia's automotive focus. I know that's not really an area Taylor would need to concern himself with given his position, but frankly if I'm going to weigh the significance of deep learning and automating almost everything that moves on an industrial scale in a way that could change mobility and economies forever against VR, I am unconvinced that AMD is doing the more consequential thing.
I am generally curious about VR and Nvidia's success in that field is unclear to me, but to even bring that up in comparison makes AMD look like its chasing another flash in the pan.
