Yes, but if Fury is 300 watts and AMD said that Polaris is 2 times perf/watt (Koduri said 2,5) then, there should be a chip at 150 watts with that performance, if not they will have failed at fulfilling the expected performance target they themselves created with their marketing buzz.
First off, Fury has the HBM advantage and I'd bet Raja Koduri wasn't talking about HBM solutions when he was making those comparisons because no Polaris has HBM. Most probably, he was talking about current GDDR5 solutions such as Hawaii or Tonga. I mean we could even move the goalposts even further and suggest he was talking about the Nano, for which we'd have a miraculous chip with ~GTX980 performance at less than 75W.
Secondly, why must there be a 150W solution between Polaris 11 and 10?
Polaris 11 is bound to be a sub-75W part, probably with no PCI-E power connectors at all. If Polaris 10 is 2.5x more efficient than a R9 390X, then it'll be 275W/2.5 = 110W.
Maybe they
could push the clocks up and hit Fury performance levels within 150W, but at the same time they would:
1 - Decrease chip yields
2 - Increase the cost for PCB and power regulators
3 - Completely cannibalize current Fiji solutions even if they have huge price cuts.
4 - Shrink the market at which Vega will be targeting in the future
You seem to think there's going to be just one Polaris 10 model
No, I fully expect to see Polaris 10
Pro and Polaris 10
XT graphics cards. I just don't expect the
XT model to significantly exceed the performance of a R9 390X
, if at all (which is already uncomfortably close to a Fury BTW).