That is truly a best case scenario. In some aspects GF are almost a year behind TSMC. On the bright side though, they won't lead with a mobile oriented process, so there is that. And the process looks good, the little which is out in the public domain. Execution remains to be seen. High performance 7nm, whether from TSMC or GloFo actually looks very good compared to 16/14nm. Whenever the 7nm processors and GPUs arrive, there is every reason to assume that it will be a significant step up in performance, particularly for GPUs of course.
They are magic when you start conjuring up numbers from your own imagination, claiming to surpass 1080Ti without any sort of substantial shred of evidence, the same way you claimed massive reduction of power consumption through driver power regulation or the claim of disabled driver features that will massively boost performance. Among them DSBR which did nothing to improve performance in the end. As for Async, it barely added like 5% more performance in actual games, jury is still out on FP16. This constant overhyping of imaginary proportions is what ruined AMD's launch in the first place.
While GF can be seen as year behind TSMC, they're not spending their R&D to 10nm process at all unlike TSMC, and their 7nm (at least the 1st 7nm anyway) is indeed performance oriented
Keep on posting Anarchist. I don't agree with some of your posts that are heavily AMD slanted (just like mine are the opposite
), but the architectural ones require me to think, often for quite a while, and they give me greater insight, even if I sometimes eventually don't agree either.Not opinion, empirical evidence in this case. We have hard numbers from these reviews. DICE(GDC I think), AMD, and common sense have presented examples of gains in FP16.
Then stop conjuring numbers and use the evidence and a little common sense. I've presented you a link to the benchmark requested. Devs have published papers on gains from various tech. So go do your homework and quit making shit up. GN confirmed DSBR was disabled initially. So saying it was disabled initially seems straightforward enough. Even enabled it would need tuned and AMD presented optimizations, with no figures attached, in the Mantor interview on discarding primitives. Saving bandwidth should at the very least have an impact. Maybe you know more about Vega than a corporate fellow though. Async is still hard to judge as it ultimately required paths Nvidia could run efficiently. Part of what is holding back new engines as multi-engine was largely put on hold. Async for VR techniques in the same boat for a number of reasons. The gains are there, just a matter if getting them fully enabled. I'm not imagining anything but putting forth points that AMD and devs have presented. I'd say the jury is still out on a "ruined" launch, because if they sell all their product at higher MSRP than they anticipated it's hardly a bad thing.
Don't worry I will. I often prefer playing devil's advocate just to hash out positions. Finding the limits of an architecture is the hard part, yet the most useful more often than not. Besides, anything well known isn't worth discussing.Keep on posting Anarchist. I don't agree with some of your posts that are heavily AMD slanted (just like mine are the opposite
I can understand if you think I'm biased based on what I've posted in this thread, but in reality I am super disappointed with AMD. Based on everything they've been saying the last few months + using common sense and extrapolating from Fiji performance I thought there was no way they could fail this hard.
Then again, we do have historical evidence of AMD cards gaining more performance over time compared to GeForces from every generation since GCN was first introduced. Vega being biggest change in the architecture, but still essentially GCN, is there a reason not to expect at least similar performance uplift as previous generations, if not bigger due the bigger than usual changes?
You could just as easily make the argument that all the low hanging fruit has been picked and future increases the likes of what we saw with Tahiti and Hawaii are unlikely.
One benchmark! One against dozens with subpar performance across 1080p, DX11, Anti-Aliasing and even several DX12 titles (Hitman, Sniper Elite 4, Gears Of War 4.. etc).
Yet you've presented none of that here.
Great advice, because I am not the one claiming ridiculous gains out of thin air.
Where is the impact, and how much of it, is there?
Coincidentally a corporate fellow never gave any concrete number, nor promise any massive performance improvement, a practice you liberally do in a heart beat, despite NOT being a corporate fellow, and despite proven consistently wrong at every prediction you make.
Another great advice, you should start immediately and not give imaginary "magic" numbers before the dust settles down.
AMD barely made any of that hype. The revolution has been their marketing thing since polaris, FE is not RX Vega and performance is slightly different and Poor Volta was a small easter egg on a sign for half a second..
