When I first saw 170W I swear I thought it was total system power using a stock 6600k or something.
lol I don't blame you, I so wanted to believe this was a 100-120watt part...
How the hell is a 7850 beating it in power consumption!?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
When I first saw 170W I swear I thought it was total system power using a stock 6600k or something.
I honestly think because it would look less efficient
Stupid part is it is still much more efficient than their last gen cards. Like it is getting twice the performance of last tonga. Kind of stupid move, o well. I need a break from the forums. My eyes are going blind and newegg decided to do a fuckin bi annual inventory and said wont ship until friday. Damn these guys! Got 850 evo and corsair h100i sitting here still sealed waiting for these puppies. Yes you are right no gpu yet lol.
View attachment 4752
Best of luck upgrading Don't CF until we see if Kyle manages to blow up his board, all this debating aside, watching kyle blow up his board, no matter the cause, is something everyone can look forward to
Stupid part is it is still much more efficient than their last gen cards. Like it is getting twice the performance of last tonga. Kind of stupid move, o well. I need a break from the forums. My eyes are going blind and newegg decided to do a fuckin bi annual inventory and said wont ship until friday. Damn these guys! Got 850 evo and corsair h100i sitting here still sealed waiting for these puppies. Yes you are right no gpu yet lol.
View attachment 4752
I would get a better power supply an extra 25 bucks there would get you pretty far.
I would get a better power supply an extra 25 bucks there would get you pretty far.
I have a 1TB 850 EVO and a 1TB WD Blue, love this thing, wish I could afford the Pro in this size though.
I was going to go 1tb but my last ssd was 240 I went double. Plus I am very picky on games I install. So 500 should do me solid. I have a fat ass steam library only because suckers always got on those 30 dollar game for 5 and 10 and shit in summer and winter sales.
I see AMD is emulating NVIDIA with their GTX480.83C to 91C haha.
I see AMD is emulating NVIDIA with their GTX480.
Disband AMD. Spin off their GPU division. Scrap their CPU division since no one would want that liability. Bring former ATI to glory.
I foresee Zen as a huge flop seeing how AMD has been misleading the general audience. Wouldn't take anything from them seriously.
You must really loved getting assfucked by Intel.
Like Intel has any particular competition from AMD. I see their prices quite stable for the last few years and that too without any pressure from AMD.
I also see a Sandy Bridge processor having relatively the same performance as a Skylake one. Intel is absolutely price gouging for what you get.
I also see a Sandy Bridge processor having relatively the same performance as a Skylake one. Intel is absolutely price gouging for what you get.
Pretty much. When people are replacing their GPUs more often than their CPUs, Intel 's revenues suffer. Lately, tho, most of the impetus to upgrade that Intel has been providing for desktop users have been in the platform (for example, M.2, USB-3.1, and more PCI-E 3.0 lanes) not the processor. The laptop market, however, is a different story.So Intel's been competing with itself? There's been zero pressure from AMD for the last 8 years.
Not if you actually have enough GPU to be CPU limited. I went from an i7 930 @ 4.4GHz to a I7-4770K @ 4.4GHz and my minimum frame rates in games went up 10+fps.I also see a Sandy Bridge processor having relatively the same performance as a Skylake one. Intel is absolutely price gouging for what you get.
Long story short: AMD expected Polaris 10 to clock way better, according to Kyle.Getting back on track to this actual thread-
The one thing I don't understand: If the fully enabled Polaris 10 chip (which became RX480) was supposed to be a competitor with Nvidia's next gen, how did AMD expect to do so with such a small die size chip (I'm seeing somewhere between 220-232 mm^2, compared to 314mm^2 1080), with so few shaders and ROPs?
I'm no GPU designer, but history shows that each generation has the top end parts with more shaders (or at least in the same ballpark - like 5870->6970). A smaller process size gives you room to pack more stuff into an equal or smaller space.
So either AMD engineers decided - "these new shaders and ROPs are so great, we don't need anywhere near as many of them to equal the performance of our current top parts", or what? It actually wasn't supposed to be a top end part?
Or was it that things looked good on paper but the process was garbage and ran hot?
I think the benchmarks support a lot of Kyle's original editorial, but I'd really like someone with more in-depth knowledge (then me) take a stab at trying to piece together what AMD wanted to happen.
Also, where does Vega fit in this. Earliest info I can find on it was Capsaicin in March. If RX480 was a top end part at that point what was Vega, a Titan competitor?
Getting back on track to this actual thread-
The one thing I don't understand: If the fully enabled Polaris 10 chip (which became RX480) was supposed to be a competitor with Nvidia's next gen, how did AMD expect to do so with such a small die size chip (I'm seeing somewhere between 220-232 mm^2, compared to 314mm^2 1080), with so few shaders and ROPs?
Skywell has been getting such good yields (in excess of 90% now, compared to ~30% at launch) that there should be tons of inventory. Funny thing, there should be tons of Haswell out there too as Intel ramped up production on that in case Skywell yields did not pan out quickly. Anway....So Intel's been competing with itself? There's been zero pressure from AMD for the last 8 years. You are lucky to get a 4790K or 6700K for ~300$ and that too without any competition.
I was told that Polaris was supposed to take the Fury/Fury X spot in the stack, with Vega still to be on top when it gets here......late. AMD was taken by surprise on 1080/1070 perf. They got caught with their pants downs, and are struggling to pull them up.The one thing I don't understand: If the fully enabled Polaris 10 chip (which became RX480) was supposed to be a competitor with Nvidia's next gen, how did AMD expect to do so with such a small die size chip (I'm seeing somewhere between 220-232 mm^2, compared to 314mm^2 1080), with so few shaders and ROPs?
I also see a Sandy Bridge processor having relatively the same performance as a Skylake one. Intel is absolutely price gouging for what you get.
It doesn't and they aren't.
Back to the topic at hand, I can see AMD possibly selling off the Radeon division to get an influx of cash with exclusivity to licensing the GPU tech for an extended period of time. That would be the best option for both sides. Let Radeon get a new parent with money to spend and give AMD some breathing room.
As the proud owner (really, they are awesome!) of two Acer XB321HK 32" 4K G-Sync monitors, I find myself wishfully wondering whether they might someday get a firmware patch to make them VESA Adaptive Sync compatible ... I don't know enough about the two protocols to know if that's practical.Might tie in with Intel's looming FreeSync support, or perhaps their support of VESA Adaptive Sync was just a coincidence.
I'm really having a hard time understanding how AMD creates a part on a smaller process that's getting killed in perf/watt by 16nm Pascal.
As the proud owner (really, they are awesome!) of two Acer XB321HK 32" 4K G-Sync monitors, I find myself wishfully wondering whether they might someday get a firmware patch to make them VESA Adaptive Sync compatible ... I don't know enough about the two protocols to know if that's practical.
What Kyle said, plus that graphic giving the impression that P10/11 is an entire product stack, and Vega is another complete top to bottom stack, gives the impression that P10 was supposed to do a LOT more than just offer GTX 970 performance. Unless, "AMD was taken by surprise on 1080/1070 perf" is code for "AMD legitimately thought that Nvidia's high end 2016 card would only match the GTX 970 in performance."
That said, I'll repeat what I've said before. AMD likely expected 780ti-980 performance jump, and not the actual 980ti-1080 that we got. And, P10 was targeting that 780ti-980 performance leap, but came nowhere close. I know, people will disagree. There's evidence for and against it. But, that's my speculation.
What Kyle said, plus that graphic giving the impression that P10/11 is an entire product stack, and Vega is another complete top to bottom stack, gives the impression that P10 was supposed to do a LOT more than just offer GTX 970 performance. Unless, "AMD was taken by surprise on 1080/1070 perf" is code for "AMD legitimately thought that Nvidia's high end 2016 card would only match the GTX 970 in performance."
That said, I'll repeat what I've said before. AMD likely expected 780ti-980 performance jump, and not the actual 980ti-1080 that we got. And, P10 was targeting that 780ti-980 performance leap, but came nowhere close. I know, people will disagree. There's evidence for and against it. But, that's my speculation.