RUMOR: Radeon 480 to be priced to replace 380, similar output as 390.

[Anarchist4000]

Should probably refer to them as Fiji XT and Pro since they could be rebranded/refreshed as the 490X and 490.

I've been crunching the numbers, and I have a feeling they will be refreshing the entire line in short order, including a lot of dual chip parts that don't perform like we're accustomed to. With a coherent interconnect and the prefetching feature they should be able to make split chips act as one. Being on an interposer likely solves the traditional problems. It also seems like they might have nearly doubled the performance of the shader cores without even taking into account the move to FINFET. That would leave a 480X trading blows with a Fury.

Anyways, the dual chip part should help with yields. If they're already using an interposer for HBM, sticking another die on there isn't too much more to ask. Efficiency wise, they will extensively be using one or more scalar processors within each CU for both compute and prefetching. These will rearrange waves to reduce/eliminate divergence issues and execute scalar code sections. SIMDs are variable sized during runtime with ALUs being disabled to save power. Throughput will reduce moderately as clocks rise to compensate. Theoretically cutting the SIMD in half and doubling clocks keeps the same throughput, however that's probably too much to ask. Likely an independent boost clock for SIMDs as well providing a large potential compute increase.

I've been assuming 1.3x for efficiency improvements(it may in fact exceed this slightly based on a research paper) and 1.5x for boost clocks(Nvidia currently manages 50%, so doesn't seem unreasonable). That would make each core nearly double a comparable core by today's standards. Throw in 60% less power from FINFET and you get the 2.5x perf/watt. It won't be any higher because the efficiency and boost numbers likely increase power consumption. They'd increase capacity, but lower perf/watt while in use.

460 = Cut Polaris 11 2GB GDDR5 1152cores 123mm2
460X = Cut Polaris 11 4GB GDDR5 1152cores 123mm2

470 = Polaris 11 4GB GDDR5 1280cores 123mm2
470X = Polaris 11 2GB HBM 1280cores 123mm2

480 = Cut Polaris 10 8GB GDDR5 2304cores 232mm2 Should be ~$200 and meet the VR spec
480X = Polaris 11x2 4GB HBM1 2560cores 246mm2 This should best a 390X and trade blows with Fiji "BAFFIN XT G5 4GB CHANNEL P/N 102-C98101-00 (FOC)"
480M = Polaris 10 4GB HBM1 2560cores 246mm2 Likely a mobile variant, although could be a discrete card.

490 = Cut Polaris 10 x2 8GB HBM 4608cores 464mm2
490X = Polaris 10 x2 8GB HBM 5120cores 464mm2
490M = Small Vega 8GB HBM2 3840cores ~350mm2

Fury = Big Vega 8GB HBM2 5760cores ~525mm2
FuryX = Dual Small Vega 16GB HBM2 7680cores ~700mm2 LMFAO if this fits, might be like the Pro Duo since HBM2 should be larger
FuryDuo = Dual Big Vega 32BM HBM2 11520cores ~1050mm2 This would be similar to Fury Pro Duo, can you say enthusiast part?

 

[KazeoHin]

I don't think we'll see HBM on a polaris product at all.

And dual-chip cards are becoming more rare, not more common.

I would say you're trying too hard to fill up the range with all-new chips.

Polaris will probably replace the 380-through-to-the-390X, but Big Tonga will probably be rebadged as the 470, and you'll see rebrands down the line.

I would imagine we won't see another dual-GPU card for at least another 12 months.

 

[Anarchist4000]

I would imagine we won't see another dual-GPU card for at least another 12 months.

The problem with this is shipping invoices show AMD constantly importing Fiji Nano boards. Boards spec'd for a TDP of 175W. That Baffin XT is also listed as costing 4-5x what any other Polaris 11 card costs. The big sticking point here are some features that got added likely allowing 2 chips on the same interposer to act as one. They won't behave like SLI or Crossfire at all. Exception being those giant Vega parts, but they're well into the enthusiast market anyways.

 

[Deleted member 222586]

The problem with this is shipping invoices show AMD constantly importing Fiji Nano boards. Boards spec'd for a TDP of 175W. That Baffin XT is also listed as costing 4-5x what any other Polaris 11 card costs. The big sticking point here are some features that got added likely allowing 2 chips on the same interposer to act as one. They won't behave like SLI or Crossfire at all. Exception being those giant Vega parts, but they're well into the enthusiast market anyways.

That would be a first, though, if they can put to die's on the same package, though Intel has done it before (Q6600). We will see, but I doubt that if they go for multi-die capsules they start with so many sku's on day one. They might experiment... but not on the coming time.

 

[schizo]

AMD spoke about dual-GPU cards at the midrange recently, talking about the excessive costs of very large chips. So it's totally plausible that they do this.

They didn't talk about putting them on the same die, though.

 

[Ieldra]

I've been crunching the numbers, and I have a feeling they will be refreshing the entire line in short order, including a lot of dual chip parts that don't perform like we're accustomed to. With a coherent interconnect and the prefetching feature they should be able to make split chips act as one. Being on an interposer likely solves the traditional problems. It also seems like they might have nearly doubled the performance of the shader cores without even taking into account the move to FINFET. That would leave a 480X trading blows with a Fury.

Anyways, the dual chip part should help with yields. If they're already using an interposer for HBM, sticking another die on there isn't too much more to ask. Efficiency wise, they will extensively be using one or more scalar processors within each CU for both compute and prefetching. These will rearrange waves to reduce/eliminate divergence issues and execute scalar code sections. SIMDs are variable sized during runtime with ALUs being disabled to save power. Throughput will reduce moderately as clocks rise to compensate. Theoretically cutting the SIMD in half and doubling clocks keeps the same throughput, however that's probably too much to ask. Likely an independent boost clock for SIMDs as well providing a large potential compute increase.

I've been assuming 1.3x for efficiency improvements(it may in fact exceed this slightly based on a research paper) and 1.5x for boost clocks(Nvidia currently manages 50%, so doesn't seem unreasonable). That would make each core nearly double a comparable core by today's standards. Throw in 60% less power from FINFET and you get the 2.5x perf/watt. It won't be any higher because the efficiency and boost numbers likely increase power consumption. They'd increase capacity, but lower perf/watt while in use.

Can you source any of this ? Some of these claims are quite extreme; doubling performance of shader cores ? This means at clock parity you need only half the #. That's... ridiculous

Nvidia doesn't manage a 50% clock increase either, it went from 1200~ boost to ~1500 boost, that's 25% according to GP100

Edit: wait a minute, this :

seems like they might have nearly doubled the performance of the shader cores without even taking into account the move to FINFET

contradicts this:

I've been assuming 1.3x for efficiency improvements(it may in fact exceed this slightly based on a research paper) and 1.5x for boost clocks(Nvidia currently manages 50%, so doesn't seem unreasonable). That would make each core nearly double a comparable core by today's standards

unless you think architectural changes are bringing 50% improved clock speeds, it seems like you're already accounting for the move to finfet (and then some...)

and I can't stress this enough, you don't "throw in 60% less power from FINFET" because that's not how it works; with tight transistor packing and high switching speeds you will LOSE the efficiency improvements over 28nm (albeit at a lower frequency) and run headfirst into a thermal wall because of local hotspots

 

[Anarchist4000]

Can you source any of this ? Some of these claims are quite extreme; doubling performance of shader cores ? This means at clock parity you need only half the #. That's... ridiculous

Nvidia doesn't manage a 50% clock increase either, it went from 1200~ boost to ~1500 boost, that's 25% according to GP100

A Case for Flexible Scalar Unit in SIMT Architecture
~20% for prefetching and ~10% for the scalar unit doing stuff across a variety of compute benchmarks. 1.2*1.1=132% as they should stack This is where the 1.3x comes from and it's attributed to higher utilization, which won't necessarily help perf/watt. Also covers rearranging threads to reduce/eliminate divergence which I didn't include in that. The math was for Kepler, but they mentioned GCN as a closer alternative. Kepler IMHO would be more efficient at compute workloads than GCN, hence may exceed that number.

HETEROGENEOUS FUNCTION UNIT DISPATCH IN A GRAPHICS PROCESSING UNIT
This is the variable SIMD stuff patented by AMD. ALUs go off, voltage up, clocks up. That would seem to indicate that SIMD clocks could be increased if implemented. Something they can't currently do. While there are no direct comparisons and with better FINFET transistors, I figured they might be able to get 50% higher clocks over their base. Fiji is 1000MHz and 980ti was ~1500MHz. Not a great comparison, but provides a ballpack figure. At least for short bursts as needed. Hence, not really accounting for FINFET. At least any thermal/base clock changes.

That's the nearly doubled performance, if accurate. Since this is almost entirely speculative, it obviously could be off a bit. For the example 1.3x for utilization and 1.5x for theoretical boost clocks is 1.95x. This would be the theoretical gain if applied just to fiji on 28nm. So even without FINFET this improvement might be achieved. That's why the throw in 60% reduction from FINFET is there. Just a ballpark figure, but it's what's on paper.

Bottom line it would improve real world performance if all this happened. Not necessarily the theoretical peak numbers. I didn't even bother with some of the other stuff like primitive discard.

 

[Ieldra]

A Case for Flexible Scalar Unit in SIMT Architecture
~20% for prefetching and ~10% for the scalar unit doing stuff across a variety of compute benchmarks. 1.2*1.1=132% as they should stack This is where the 1.3x comes from and it's attributed to higher utilization, which won't necessarily help perf/watt. Also covers rearranging threads to reduce/eliminate divergence which I didn't include in that. The math was for Kepler, but they mentioned GCN as a closer alternative. Kepler IMHO would be more efficient at compute workloads than GCN, hence may exceed that number.

HETEROGENEOUS FUNCTION UNIT DISPATCH IN A GRAPHICS PROCESSING UNIT
This is the variable SIMD stuff patented by AMD. ALUs go off, voltage up, clocks up. That would seem to indicate that SIMD clocks could be increased if implemented. Something they can't currently do. While there are no direct comparisons and with better FINFET transistors, I figured they might be able to get 50% higher clocks over their base. Fiji is 1000MHz and 980ti was ~1500MHz. Not a great comparison, but provides a ballpack figure. At least for short bursts as needed. Hence, not really accounting for FINFET. At least any thermal/base clock changes.

That's the nearly doubled performance, if accurate. Since this is almost entirely speculative, it obviously could be off a bit. For the example 1.3x for utilization and 1.5x for theoretical boost clocks is 1.95x. This would be the theoretical gain if applied just to fiji on 28nm. So even without FINFET this improvement might be achieved. That's why the throw in 60% reduction from FINFET is there. Just a ballpark figure, but it's what's on paper.

Bottom line it would improve real world performance if all this happened. Not necessarily the theoretical peak numbers. I didn't even bother with some of the other stuff like primitive discard.

thanks for the links first one looks very interesting will get back to you when ive read it

 

[Deleted member 93354]

I really don't get these debates about what the next gen will do. While it's fun to guess, a lot of people treat it like religion on politics. "My candidate rules and yours drulls" or "Your faith is going to put you in @#ll!"

CHILL GUYS.

Lets stick to some basic logic or facts.

1. IF next gen performance is on par with current gen with little to no improvements, a cost cut will be necessary without fail to undercut competition.
2. No marked improvements is a dangerous strategy as most people will hold onto what they have. (No reason to upgrade) (Look at intel since Sandy Bridge) Im still holding onto my 7970 at 1.2GHz
3. If next gen does make improvements, there is little to no reason for AMD to make it a lot cheaper then their competition. They need all the cash they can grab.

Everything else is speculation.

/end of discussion

 

[Ieldra]

What a time to be alive

Nvidia GPUs power a robotic clothes ironing assistant - Graphics - News - HEXUS.net

 

[KazeoHin]

What a time to be alive

Nvidia GPUs power a robotic clothes ironing assistant - Graphics - News - HEXUS.net

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

Can any information be gleaned from this?

Sources: The Upgraded PlayStation 4 is Codenamed NEO, Contains Upgraded CPU, GPU, RAM

Improved AMD GCN, 36 CUs at 911 MHz

36 CUs = 2304 Shaders. Hello Polaris 10.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

On this blessed day, the rumors were correct.

 

[razor1]

nice find, yeah that is Polaris 10.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

And if we assume other rumors are correct, this would give the new PS4 390-tier graphics performance.

 

[razor1]

Yeah that is a much needed upgrade lol, hopefully Xbox follows suit too.

 

[cageymaru]

And if we assume other rumors are correct, this would give the new PS4 390-tier graphics performance.

That also means that it will meet the minimum requirement for an Oculus VR PC. This is the most important part as Sony is coming out with their VR headset that has been hinted to support PC VR gaming also. I guess VR is here to stay.

 

[KazeoHin]

That also means that it will meet the minimum requirement for an Oculus VR PC. This is the most important part as Sony is coming out with their VR headset that has been hinted to support PC VR gaming also. I guess VR is here to stay.

The updated PS4 will probably run older games up-scaled from 1080p, though I wonder if the devs will have the option to patch in support for the extra power?

 

[cageymaru]

The updated PS4 will probably run older games up-scaled from 1080p, though I wonder if the devs will have the option to patch in support for the extra power?

Yes, it was said that each game going forward would have a base PS4 spec and an enhanced NEO mode. All multiplayer games will work on either iteration of the console so players won't be segregated into old vs new servers.

 

[KazeoHin]

Yes, it was said that each game going forward would have a base PS4 spec and an enhanced NEO mode. All multiplayer games will work on either iteration of the console so players won't be segregated into old vs new servers.

This is one of those "Best Case Scenario" Situations: This is the best possible way to introduce console tiers. essentially, every game on the market for PS4 is still a 'PS4' game, it just can work at two different levels of quality based on the console. This is EXACTLY the best way to ensure that developers don't ignore the platform while keeping the community unified; essentially the exact OPPOSITE of what Nintendo did with the NEW3DS.

Good work, Sony.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

Is it really that interesting? They're doing exactly what PC has been doing for 20+ years except in this case the devs are the only ones with access to the graphics options.
Imagine one PC gamer with a 7850 and another with an R9 480 and a small CPU OC, all other specs are identical.

edit: This is actually bad news for PC gamers in a sense, those GTX 970's and R9 390's are about to be outshined by the new PS4 revision. Time to upgrade!

 

[KazeoHin]

Is it really that interesting? They're doing exactly what PC has been doing for 20+ years except in this case the devs are the only ones with access to the graphics options.
Imagine one PC gamer with a 7850 and another with an R9 480 and a small CPU OC, all other specs are identical.

edit: This is actually bad news for PC gamers in a sense, those GTX 970's and R9 390's are about to be outshined by the new PS4 revision. Time to upgrade!

Well, Consoles have slowly, slowly transformed into PCs over the years, with internal storage, online capability, patches, OS updates...

PC is truly the superior platform, thus they are evolving in the direction of progress.

I think this is how consoles SHOULD work: instead of compatibility walls built up each generation, the consoles should essentially upgrade to stronger, more capable versions of themselves.

 

[Anarchist4000]

Can any information be gleaned from this?

Sources: The Upgraded PlayStation 4 is Codenamed NEO, Contains Upgraded CPU, GPU, RAM

36 CUs = 2304 Shaders. Hello Polaris 10.

That's probably the slowest, cheapest variant of Polaris 10. 10% of the shaders disabled, relatively slow clocks, slow ram. Lines up with the entry level Polaris 10 and meets VR specs.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

You know the fact that lack of GPU power is oft cited as a reason for XBone losing the battle (among other things) this gives AMD significant leveraging power to raise margins if they play Microsoft against Sony. IF the rumor is true, this is a serious beefing up for GPU power. I would say easily over double what's in the PS4 now. That kind of performance increase would demand top dollar.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

I think this is how consoles SHOULD work: instead of compatibility walls built up each generation, the consoles should essentially upgrade to stronger, more capable versions of themselves.

If it were only that simple. Try running a game in retained mode or something older then DX8/9 on today's hardware. Legacy support always stops for outdated models.

I miss my Mech Warrior. (original XB)

 

[N4CR]

Can any information be gleaned from this?

Sources: The Upgraded PlayStation 4 is Codenamed NEO, Contains Upgraded CPU, GPU, RAM



36 CUs = 2304 Shaders. Hello Polaris 10.

Oh snap, called it yesterday!

I'd be willing to bet this ps4.I wish we'd made a computer5, will incorporate 14nm, maybe polaris based or similarly equipped APU.
1440p 60fps capable hardware is enough for a mediocre VR experience... ~290x performance basically.

Sources: The Upgraded PlayStation 4 is Codenamed NEO, Contains Upgraded CPU, GPU, RAM

So plus that with their interpolator cheat box and the 'performance numbers' are there.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

PCMR ain't happy.

PSA: After the "PS4.5" news, I have seen a lot of console users wishing to transition to PC. I ask that we all properly guide our console brothers, instead of belittling them. • /r/pcmasterrace

Quoting myself:

Based on the PS4.5's specs and current Polaris leaks, the PS4.5's new GPU will perform roughly on-par with the R9 390.
Might be time for PC gamers to start considering some upgrades, too.

---

Since I'm being downvoted...
The PS4.5 uses cut Polaris 10 with 2,304 "Polaris" shaders (R9 390 has 2,560 "GCN 1.1" shaders):

RUMOR: Radeon 480 to be priced to replace 380, similar output as 390.

This is speculated to be the "R9 480" desktop variant, which should be around the R9 390 in performance as being predicted:

AMD、ARM、Intel 與 NVIDIA，各自精彩的 Computex 2016

This would also price it around $200 MSRP, the same price as the 7870 back in 2013 when it made its way into the PS4! What a coincidence!
Polaris 10 will have twice the transistor density as GCN 28nm, along with architectural improvements, which will bump its performance into R9 390 territory despite being short by about 200 SPs.

---

tl;dr The $300 R9 390 is being replaced by a $200 Polaris GPU, and Sony is putting it into its new console.

http://i.imgur.com/ja3lKNV.jpg

 

[jamesgalb]

Speculation:

490x = FuryX @ $400 - 140 TDP - w/ 8gb HBM
490 = Fury @ $300 - 100 TDP - w/ 8gb HBM & nano version
480x = 390x @ $250 - 140 TDP - w/ 8gb gddr5
480 = 390 @ $200 - 100 TDP - w/ 8gb gddr5
470x = 380x @ $175 - 100 TDP - w/ 6gb gddr5
470 = 380 @ $150 - 50 TDP - w/ 4gb gddr5 & nano version
460x = 370x @ $125 - 80 TDP - w/ 4gb gddr5
460 = 370 @ $100 - 50 TDP - w/ 4gb gddr5 & nano version
450x = 260x @ $90 - 50 TDP - w/ 4gb gddr5
450 = 260 @ $70 - 40 TDP - w/ 2gb gddr5 & half-height nano version

And Vega will be their new 1080ti/Titan level chip, with HBM2 and new GCN.

Overall, I expect that this will compete very well on price, performance and power usage. We will see I suppose.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

You think they will die shrink Fiji?

 

[PontiacGTX]

Yeah, if you have perf/watt numbers over the current generation of cards, then you look at die size on the same node of what its competing against then look at what we now know what gm104 is replacing

that really doesnt work that way the overpriced GK104 GPUs have a smaller die size than GF110 ones and beats it on every game. the same can be applied to GP104 it is a node shrink and a new architecture with different SM layout. and yet GM204 is the 2nd iteration of 28nm GPUs which woudl have a way bigger die there is no point of comparison.

Polaris doesn't fit into the same bracket, it just can't. Polaris has less ALU's than Hawaii, smaller die size than gp104

you cant compare 2 different architectures, based on the comparison of older NVidia gpus(which are the only you seems to know) to then compare an imaginary/ leaked information fitting it as a high end, this is not a Hawaii replacement, it is a HD 7970 replacmeent

only way it can reach gp104 is if its clocked higher a lot higher

apples ot oranges.

if that is the case it can't keep to the 100 to 130 watt power envelope and if it won't fit into that power envelope then it won't fit with the 2.5 perf/watt increase (and that 2.5 is best case, if its lower than that without frame rate locks, it will slip even more)

especulation

If they decide to up the clocks to compete with gp104's

leaked info already shown that Polaris has a core clock around 1000mhz+

but if it was to replace Tonga, its the same amount of ALU's or close to it.

Tonga alreayd has less ALUs than this

Another thing to consider is the possibility of the 490/x being dual gpu cards

Dual GPUs models use x2 in the name. and a totally different codename

by the way, when i say the new 390x, i mean it's equivalent in the new lineup , not that it performs like it




and the new 970/980 will be around 980ti/titanx performance ±10% presumably, it seems like they'll both be uncontested in their respective price ranges

again 480/x arent the equivalent of the upper/midrange GP104 GPUs, therefore you cant compare them, and also cant avoid the fact there should be a high end part

AMD has been sitting around the 290/290X performance level with a ~$300+ cost for multiple years now. I really don't see how any of this is considered a "rumor", it's just common sense. If AMD and Nvidia launched new GPUs with the same performance and prices as the current generation of cards, they wouldn't sell well. Each new generation of GPU releases moves the bar, it's how technology works.

this isnt a 290x replacement, and if you cant conffirm the whole Polaris 10 lineup it is a rumour, like before the rumour was wrong stating them as 490x when they arent the full GPU Die

They raised the price by $100 when they transitioned from the 200-series to the 300-series.
The 290 and 290X were sub-$300 shortly after the GTX 970's release a year and a half ago. These 400-series GPUs are effectively the same thing with about 1/2 power usage and with the additional VRAM.

where is the proof that this will be the GPU replacement for high end part?

Anyone who already owns a 290 or better won't see a reason to upgrade to Polaris. Anyone interested in the $300+ tier (Fury+) will probably just wait for Vega.

Fury and Fury X don't seem to be very popular cards. Maybe the 390, 390X, and 980 Ti have stolen the spotlight and a price cut will make them more appealing. Or maybe it's the 4GB vram. They would also be the only last-gen rebrands in the line up, making them even less desirable.

Should probably refer to them as Fiji XT and Pro since they could be rebranded/refreshed as the 490X and 490.

the reason is in the improved architecture and better performance per CU,aswell updated ISA and lower power consumption.
aswell one of the factor can be Nvidia is cripplng AMD on tessellation on purpose

 

[Ieldra]

You think they will die shrink Fiji?

No he's just speculating about performance of new lineup i think

 

[Ieldra]

that really doesnt work that way the overpriced GK104 GPUs have a smaller die size than GF110 ones and beats it on every game. the same can be applied to GP104 it is a node shrink and a new architecture with different SM layout. and yet it is the 2nd iteration of 28nm GPUs which woudl have a way bigger die there is no point fo comparison.




Dual GPUs models use x2 in the name. and a totally different codename

So you have names and SKU numbers for the 490/X ?

 

[Pieter3dnow]

You know the fact that lack of GPU power is oft cited as a reason for XBone losing the battle (among other things) this gives AMD significant leveraging power to raise margins if they play Microsoft against Sony. IF the rumor is true, this is a serious beefing up for GPU power. I would say easily over double what's in the PS4 now. That kind of performance increase would demand top dollar.

Xbox1 quirky design with normal ram and ram on the chip itself was not working out as well as they thought it would. Kinda looking at Intel and thought that would solve all "their" "problems".
If MS goes at it again with the same philosophy then they might get the same result.

I would not estimate that margins for AMD would be better or much better those consoles have to be sold there is no reason for AMD or Sony to think that PS4 Neo will get the same sales numbers..

 

[Pieter3dnow]

Speculation:
490x = FuryX @ $400 - 140 TDP - w/ 8gb HBM
490 = Fury @ $300 - 100 TDP - w/ 8gb HBM & nano version
480x = 390x @ $250 - 140 TDP - w/ 8gb gddr5x
480 = 390 @ $200 - 100 TDP - w/ 8gb gddr5x
470x = 380x @ $175 - 100 TDP - w/ 6gb gddr5x
470 = 380 @ $150 - 50 TDP - w/ 4gb gddr5x & nano version
460x = 370x @ $125 - 80 TDP - w/ 4gb gddr5
460 = 370 @ $100 - 50 TDP - w/ 4gb gddr5 & nano version
450x = 260x @ $90 - 50 TDP - w/ 4gb gddr5
450 = 260 @ $70 - 40 TDP - w/ 2gb gddr5 & half-height nano version
And Vega will be their new 1080ti/Titan level chip, with HBM2 and new GCN.
Overall, I expect that this will compete very well on price, performance and power usage. We will see I suppose.

Somehow it would make more sense if they did this to Vega then to Polaris ....

 

[PontiacGTX]

So you have names and SKU numbers for the 490/X ?

I dont but Nowhere I am espculating that there is some high end with dual gpus without a proper codename pointing a dual GPU SKU,AMD codenames always had something telling it is a dual gpu part. and this wont be an exception.

 

[jamesgalb]

You think they will die shrink Fiji?

Why would they die shrink their entire lineup except Fiji?

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Speculation:

490x = FuryX @ $400 - 140 TDP - w/ 8gb HBM
490 = Fury @ $300 - 100 TDP - w/ 8gb HBM & nano version
480x = 390x @ $250 - 140 TDP - w/ 8gb gddr5x
480 = 390 @ $200 - 100 TDP - w/ 8gb gddr5x
470x = 380x @ $175 - 100 TDP - w/ 6gb gddr5x
470 = 380 @ $150 - 50 TDP - w/ 4gb gddr5x & nano version
460x = 370x @ $125 - 80 TDP - w/ 4gb gddr5
460 = 370 @ $100 - 50 TDP - w/ 4gb gddr5 & nano version
450x = 260x @ $90 - 50 TDP - w/ 4gb gddr5
450 = 260 @ $70 - 40 TDP - w/ 2gb gddr5 & half-height nano version

And Vega will be their new 1080ti/Titan level chip, with HBM2 and new GCN.

Overall, I expect that this will compete very well on price, performance and power usage. We will see I suppose.

Will NEVER happen at those price points. NEVER EVER EVER. That is dreaming. gddr5x is massively expensive. And the cost to produce the new GPU chips at a new 14nm node is not that much lower (if at all)

If the performance is close to a 980Ti it will be priced appropriately close to it. If it can't, then it won't show up to market. And to be honest, NVIDIA's new line is coming out and when it does that will put price pressures on AMD as there will likely be performance improvements with NVIDIA's node shrink.

So this puts pricing pressure on AMD again. This is the problem of releasing, "It has the same performance as our competitors XYZ" Well that doesn't do you any good because everyone already bought the performance they want FROM YOUR COMPETITOR. Where are your new features that compels me to buy your card at similar performance when my current card is just fast enough?

Meanwhile your competitor is making the next gen which will force you to lower your prices. (This is what happened to Fury with the 980ti) This puts massive pressures on margins. AMD has learned nothing if they can't pull a trump card on performance vs profit margin. And their transistor count is insane.

If I were in an AMD Q&A session, I would ask them how much more die space is dedicated to FP32 over FP16. And why they haven't dropped FP32 as hardly anyone uses it.

AMD is always one generation behind in performance (pre DX12 games). They are always one generation behind in pricing to make healthy profits, because they are late to the game. You can't keep doing that. They maybe 1 generation ahead on tech (14nm, gddr5x, HBM) but that doesn't mean squat if you can't produce the numbers for the price. This is the lesson they learned the hard way with the Fury and Nano

 

[razor1]

that really doesnt work that way the overpriced GK104 GPUs have a smaller die size than GF110 ones and beats it on every game. the same can be applied to GP104 it is a node shrink and a new architecture with different SM layout. and yet GM204 is the 2nd iteration of 28nm GPUs which woudl have a way bigger die there is no point of comparison.

hmm nope how do you know its overpriced? PS the SM layout itself hasn't changed it got wider but thats it, which helps throughput but increases latency so that latency has to be hidden by more registers which it does have that.

ALU performance per ALU will only change based on frequency. The rest of the chip can change when through put and latency is addressed.

AMD will not say they are getting 2.5 perf /watt unless its the best they are getting. And that is the same figures as GF, Samsung and AMD has stated they are getting for the 14nm node. If ALU amounts are dropping or staying the same (which way you want to look at is up to you, comparative to nV parts they are dropping % wise, and what they are replacing they are staying the same) on polaris which at this point its a given for their entire line up, we can figure out what the best case is for Polaris and how much extra through put they are getting extra over what they are replacing, and guess what it ends up around 10% more performance at most I would put it 15% more than Tonga.

again 480/x arent the equivalent of the upper/midrange GP104 GPUs, therefore you cant compare them, and also cant avoid the fact there should be a high end part

This is exactly what I have been saying, they shouldn't be compared as they are in two totally separate brackets.

this isnt a 290x replacement, and if you cant conffirm the whole Polaris 10 lineup it is a rumour, like before the rumour was wrong stating them as 490x when they arent the full GPU Die

Its a Tonga replacement not a 290x replacement, its clearly seen as that because of the ALU amounts.

where is the proof that this will be the GPU replacement for high end part?

These are not its a high end parts.

the reason is in the improved architecture and better performance per CU,aswell updated ISA and lower power consumption.
aswell one of the factor can be Nvidia is cripplng AMD on tessellation on purposed

The underlying changes to Polaris will have better performance in many areas that is a given, how much in those areas we don't know outside of the 10% -15% increase in throughput.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Tessellation is a function of the pipeline. As the recent DX11 vs DX12 comparison points out, AMD seems to be putting a lot more pre compute work on the CPU. If Tessellation is loaded onto the CPU to figure out (like figuring out triangle sub division, the average merged normal of two or more vectors) then that might explain AMD's poor tessellation performance.)

 

[razor1]

Tessellation is a function of the pipeline. As the recent DX11 vs DX12 comparison points out, AMD seems to be putting a lot more pre compute work on the CPU. If Tessellation is loaded onto the CPU to figure out (like figuring out triangle sub division, the average merged normal of two or more vectors) then that might explain AMD's poor tessellation performance.)

Its just through put, when a GS, VS need data from the hull shader, or when the VS sends data to the hull shader when too much tessellation is being done it just stalls the entire pipeline.

Tessellation being done on the CPU will slow down the GPU to a crawl, even in small amounts because now you need information going from the GPU to the CPU and back across the PCI-e bus which is just not good at all, then you have other elements added to it on top of that where calculations have be done the GPU after this process is done.

Just think of it like loading up a 3d model in a viewer, goes pretty fast when there aren't too many polys but when you have hundreds of thousands or millions of polys, it takes much longer.