• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Polaris 10 "Ellesmere" as Fast as GTX 980 Ti: Rumor

Joined
Jun 28, 2014
Messages
2,275 (1.14/day)
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia USA
System Name Home Brewed
Processor i9-7900X and i7-8700K
Motherboard ASUS ROG Rampage VI Extreme & ASUS Prime Z-370 A
Cooling Corsair 280mm AIO & Thermaltake Water 3.0
Memory 64GB DDR4-3000 GSKill RipJaws-V & 32GB DDR4-3466 GEIL Potenza
Video Card(s) 2X-GTX-1080 SLI & 2 GTX-1070Ti 8GB G1 Gaming in SLI
Storage Both have 2TB HDDs for storage, 480GB SSDs for OS, and 240GB SSDs for Steam Games
Display(s) ACER 28" B286HK 4K & Samsung 32" 1080P
Case NZXT Source 540 & Rosewill Rise Chassis
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply Corsair RM1000 & Corsair RM850
Mouse Generic
Keyboard Razer Blackwidow Tournament & Corsair K90
Software Win-10 Professional
Benchmark Scores yes
I simply got tired of waiting around for the next best thing from AMD GPUs. So I ordered a Sapphire 390X Toxic card last month and I'm ordering the second one tomorrow.
Crossfire R9-390X cards should be fine for gaming.
Also, I have a pair of 980Ti cards in SLI in another box, and those are wicked-fast.

They should both (AMD & NVIDIA) release whatever they're going to, and I'll wait for reviews and prices to stabilize before I consider buying anything else.
 

Outlander_04

New Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2016
Messages
6 (0.00/day)
It's basically about what margins they would have at $300.
Chips at 14/16nm will be much smaller, thus much cheaper than they are at 28nm. And it seems we won't get a big performance boost to go along, thus saving should go mostly into costs/price.
Intels 14 nm is not cheaper than the previous 22 nm despite size reductions . The manufacturing process and possibly yields mean the cost per die is marginally more than the previous generation [ unlike every other die shrink ]
So lets assume that Samsung/GF/AMD face the same challenge . Cost will be about the same as the previous generation , but performance will be greater . Probably they will open with a price hike to make current stock seem worth while. My guess is $340 US for the R9 490 . Add another $50 to that for the 480X . Still undercutting the 980ti by about $150
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
111 (0.08/day)
That would be an enourmous achievement. GCN is currently way behind Maxwell, and Pascal is a major architectural overhaul while 4th generation GCN is not. Keep in mind that Fiji is just performing close to GM200, even though it has 50% more theoretical performance.

A 200mm² chip is not going to be hig-end, and even AMD says they're targeting mainstream. You'll have to wait at least until Vega before AMD is even trying, if ever again..
First off, we don't know how these two chips perform. Pascal is just a marketing name. All Nvidia's chips since Fermi have had very similar micro-architectural designs.

Perhaps AMD managed to find major bottleneck/bottlenecks in their earlier "GCN" designs and fixed them with Polaris. We don't know. What we know is that they claim to have improved "shader efficiency", which means more performance with the same amount of processing power or SP count. They also claim to have improved Tessellation performance, which is a major weakness of AMD cards.
The same goes for Nvidia, we don't how well their new chips will perform. We need to wait to see.

Back when the 4000 and 200 series cards were released, the 4870 was position by AMD against the GTX980. Well... it turned out that the 4870 could wrestle with the GTX280 and beat it in some games.
http://techreport.com/review/14990/amd-radeon-hd-4870-graphics-processor
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
1,824 (0.91/day)
First off, we don't know how these two chips perform. Pascal is just a marketing name. All Nvidia's chips since Fermi have had very similar micro-architectural designs.
Not true at all, we know from GP100 that Pascal is a huge step forward in CUDA code performance, the biggest in may years. AMD on the other side has stated that larger changes in GCN has to wait until 2017 because Zen is a priority.

What we know is that they claim to have improved "shader efficiency", which means more performance with the same amount of processing power or SP count.
To keep up with Nvidia's improvements AMD would need to more than double it's performance, in addition to the shrink itself.
 
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
1,984 (1.22/day)
System Name My all round PC
Processor i5 750
Motherboard ASUS P7P55D-E
Memory 8GB
Video Card(s) Sapphire 380 OC... sold, waiting for Navi
Storage 256GB Samsung SSD + 2Tb + 1.5Tb
Display(s) Samsung 40" A650 TV
Case Thermaltake Chaser mk-I Tower
Power Supply 425w Enermax MODU 82+
Software Windows 10
AMD will be shooting themselves in the foot if they launch at $300. NVIDIA will be forced to drop their prices to compete. Good for consumers but AMD can't exactly afford that.
Remember AMD 5xxx times?
Slower, more power hungry and more expensive NV chips still kept more than 50% of the market share.

=[

I should make some slides showing something that people desperately want to be true, then release them to websites that do no fact-checking.
They demoed a game though. So "980 Ti" levels comes from there.
I'm not talking about PS4k chip, though.

There in no way shape or form do i believe that a "PS4.5" could be anywhere near the level of a 980ti
It's "kinda confirmed" that GPU speed will more than double. So it comes down to how do you rate 7870 in the "optimized for this card" context.
 

Outlander_04

New Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2016
Messages
6 (0.00/day)
Not true at all, we know from GP100 that Pascal is a huge step forward in CUDA code performance, the biggest in may years. AMD on the other side has stated that larger changes in GCN has to wait until 2017 because Zen is a priority.


To keep up with Nvidia's improvements AMD would need to more than double it's performance, in addition to the shrink itself.
Not true at all, we know from GP100 that Pascal is a huge step forward in CUDA code performance, the biggest in may years. AMD on the other side has stated that larger changes in GCN has to wait until 2017 because Zen is a priority.


To keep up with Nvidia's improvements AMD would need to more than double it's performance, in addition to the shrink itself.

I am completely baffled by your post . To keep up with nVidia AMD would have to what?
Buy an R9 390 or a GTX 970 . The AMD is marginally cheaper . The two swap the lead in games at 1080p , but the R9 is better at higher resolutions [ usually ] . And the Radeon architecture looks to be the better option for DX 12 [ in the very few examples available ]
How does the AMD need to be twice as good?

What we do know is that polaris is using way less power than current generation nvidia graphics cards at similar performance levels . That is as you would expect . 14nm vs 28 nm .

As for which of the new architectures will perform better per watt and per dollar is anyone's guess
Way too early to call.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
1,824 (0.91/day)
I am completely baffled by your post . To keep up with nVidia AMD would have to what?
...
How does the AMD need to be twice as good?
Because right now AMD needs over 50% more theoretical performance and a much larger chip to "compete", like Fury X compared to GTX 980 Ti, R9 390(X) to GTX 970/980 and so on. This is the primary reason why AMD is struggling with it's energy consumption. Pascal is the most significant improvement in a decade on top of that, so AMD would need to catch up both with both the Maxwell improvements and Pascal in one sweep, with 4th generation GCN which is only a minor architectural tweak. You are allowed to have dreams, so dream on.

And the Radeon architecture looks to be the better option for DX 12 [ in the very few examples available ]
As mentioned before most people forget that Nvidia brought the driver side changes of Direct3D 12 to all APIs, which is the reason why people think Nvidia does not support Direct3D 12 well.

What we do know is that polaris is using way less power than current generation nvidia graphics cards at similar performance levels . That is as you would expect . 14nm vs 28 nm.
Have you forgot that Nvidia is also doing a node shrink? Any improvement AMD gets from the new node Nvidia will get as well, and Nvidia is bringing major architectural changes as well.
 

Outlander_04

New Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2016
Messages
6 (0.00/day)
Because right now AMD needs over 50% more theoretical performance and a much larger chip to "compete", like Fury X compared to GTX 980 Ti, R9 390(X) to GTX 970/980 and so on. This is the primary reason why AMD is struggling with it's energy consumption. Pascal is the most significant improvement in a decade on top of that, so AMD would need to catch up both with both the Maxwell improvements and Pascal in one sweep, with 4th generation GCN which is only a minor architectural tweak. You are allowed to have dreams, so dream on.


As mentioned before most people forget that Nvidia brought the driver side changes of Direct3D 12 to all APIs, which is the reason why people think Nvidia does not support Direct3D 12 well.


Have you forgot that Nvidia is also doing a node shrink? Any improvement AMD gets from the new node Nvidia will get as well, and Nvidia is bringing major architectural changes as well.
Again your post baffles me.
Its almost like you have abandoned logic and reason to tell us how much better you think one brand is compared to the other.

So I will repeat a few points
1/ In the very few DX12 benchmarks available the existing radeon architecture is well out performing the current nvidia chips . This might be a trend , or it might be just a few results that do not indicate a trend .
2/ AMD say much lower power consumption , and much higher performance per watt . We can judge who has the most power efficient architecture AFTER next gen cards are reviewed and not before .
3/ It looks like nvidia is opening their 16 nm manufacture with high end cards that will be sold in very small number . AMD have aimed squarely at the performance enthusiast market where they hope to get the highest turn over and market penetration .
4/My "dreams" dont affect hardware performance . But then neither do yours so its best we wait for some actual benchmarks
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2014
Messages
751 (0.41/day)
Again your post baffles me.
I think the point he is trying to make is that Nvidia got a lot more performance and energy efficiency out of 28nm because of better architecture. Now that both are going to smaller processes, there is every reason to believe that relationship will continue. Nvidia spends a lot more on R&D. Even if AMD defies the odds with Polaris and Vega and produces an architecture that is as good as Nvidia's, it will be difficult for them to sustain it. It would be going from highly unlikely to a miracle. More likely AMD will need to sell less efficient chips at lower profit margins to make them performance competitive, just as they have been.
 

Outlander_04

New Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2016
Messages
6 (0.00/day)
I think the point he is trying to make is that Nvidia got a lot more performance and energy efficiency out of 28nm because of better architecture. Now that both are going to smaller processes, there is every reason to believe that relationship will continue. Nvidia spends a lot more on R&D. Even if AMD defies the odds with Polaris and Vega and produces an architecture that is as good as Nvidia's, it will be difficult for them to sustain it. It would be going from highly unlikely to a miracle. More likely AMD will need to sell less efficient chips at lower profit margins to make them performance competitive, just as they have been.
Its an interesting point but one without too much merit . AMD are not just running a die shrink so its a spurious argument .
Secondly if the margins seen in DX 12 apply to next generation cards as well then you could turn down AMD clock speed 20% cutting power consumption by more than 50% and still be competitive with nvidias architecture . This is also a spurious argument .
Arguably the 14nm finfet process is superior to TSMC's 16 nm . But that also might not matter .

Lets wait and find out after the cards are released
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
10,453 (2.03/day)
System Name MoFo 2
Processor AMD PhenomII 1100T @ 4.2Ghz
Motherboard Asus Crosshair IV
Cooling Swiftec 655 pump, Apogee GT,, MCR360mm Rad, 1/2 loop.
Memory 8GB DDR3-2133 @ 1900 8.9.9.24 1T
Video Card(s) HD7970 1250/1750
Storage Agility 3 SSD 6TB RAID 0 on RAID Card
Display(s) 46" 1080P Toshiba LCD
Case Rosewill R6A34-BK modded (thanks to MKmods)
Audio Device(s) ATI HDMI
Power Supply 750W PC Power & Cooling modded (thanks to MKmods)
Software A lot.
Benchmark Scores Its fast. Enough.
Because right now AMD needs over 50% more theoretical performance and a much larger chip to "compete", like Fury X compared to GTX 980 Ti, R9 390(X) to GTX 970/980 and so on. This is the primary reason why AMD is struggling with it's energy consumption. Pascal is the most significant improvement in a decade on top of that, so AMD would need to catch up both with both the Maxwell improvements and Pascal in one sweep, with 4th generation GCN which is only a minor architectural tweak. You are allowed to have dreams, so dream on.


As mentioned before most people forget that Nvidia brought the driver side changes of Direct3D 12 to all APIs, which is the reason why people think Nvidia does not support Direct3D 12 well.


Have you forgot that Nvidia is also doing a node shrink? Any improvement AMD gets from the new node Nvidia will get as well, and Nvidia is bringing major architectural changes as well.
AMD kept the actual DX12 hardware in, plus some DP hardware that makes heat, and their waaaaayyy outdated video output logic tied to the core/memory speed has been their other issue except they render video better due to its configuration.


So when we want to look at apple to apples power consumption, lets look at why its more on many chips, and the issues faced by Nvidia with multiple displays and corruption, poor video playback, and TDR issues with power switching.
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
111 (0.08/day)
Not true at all, we know from GP100 that Pascal is a huge step forward in CUDA code performance, the biggest in may years. AMD on the other side has stated that larger changes in GCN has to wait until 2017 because Zen is a priority.


To keep up with Nvidia's improvements AMD would need to more than double it's performance, in addition to the shrink itself.
I don't think you're being objective here mate. Despite being smaller, Polaris10 packs 7-8 Billion transistors, which is almost as many as the GP104 packs. Also, both GP104 and Polaris10 are rumored to have the same number of FP32 units, which is 31/32 * 2560 = 2480. Hawaii had 2880 * 3/4 = 2112 FP32 units (I believe). And so ideally both Polaris10 and GP104 should perform about the same at similar clock speeds.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
1,224 (0.40/day)
Processor Core i7 7820X @ 4.8GHz
Motherboard Asrock Taichi XE
Cooling Custom loop, 2x360mm radiator,TTRiing fans, EK XRes140,EK Supremacy EVO
Memory 4x8GB G.Skill RGB 3600MHz C16
Video Card(s) Aorus RTX 2080 Ti Xtreme Waterforce WB 2050 core 8200 mem
Storage 960 EVO 1TB,XPG SX8200 Pro,Micron 1100 2TB SSD,OCZ Vector 512GB,750GB Samsung,1.5TB Caviar Green
Display(s) Acer X34P, Acer XB270HU
Case LianLi O11 Dynamic White
Audio Device(s) Klipsch Promedia Ultra 5.1, Corsair Void Pro RGB
Power Supply EVGA P2 850W
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum
Keyboard Razer Black Widow Ultimate 2016 Edition
Software Win 10 x64
I don't think you're being objective here mate. Despite being smaller, Polaris10 packs 7-8 Billion transistors, which is almost as many as the GP104 packs. Also, both GP104 and Polaris10 are rumored to have the same number of FP32 units, which is 31/32 * 2560 = 2480. Hawaii had 2880 * 3/4 = 2112 FP32 units (I believe). And so ideally both Polaris10 and GP104 should perform about the same at similar clock speeds.
Except, you can't compare the cores like that. Take a look at FuryX core makeup vs. that of GTX 980Ti.
 
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
2,994 (1.03/day)
System Name Zimmer Frame Rates
Processor Intel i7 920 @ Stock speeds baby
Motherboard EVGA X58 3X SLI
Cooling True 120
Memory Corsair Vengeance 12GB
Video Card(s) Palit GTX 980 Ti Super JetStream
Storage Of course
Display(s) Crossover 27Q 27" 2560x1440
Case Antec 1200
Audio Device(s) Don't be silly
Power Supply XFX 650W Core
Mouse Razer Deathadder Chroma
Keyboard Logitech UltraX
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores Epic
Ultimately I just feel sorry for Fury X, soo much hype, such a big fat let down.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
1,224 (0.40/day)
Processor Core i7 7820X @ 4.8GHz
Motherboard Asrock Taichi XE
Cooling Custom loop, 2x360mm radiator,TTRiing fans, EK XRes140,EK Supremacy EVO
Memory 4x8GB G.Skill RGB 3600MHz C16
Video Card(s) Aorus RTX 2080 Ti Xtreme Waterforce WB 2050 core 8200 mem
Storage 960 EVO 1TB,XPG SX8200 Pro,Micron 1100 2TB SSD,OCZ Vector 512GB,750GB Samsung,1.5TB Caviar Green
Display(s) Acer X34P, Acer XB270HU
Case LianLi O11 Dynamic White
Audio Device(s) Klipsch Promedia Ultra 5.1, Corsair Void Pro RGB
Power Supply EVGA P2 850W
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum
Keyboard Razer Black Widow Ultimate 2016 Edition
Software Win 10 x64
There's always improvements to efficiency in the GPUs released time after time. Still, you cannot directly compare the GPUs.

As I was alluding to, Fury X had 4,000+ cores vs. 980Ti with 3,000+ cores. They performed similarly. To think that the new Pascal architecture wouldn't also improve shader efficiency is foolish.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
1,352 (0.48/day)
Location
78°55' N, 11°56' E
System Name -aLiEn beaTs-
Processor Intel i7 4770k OC 4.7GHz @ 1.28v | Cache 4.2GHz
Motherboard Asus Z87-Deluxe
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro RGB
Memory G.skill TridentX 2x8GB DDR3 2400MHz CL10|1T
Video Card(s) Zotac GTX 980TI AMP!Omega Factory OC 1418MHz
Storage Intel SSD 330, Crucial SSD MX300 & MX500
Display(s) Samsung C27FG73 144HZ
Case CoolerMaster HAF 932 USB3.0
Audio Device(s) X-Fi Titanium HD @ 2.1 Bose acoustimass 5
Power Supply Chieftec Ntro88+ 650W [52A]
Mouse Asus Rog strix evolve
Keyboard Logitech G19s
Software Windows 10 Pro RS5 64Bit
Benchmark Scores ► ♪♫♪♩♬♫♪♭
On another forum this news is titled as "nearly as fast as 980Ti."


Which is Imo more accurate estimation.

This is just around AMD 390x and Nano or 980GTX perf... Same with GP104 Pascal between 980 and 980Ti..
 
Top