# More Polaris10 and Polaris11 Specifications Revealed



## btarunr (May 13, 2016)

Industry sources revealed to TechPowerUp some pretty interesting specifications of AMD's two upcoming GPUs based on the 4th generation Graphics CoreNext "Polaris" architecture. The company is preparing a performance-segment GPU and a mainstream one. It turns out, that the performance-segment chip, which the press has been referring to as "Ellesmere," could feature 32 compute units (CUs), and not the previously thought 40. 

Assuming that each CU continues to consist of 64 stream processors (SP), you're looking at an SP count of 2,048. What's more, this chip is said to offer a single-precision floating point performance of 5.5 TFLOP/s, as claimed by AMD. To put this into perspective, the company had claimed 5.2 TFLOP/s for the "Hawaii"/"Grenada" based FirePro W9100, which launched earlier this February, and that SKU featured all 2,816 SP present on the chip. So this chip is definitely faster than most "Hawaii" based SKUs. 






While "Hawaii" based SKUs feature TDP of no less than 250W, the new chip has a TDP rated no higher than 150W. AMD could pull off a "single 8-pin power connector" feat like NVIDIA, with quite some headroom to spare. The chip features a 256-bit wide GDDR5/GDDR5X memory interface, and 8 GB could be its standard memory amount. The first SKUs based on this chip could feature 7 Gbps GDDR5 memory. 

AMD will upgrade the feature-set to include HVEC/H.265 hardware encode/decode acceleration, DisplayPort 1.3, and HDMI 2.0a outputs. 

The smaller "Polaris" chip scheduled for 2016, which the press has been referring to as "Baffin," could feature 14 compute units, working out to a stream processor count of 896. It will be a mainstream chip, succeeding the "Tobago" silicon, which drives the current R7 360 series SKUs, although it wouldn't surprise us if it outperformed bigger chips, such as the "Trinidad" based R7 370 series. This chip has its peak single-precision floating-point performance rated at 2.5 TFLOP/s. Its TDP is rated at just 50W, and it is expected to feature a 128-bit wide GDDR5 memory interface, holding 4 GB of memory.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## P4-630 (May 13, 2016)

Sorry AMD but not interested in these....


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 13, 2016)

What an overly boring looking little card    Specs are like....lol


----------



## the54thvoid (May 13, 2016)

btarunr said:


> So this chip is definitely faster than most "Hawaii" based SKUs.



How many Hawaii parts were there?  I mean, 290 & 290x but that was it was it not?  I thought 79xx was Tahitti, and 380x was Tonga refresh of Tahitti.   If this comes in at a good price point and matches 290X levels then it could my dad's next card.  He's running an older 270X so this would be a great step up.


----------



## medi01 (May 13, 2016)

> It turns out, that the performance-segment chip, which the press has been referring to as "Ellesmere," could feature 32 compute units (CUs), and not the previously thought 40.



Yikes.

Let's see how it goes. 
I'm definitely not interested in 449$+ 1070 and 699$+ 1080.


----------



## WhyCry (May 13, 2016)

Interesting, I heard the exact same specs.
@btarunr were you told different GPU codenames as well?


----------



## RejZoR (May 13, 2016)

From the looks of it, I'll be skipping this generation and just keeping my OC'ed GTX 980. I don't want to hear about damn Hawaii 2 frigging generations later. And while GTX 1000 series do seem to deliver based on PR stuff, question is, do I really need it? Doom 2016 runs maxed out butter smooth at 1080p and quite playable at 4K DSR. Returning me to the part where I'm skipping this entire generation, probably even the next one. Might be returning to the graphics scene when AMD's Vega launches. And NVIDIA's GTX 3000 series...


----------



## Nihilus (May 13, 2016)

So the Polaris 10 and 11 will be a 290 and 270 with lower power consumption and slower memory.

256 bit GDRR5x on the Polaris 10 will be much slower than the 512 bit GDRR5 of the Hawaii.  
As of now, the 256 bit GDDR5x of the 1080 is slower than that of the 384 bit 980ti.


----------



## btarunr (May 13, 2016)

WhyCry said:


> Interesting, I heard the exact same specs.
> @btarunr were you told different GPU codenames as well?



Yup, that's exactly why I didn't mention codenames. They sounded too dumb to be true, and could be used to trace back to my Tabasco bottle.


----------



## john_ (May 13, 2016)

Polaris 10 looks like an $199 card with GDDR5 and $249 with GDDR5X and why not, more stream processors. Polaris 11 on the other hand can play ball at around $149. Not bad, but when you create something that the competitor can easily much, you are vulnerable. And while these chips are nice and can be a big success, Nvidia can throw price cuts on 900 series or unveil GP106 sooner than expected and make those new AMD cards less attractive to those looking for a mid range card. 

Of course, if AMD puts higher prices, things would NOT be as rosy as I describe them.


----------



## RejZoR (May 13, 2016)

Makes you wonder, will GCN 4.0 really be that more efficient they can use same GPU layout for the 3rd time?


----------



## ssdpro (May 13, 2016)

Sad....


----------



## Caring1 (May 13, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> What an overly boring looking little card    Specs are like....lol


That's assuming the pictured card is correct for the article.
It shows two six pin power connections.


----------



## medi01 (May 13, 2016)

If I read slides correctly, only 7-8 million PC users got 290+/970+.

So. Yeah, boring, but sweet price.


----------



## AsRock (May 13, 2016)

So no facts then still ?.

Industry sources revealed to TechPowerUp some pretty interesting specifications of AMD's two upcoming GPUs based on the 4th generation Graphics CoreNext "Polaris" architecture. The company is preparing a performance-segment GPU and a mainstream one. It turns out, that the performance-segment chip, which the press has been referring to as "Ellesmere," *could* feature 32 compute units (CUs), and not the previously thought 40.

*Assuming* that each CU continues to consist of 64 stream processors (SP), you're looking at an SP count of 2,048. What's more, this chip is said to offer a single-precision floating point performance of 5.5 TFLOP/s, as claimed by AMD. To put this into perspective, the company had claimed 5.2 TFLOP/s for the "Hawaii"/"Grenada" based FirePro W9100, which launched earlier this February, and that SKU featured all 2,816 SP present on the chip. So this chip is definitely faster than most "Hawaii" based SKUs.


----------



## atomicus (May 13, 2016)

Well this makes it abundantly clear that AMD really HAD to leak that possible VEGA release in October given they new these specs were pathetic in light of Nvidia's offering. AMD are at serious risk of fading away in to nothingness if they don't deliver something almighty with VEGA and get the jump on Nvidia, but Nvidia doubtless have the 1080Ti tucked under their sleeve which they'll whip out the moment AMD try to surge ahead. Poor AMD, I feel sorry for them, but ultimately no one wins here, least of all the consumer. Nvidia know they only need to do just enough and they're laughing all the way to the bank as their recent financial results demonstrate.


----------



## ERazer (May 13, 2016)

damn thats just pathetic


----------



## Nihilus (May 13, 2016)

384 bit with 6 gb on the polaris 10 would have been much more attractive on the polaris 10.  For the 1440p gaming this card is designed for, 6 gb would have been plenty.


----------



## OneCool (May 13, 2016)

Wow!! None of that sounds worth a damn. I may have to go green now


----------



## medi01 (May 13, 2016)

atomicus said:


> Well this makes it abundantly clear that AMD really HAD to leak that possible VEGA release in October given they new these specs were pathetic in light of Nvidia's offering. AMD are at serious risk of fading away in to nothingness if they don't deliver something almighty with VEGA and get the jump on Nvidia, but Nvidia doubtless have the 1080Ti tucked under their sleeve which they'll whip out the moment AMD try to surge ahead. Poor AMD, I feel sorry for them, but ultimately no one wins here, least of all the consumer. Nvidia know they only need to do just enough and they're laughing all the way to the bank as their recent financial results demonstrate.



Jeez, *people make it sound as if AMD's 480 series was supposed to compete with 1080*. Let me remind ya:

We are here:
370 - 950 (? does it even exist?)
380 - 960
390(x) - 970/980
Fury Nano - 980
Fury X - 980Ti/TX

We are moving here:
470 - ?
480 (5.5Tf) - ?
?  - 1070 (6.5Tf) <= 449$, no thanks
? - 1080 (9.5Tf)
? - ?



1080 is in "too expensive" area, expensive, and doesn't offer too much an upgrade for existing 980Ti users (comparable price) with good overclocks.
So those guys are better off waiting

The only "mass market" chip that threatens AMD is 1070. But at 449$, uh, oh, who would buy that?

It is just about PR, in practice, we will likely get cards targeted at compeltely different parts of the market.


----------



## ShurikN (May 13, 2016)

If the specs are true, then i am more than interested in Polaris 10. 
The problem is the pricing. If it is true that 10 will cost $350, then i can just get a 390x or smth... this needs to be $300 max. And with GDDR5X. If not it will fail.


----------



## okidna (May 13, 2016)

Nihilus said:


> So the Polaris 10 and 11 will be a 290 and 270 with lower power consumption and slower memory.
> 
> 256 bit GDRR5x on the Polaris 10 will be much slower than the 512 bit GDRR5 of the Hawaii.
> As of now, the 256 bit GDDR5x of the 1080 is slower than that of the 384 bit 980ti.



Polaris 10 should be better than 290 (4,8 TFLOPS FP32/single precision), IMO it will be closer to 290X (5,6 TFLOPS). That's not bad at all considering the rumored TDP and if it priced accordingly (I'm thinking $199-249), will be a good card for 1080p and 1440p.

The more concerning part is the 2nd part of your post, memory bandwidth. Let's hope AMD create a more efficient compression engine for Polaris.


----------



## heydan83 (May 13, 2016)

Why people think that this GPUs are for competing with the 1080? these GPUs are for low/mid market, things that nvidia hasn't reveal for this generation....


----------



## Frick (May 13, 2016)

medi01 said:


> Jeez, *people make it sound as if AMD's 480 series was supposed to compete with 1080*. Let me remind ya:
> 
> We are here:
> 370 - 950 (? does it even exist?)
> ...



Aye this. Given a good price they'll be succesfull.


----------



## Steevo (May 13, 2016)

Its the same formula they had going into a few other chips, small die mainstream chips first to get the process down before launching higher performance larger die chips. Considering how successful a chip that runs everything at 1080P with max settings would be with a super cheap price? Kinda like the 750Ti on crack. 


Lets just hope they overclock well, and AMD gets out Vega in October.


----------



## WhyCry (May 13, 2016)

btarunr said:


> Yup, that's exactly why I didn't mention codenames. They sounded too dumb to be true, and could be used to trace back to my Tabasco bottle.



Yes, that's actually why I didn't post this leak. However those specs were for mobile chips as I was told.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 13, 2016)

Makes you wonder though, Fiji (full chip) goes toe to toe with Maxwell.  Yes, Maxwell over clocks very well but the base design of Fiji works exceptionally well at higher resolution (in comparison to Maxwell).  You'd think the design in Polaris as a process shrink would be a tweaked Fiji to deliver excellent performance in a lower power threshold.  I don't know why they'd NOT try to release a new gen card that beats  their own Fury X offering?  As Nvidia look to better 980ti (by very small real margins we all assume), surely AMD could have done the same?  Or is Fiji's key strength it's HBM?  Which would be weird because I didn't think HBM was the 'be all and end all' of performance.

Why produce a rushed forward (rumour) cut down Vega to fight off GTX1080?  I scratch my head.  Unless...

Theory 1 - AMD thought Nvidia don't yet have a DX12 answer for async so AMD didn't bother too hard.  But Nvidia release (PR guff) info that 1080 is way better than expected..
Theory 2 - AMD are playing a waiting game to release cut down Vega to tease out big Pascal desktop part and then turn all the dials to 11 on a full chip Vega release to trump Nvidia at the high end.
Theory 3 - Nvidia don't have a great async answer and they rushed 1080 out, way before AMD could answer.  That way Nvidia steal sales from AMD by way of having a better card out, even though it's not as good as it should be and will get smacked about by Vega.

I actually think 3 is more accurate.  I think Pascal desktop will be trumped by Vega.  If I'm wrong, AMD can go suck cement because if they can't build on Fiji's performance in DX12 using a smaller process node, they should be sent packing.


----------



## LucidStrike (May 13, 2016)

atomicus said:


> Well this makes it abundantly clear that AMD really HAD to leak that possible VEGA release in October given they new these specs were pathetic in light of Nvidia's offering. AMD are at serious risk of fading away in to nothingness if they don't deliver something almighty with VEGA and get the jump on Nvidia, but Nvidia doubtless have the 1080Ti tucked under their sleeve which they'll whip out the moment AMD try to surge ahead. Poor AMD, I feel sorry for them, but ultimately no one wins here, least of all the consumer. Nvidia know they only need to do just enough and they're laughing all the way to the bank as their recent financial results demonstrate.



To be fair, I'd say releasing a $379 card that outperforms your previous $1000 card isn't so much "just enough" as 'raising the bar'.

I do REALLY want AMD to woo me away from the 370 tho, for their own sake.


----------



## General Lee (May 13, 2016)

The pic in the article is of a ref 380x clearly.


----------



## bug (May 13, 2016)

medi01 said:


> Jeez, *people make it sound as if AMD's 480 series was supposed to compete with 1080*. Let me remind ya:
> 
> We are here:
> 370 - 950 (? does it even exist?)
> ...



Well, GTX 1070 is supposed to be $379, not $449. Street prices are usually below MSRP, but only if availability isn't an issue. So custom designed cards south of $350 are a real possibility. Still a bit out of my reach, but if they perform well, I may be tempted to bite the bullet.


----------



## RejZoR (May 13, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> Makes you wonder though, Fiji (full chip) goes toe to toe with Maxwell.  Yes, Maxwell over clocks very well but the base design of Fiji works exceptionally well at higher resolution (in comparison to Maxwell).  You'd think the design in Polaris as a process shrink would be a tweaked Fiji to deliver excellent performance in a lower power threshold.  I don't know why they'd NOT try to release a new gen card that beats  their own Fury X offering?  As Nvidia look to better 980ti (by very small real margins we all assume), surely AMD could have done the same?  Or is Fiji's key strength it's HBM?  Which would be weird because I didn't think HBM was the 'be all and end all' of performance.
> 
> Why produce a rushed forward (rumour) cut down Vega to fight off GTX1080?  I scratch my head.  Unless...
> 
> ...



Vega is still around 2 years away. Don't expect too much from that just yet...


----------



## ManofGod (May 13, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> Vega is still around 2 years away. Don't expect too much from that just yet...



Thanks for the laugh, I needed that.  I have no idea where you pull this crap from but I am sure I would not want to touch it.


----------



## TRWOV (May 13, 2016)

I think he is confusing Vega with Navi


----------



## RejZoR (May 13, 2016)

Indeed I have :shy:


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 13, 2016)

This guy covered every AMD concerns cpu or gpu...


----------



## G33k2Fr34k (May 13, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> Sorry AMD but not interested in these....



Great news for me and for those of us who are in Canada. The 390X is selling here for 450 cad. 
390X level performance is more than enough for 1080P gaming.


----------



## JMccovery (May 13, 2016)

This is interesting; if the 32CU Polaris 10 comes in 'under' 150w with performance similar to Hawaii/Grenada, and the PS4 Neo is rumored to have Polaris-based graphics, I'm wondering if it will have more than 16-20CUs.


----------



## FMinus (May 13, 2016)

bug said:


> Well, GTX 1070 is supposed to be $379, not $449. Street prices are usually below MSRP, but only if availability isn't an issue. So custom designed cards south of $350 are a real possibility. Still a bit out of my reach, but if they perform well, I may be tempted to bite the bullet.



You really are pushing it with the wishful thinking. I don't doubt $380 GTX 1070 cards, but doubt they'll go much lower at least not until a price drop. Tho I think the $450 pricing sounds a lot more attractive to everyone who's trying to sell you something. Welcome to the Nvidia opposite day world, with announcing two different prices.


----------



## HD64G (May 13, 2016)

Since P10 will have the same compute power as 290X=390 and they are made only for gaming (Hawaii was ideal for cryptocurrenct mining, so more focused to computing), the top Polaris model could easily get close to 390X in FPS and by having a price <$300 it will be the hit of the summer.

The Polaris 11 having 50W TDP and being able to match R9 280 is great for OEMs also if it ends being sold for about $150 to consumers. So, with those 2 cores and being able to have 2 SKUs available for each one, and with Polaris 11 ideal for mobiles, it might be the best strategy for AMD in order to grab a good part of the selling cake back from the green camp.

Things look really good if availability is ample from early June.


----------



## ManofGod (May 13, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> Indeed I have :shy:



Oh, ok.  I had not heard of Navi before so it did not click. No problem, we all make mistakes from time to time.


----------



## refillable (May 13, 2016)

It seems that it's not going to compete with 1070 or 1080, maybe that'd be Vega on October, but I'm not sure. Polaris, with 32 CU seems to be like a low power 380/X that will have little from the older Antigua (Tonga/Tahiti) GPUs. This is very disappointing, especially when the Power Consumption is the same as 1080/1070 (probably not though). I hope this is not true because this will make people buy the 1080/1070 and the possibilities are AMD new "Vega", or whatever it is can outperform these two, which means we'd have to wait for real competition to come.

However, that 5.5 TFLOPS seems to be quite interesting, but I doubt that with the same number of CU that it'll be faster than Hawaii/Grenada.


----------



## john_ (May 13, 2016)

Funny how people react in this thread about Polaris. It's like most in here where hoping AMD to offer them a huge e-prosthetic to replace that specific body part that probably is not big enough. Not to mention that for a tech site it is strange to see people posting like they are ignoring what is known about Polaris, that it is a chip with 2/3 of the area of GP104. So, if AMD is not making it at 10nm, what would people expect from that chip?

Anyway in short, if you want to buy Nvidia cards, AMD is NOT going to make it cheaper for you. You will have to pay the full price Nvidia wants plus the extra for the founders editions.

In the end, what we have here is a duopoly in full harmony with the two competing companies staying away from each other's feet.


----------



## chinmi (May 13, 2016)

ha ha ha 
dream on amd
no one wants your gpu's now


----------



## ZoneDymo (May 13, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> What an overly boring looking little card    Specs are like....lol



The ignorance is almost palpable


----------



## ZoneDymo (May 13, 2016)

chinmi said:


> ha ha ha
> dream on amd
> no one wants your gpu's now



Sorry, I do, sooo you are wrong, gg
Should you not be worried about that 3.5gb that was sold to you as 4gb instead?


----------



## ZoneDymo (May 13, 2016)

ensabrenoir said:


> This guy covered every AMD concerns cpu or gpu...



That was just hilarious
Now im hoping for a "Shit nvidia/intel fanboys say" vid as well though, although it probably is something like "AMD sucks lelz, buy Nvidia, AMD is bankrupt and that somehow to us is a good thing lel"


----------



## medi01 (May 13, 2016)

bug said:


> Well, GTX 1070 is supposed to be $379, not $449.


Nope.
449$ for 1070 (plus moar, even moar, for shortages) - cause it's "Founders Edition" (lovely, nVidia, thank you!)
699$ for 1080 (again, "Founder's Edition")

Note we are talking about prices here and now (well, short term). Who knows what will cost what when Xmas comes.



LucidStrike said:


> To be fair, I'd say releasing a $379 card that outperforms your previous $1000 card isn't so much "just enough" as 'raising the bar'.


Eating "1070 faster than Titan", is a real shame, although partially TPUs, for sharing that lovely piece of FUD in title.
1070 is "faster than Titan" at "certain things in VR, in certain scenarios".



the54thvoid said:


> . You'd think the design in Polaris as a process shrink would be a tweaked Fiji to deliver excellent performance in a lower power threshold.


They needed chips suitable for PS4k is my answer.
Oh, Sony has actually PAID a couple of hundred million $ for development.



the54thvoid said:


> Why produce a rushed forward (rumour) cut down Vega to fight off GTX1080?


+1 here.


----------



## EarthDog (May 13, 2016)

Midrange... cool. 

Vega please!!!


----------



## 32257870 (May 13, 2016)

LucidStrike said:


> To be fair, I'd say releasing a $379 card that outperforms your previous $1000 card isn't so much "just enough" as 'raising the bar'.
> 
> I do REALLY want AMD to woo me away from the 370 tho, for their own sake.



Memory is the key here. As it was with the 970, but in a different way, it looks like the 1070 might not perform as well at higher resolutions because of a lack of bandwidth.


----------



## 32257870 (May 13, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Midrange... cool.
> 
> Vega please!!!




2015 Midrange = 2016 Low end

2016 Midrange = 2015 Enthusiast

That's what has to happen for any of these releases to make sense. High overclocks on Polaris 10 and performance approaching within 10% of a 980ti at a pricepoint of $300 or less should mean we progress nicely in all ranges of price to performance.


----------



## 32257870 (May 13, 2016)

JMccovery said:


> This is interesting; if the 32CU Polaris 10 comes in 'under' 150w with performance similar to Hawaii/Grenada, and the PS4 Neo is rumored to have Polaris-based graphics, I'm wondering if it will have more than 16-20CUs.




PS4 Neo will have as many CUs as it needs to output a minimum 1080p 60fps. However many that is remains to be seen, but we'll have a much clearer picture of it after Polaris 10 benchmarks become prevalent.


----------



## 32257870 (May 13, 2016)

refillable said:


> It seems that it's not going to compete with 1070 or 1080, maybe that'd be Vega on October, but I'm not sure. Polaris, with 32 CU seems to be like a low power 380/X that will have little from the older Antigua (Tonga/Tahiti) GPUs. This is very disappointing, especially when the Power Consumption is the same as 1080/1070 (probably not though). I hope this is not true because this will make people buy the 1080/1070 and the possibilities are AMD new "Vega", or whatever it is can outperform these two, which means we'd have to wait for real competition to come.
> 
> However, that 5.5 TFLOPS seems to be quite interesting, but I doubt that with the same number of CU that it'll be faster than Hawaii/Grenada.




Of course Polaris 10 won't compete with Pascal. It never was supposed to. It should compete with the R9 390 in a big way, and if AMD's new insulation technology along with other improvements allow for MUCH higher overclocks, then 32CUs might be all you need to reach near-980ti levels of performance. NEAR-980ti though. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 13, 2016)

32257870 said:


> 2015 Midrange = 2016 Low end
> 
> 2016 Midrange = 2015 Enthusiast
> 
> That's what has to happen for any of these releases to make sense. High overclocks on Polaris 10 and performance approaching within 10% of a 980ti at a pricepoint of $300 or less should mean we progress nicely in all ranges of price to performance.


Finally some decent comments compared to nvidia ass kissers comments above. I think more realistic target for Polaris would be 980 level performance at around 250-275$ mark. Its the price bracket in which most gpus tend to sell, even if I can afford higher end gpus I prefer 250$ gpu as I can upgrade these in 2 years instead of 3year cycle.


----------



## EarthDog (May 13, 2016)

Dude.. .please edit your posts instead of double/triple/quadruple posting...


----------



## 32257870 (May 13, 2016)

LucidStrike said:


> To be fair, I'd say releasing a $379 card that outperforms your previous $1000 card isn't so much "just enough" as 'raising the bar'.
> 
> I do REALLY want AMD to woo me away from the 370 tho, for their own sake.



Especially since memory bandwidth at 1440p and 4K on the 1070 seems to be lacking in theory, especially in SLI, yet nobody wants to talk about it. Memory bandwidth for the 1070 might be what 3.5GB was tot he 970. I'm going two Polaris 10s for some 4K action, if they get solid frames. If not then it's the 1080 for me, but the 1070... Call me rash or even crazy but I wouldn't trust the 1070 if it payed me to use it.


----------



## G33k2Fr34k (May 13, 2016)

LucidStrike said:


> To be fair, I'd say releasing a $379 card that outperforms your previous $1000 card isn't so much "just enough" as 'raising the bar'.
> 
> I do REALLY want AMD to woo me away from the 370 tho, for their own sake.



The GTX1070 isn't equipped with GDDR5X, so it's highly unlikely that it outperforms the 980 TI/Titan X at 2K and 4K resolutions.
As for the Polaris 10 cards, we know that these cards will be* at least* as fast as the 390/390X and will cost a lot less than Nvidia's offerings. Both the 480 and the 480X will most likely outperform the 980 TI/Titan X in existing/upcoming DX12 games since the 390X already does that. All these factors make the 480/480X cards way more appealing to your average PC gamer, especially to those of us who aren't in the US.


----------



## bug (May 13, 2016)

medi01 said:


> Nope.
> 449$ for 1070 (plus moar, even moar, for shortages) - cause it's "Founders Edition" (lovely, nVidia, thank you!)
> 699$ for 1080 (again, "Founder's Edition")
> 
> Note we are talking about prices here and now (well, short term). Who knows what will cost what when Xmas comes.



Wth dude? http://www.anandtech.com/show/10304/nvidia-announces-the-geforce-gtx-1080-1070
What "here and now" are you talking about?


----------



## Casecutter (May 13, 2016)

General Lee said:


> The pic in the article is of a ref 380x clearly.


Yea it's a placeholder, I can't think of a instance of seeing 400 Series shroud design.  I'd think it's not holding to that, probably more like a new take on the Nano.  And I though read the Polaris 10 was to be a little longer than Nano, while Polaris 11 is just slightly less the Nano perhaps single slot fan with an abbreviated shroud.


----------



## EarthDog (May 13, 2016)

bug said:


> Wth dude? http://www.anandtech.com/show/10304/nvidia-announces-the-geforce-gtx-1080-1070
> What "here and now" are you talking about?


He's vomiting crimson colored FUD?

Around Xmas it will likely be cheaper as they have been out for a while and the market settled after both releases.


----------



## HumanSmoke (May 13, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> He's vomiting crimson colored FUD?
> Around Xmas it will likely be cheaper as they have been out for a while and the market settled after both releases.


So what happens when the reduced-BoM cards get sold by Newegg at $599 and get snapped up as soon as they are in stock, and start showing up in Pascal owners threads in forums? Does the FUD vomiting go projectile?


----------



## EarthDog (May 13, 2016)

Yes. Please put on your waders.


----------



## Kanan (May 13, 2016)

Not bad, so this means the 480 (non X) features 2048 GCN 4 shaders, that run faster than the 2816 of R9 390(X), at a price point of about 200-300$. 
The 480X (40 of 40 CU activated) may then follow, have 2560 shaders and be nearly as fast as 980 Ti or even faster, for about 300-400$, effectively competing against GTX 1070. 

Also I think the "Baffin" chip with 896 shaders is a non-X version with deactivated CU's too, so the full version may have 1024 or 1280 shaders and be a lot faster. 

The GDDR5 @ 1750 MHz on a 256 bit bus should btw be enough to drive the 480/X, I expect revamped delta compression that is comparable to that of Maxwell or better, effectively increasing bandwidth per bit of GCN 4 cards a lot.


----------



## Brusfantomet (May 13, 2016)

With a TDP of 150 W the polaris 10 would be able to get away with only a 6 pin for power. 
GDDR5X at 10 GHz and 256 bit = GDDR5 at 5Ghz and 512 bit (290x ram bandwidth).
two 290x plays everything i have trown at it at 2560 x 1600, one will do the same at 1080p, if these rumors are to be trusted the cards based on polaris 10 will outperform a 290x, at 150W they just need to price it right and you have the new price/performance king. As a fun side note, the 295x2 outperforms anything from nvidia when CF works, IF AMD gets the CP profiles on polaris 10 right two of them have the potential to take on a 1080 GTX.


----------



## deu (May 13, 2016)

heydan83 said:


> Why people think that this GPUs are for competing with the 1080? these GPUs are for low/mid market, things that nvidia hasn't reveal for this generation....



Yeah people are too focused in on GTX1080 and want to compare everything to it. polaris 10 will be the value for money 1080p card for the "low-end" gamer (if you can even call it that.)

I think that some people are missing is that is a seperation in customers requirements being 1080p, VR and 4K (In some games VR will require more that 4K gaming.

There will be released a product from both companies;

1 for 1080p FPS gaming ala GTA V, the witcher / BF4
1 for VR experiences right now in 90FPS / low req 4K gaming
1 30-40FPS+ for 4K

GTX1080 is aiming for highest end polaris is aiming for the low end in this spectre :0

VEGA is aimed to compete with 1080 and to be honest right now 1080 is hitting in a weird spot of nothing; to weak for 4K gaming at 60FPS+ and WAY too powerful for 1080p; 1440p and high-requirements VR-games will benfit from it but right now these games are not made yet and not that many people have 1440p screen. 1080Ti and VEGA 2017 Q1 refresh will be ready for VR maxed out, and 4K 60FPS-ish.

(ofcourse there will be lower-lower-end and entusiast aswell)


----------



## Basard (May 13, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> From the looks of it, I'll be skipping this generation and just keeping my OC'ed GTX 980. I don't want to hear about damn Hawaii 2 frigging generations later. And while GTX 1000 series do seem to deliver based on PR stuff, question is, do I really need it? Doom 2016 runs maxed out butter smooth at 1080p and quite playable at 4K DSR. Returning me to the part where I'm skipping this entire generation, probably even the next one. Might be returning to the graphics scene when AMD's Vega launches. And NVIDIA's GTX 3000 series...



It sure does seem like nothing has really changed since the 2900XT/8800GTX.....   They should bring back the rivaTNT, lol... What was up with the "riva"? That card changed my life! Then there was Geforce, that's when the shit really hit the fan... I couldn't afford that at the time though. 

Now it's just meh after meh.... Fury is cool as hell, nobody gives it respect though.  Still cooler than the 1080, even if it's not as fast.  

We need bigger interposers!     HEY! The 1930's called, they want their fiberglass back!


----------



## EarthDog (May 14, 2016)

deu said:


> Yeah people are too focused in on GTX1080 and want to compare everything to it. polaris 10 will be the value for money 1080p card for the "low-end" gamer (if you can even call it that.)
> 
> I think that some people are missing is that is a seperation in customers requirements being 1080p, VR and 4K (In some games VR will require more that 4K gaming.
> 
> ...


If It's 20-25% faster than a 980ti, and a 980ti can get playable fps in many titles with out AA (which none or less is needed anyway), this stands to do better, no? I mean if you are looking for 60fps+ across all titles, no single gpu can do that... just not sure what expectations these are based off of...


----------



## jabbadap (May 14, 2016)

32257870 said:


> Of course Polaris 10 won't compete with Pascal. It never was supposed to. It should compete with the R9 390 in a big way, and if AMD's new insulation technology along with other improvements allow for MUCH higher overclocks, then 32CUs might be all you need to reach near-980ti levels of performance. NEAR-980ti though. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.



Which pascal are you meaning, gp100, gp104, gp106 or gp107? I would presume it is somewhere between gp104 to gp106 performance. More cutted gp104 might come as 1060ti to compete with polaris 10 xt and full gp106 might have enough juice to compete with polaris 10 pro.


----------



## arbiter (May 14, 2016)

Nihilus said:


> 256 bit GDRR5x on the Polaris 10 will be much slower than the 512 bit GDRR5 of the Hawaii.
> As of now, the 256 bit GDDR5x of the 1080 is slower than that of the 384 bit 980ti.


GDDR5x on a 1080 does 320GB/s, which is same speed hawaii on 290(x) ran, they overclocked the memory on 390 cards for 380GB/s. 980ti had 336GB/s so if AMD clocks it the same it won't be that much slower plus don't know what Overclocking that memory will be able to take yet .


32257870 said:


> Of course Polaris 10 won't compete with Pascal. It never was supposed to. It should compete with the R9 390 in a big way,


Depends on how fast it works in games and price, it may not be ment to compete with current 1070/1080 but performance per $ could make it that was.


Chaitanya said:


> Finally some decent comments compared to nvidia ass kissers comments above. I think more realistic target for Polaris would be 980 level performance at around 250-275$ mark.


Um i would say it should be more 200$ more, 250/275 seems high given what looks like can get outta 16nm.


G33k2Fr34k said:


> The GTX1070 isn't equipped with GDDR5X, so it's highly unlikely that it outperforms the 980 TI/Titan X at 2K and 4K resolutions.


1070 is more of a budget 1080/1440p card. using GDDR5 keeps it cheap since not using new more expensive memory.


----------



## G33k2Fr34k (May 14, 2016)

arbiter said:


> Depends on how fast it works in games and price, it may not be ment to compete with current 1070/1080 but performance per $ could make it that was.



Well... if the fully enabled Polaris 10 chip is rated at 5.5 TFlops/second, then doing some math can give us a close estimate of the 480X performance.
Assuming that Polairs has delta color compression, which Hawaii lacks, as well as better shader efficiency and Geometry throughput than Hawaii, then This should give Polaris a 25% performance advantage over Hawaii at the same flops rating. So a 480X should have:  5.5/5.2 *1.25 = ~1.3 the performance of the 390X. That is ~FuryX ish performance, which isn't too shabby. The 480 pro should be slightly faster than the 390X in this case.



arbiter said:


> 1070 is more of a budget 1080/1440p card. using GDDR5 keeps it cheap since not using new more expensive memory.



my point still holds; the 1070 at 2K or 4K will lose to the 980 TI/Titan X.


----------



## rruff (May 14, 2016)

Kanan said:


> Not bad, so this means the 480 (non X) features 2048 GCN 4 shaders, that run faster than the 2816 of R9 390(X), at a price point of about 200-300$.
> The 480X (40 of 40 CU activated) may then follow, have 2560 shaders and be nearly as fast as 980 Ti or even faster, for about 300-400$, effectively competing against GTX 1070.



I think you and many others are getting carried away again. The odds are very good that the full chip has 2048 shaders, and cut down versions will fill the space between this and Polaris 11. All indications are that this is a 480x so it will slot in well below the 1070, just as the 380x was well below the 970. So you'll need to wait until the fall before you see the cards that compete with the 1070 and 1080.

This is a smart move by AMD, because most likely their architecture will be inferior to Nvidia's but they will have several months where they have *the best and newest midrange cards*, since they'll be competing against Nvidia's Maxwell. How long has it been since that was the case? 

FPS/$ will be at least as good as Nvidia's 1070. I predict Polaris 10 will match or slightly exceed 390/970 performance for $250 or less. It will be great if you are in that budget range.


----------



## wizyy (May 14, 2016)

I think it's safe to say - opinions about "Polaris" are "polarized"...


----------



## Kanan (May 14, 2016)

rruff said:


> I think you and many others are getting carried away again. The odds are very good that the full chip has 2048 shaders, and cut down versions will fill the space between this and Polaris 11. All indications are that this is a 480x so it will slot in well below the 1070, just as the 380x was well below the 970. So you'll need to wait until the fall before you see the cards that compete with the 1070 and 1080.
> 
> This is a smart move by AMD, because most likely their architecture will be inferior to Nvidia's but they will have several months where they have *the best and newest midrange cards*, since they'll be competing against Nvidia's Maxwell. How long has it been since that was the case?
> 
> FPS/$ will be at least as good as Nvidia's 1070. I predict Polaris 10 will match or slightly exceed 390/970 performance for $250 or less. It will be great if you are in that budget range.


Has nothing to do with being carried away. My guesses are based on the original numbers that the GPU has 40 CUs, not 32, or at least more than 2048 shaders. You are playing the same game as me.

I don't think the architecture is inferior, when a 2048 shader card will be faster than a 390X, the opposite is true. My predictions are just more optimistic than yours. "Match or slightly exceed 390/970 performance" is a pretty negative guess for a new chip. It must be clearly faster than 390X, everything else would be a catastrophe. Also read the news again, I think you missed the tflops part of it, your guess doesn't make much sense.

Vega will be the more interesting part of this, I expect up to 2 times the CU amount of Polaris 10, meaning between 4096 and 5120 shaders and meaning the GTX 1080 will be easily crushed. After all, the GTX 1080 is only ~25% faster than Titan X, and maybe 5% faster than 980 Ti custom cards. The 1080 custom will maybe be 20% faster than 980 Ti custom, meaning that Pascal isn't as strong as the hype and Nvidia PR makes you believe. Pascal is pretty weak, I expected a lot more from a 16nm chip for 599$+. My hopes are on the Vega GPU of AMD now, this will be a real game changer if my expectations are true, unlike the GTX 1080 which is a small upgrade.

Anyway, we will see.


----------



## neliz (May 14, 2016)

funny how people think this is the 390x replacement in terms of price etc. while everything points to 270/380 range. this is a <150W ~$150-$250 card. People already forget what Fury did with the lineup and naming of AMD's 200/300 series.


----------



## medi01 (May 14, 2016)

32257870 said:


> 32CUs


That's a number of CUs on mobile version, to my knowledge.


PS





http://www.amd.com/en-gb/products/graphics/notebook/r9-m200


----------



## G33k2Fr34k (May 14, 2016)

medi01 said:


> That's a number of CUs on mobile version, to my knowledge.



I don't think there's a mobile version of Polairs 10. AMD is going to have 2 different versions of the Polaris 10 chip. We already know there's one with 36 CUs. I think that's the fully enabled one. The cut down version of Polaris 10 has 32 CUs, which is what this rumors implies.  

What matters is the theoretical single precision FP rating and how efficient the micro-architecture is. If the 
5.5 TF rating is true, then the Polaris 10 cards are definitely faster than the 390/390X. How much faster depends on how good Polaris is in comparison to Hawaii, which is Vanilla GCN.


----------



## deu (May 14, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> If It's 20-25% faster than a 980ti, and a 980ti can get playable fps in many titles with out AA (which none or less is needed anyway), this stands to do better, no? I mean if you are looking for 60fps+ across all titles, no single gpu can do that... just not sure what expectations these are based off of...



Again: missing the point: We are not saying 1080 isnt a good card we are just saying the people who think polaris is in competition with it is out of their minds. 

you can expect the 1080Ti and VEGA refresh to be a better than the first "generation". Im not sure if you think my example deserve a generalization or if you are trolling, but to state the obvious; there is no garanty that the VEGA/1080Ti will ENSURE 60 FPS+. But you can expect them to be around 2,5 times faster than say GTX980. That will for the first time mean that almost ANY game is playable and alot with 60FPS-ish. With one single card.


----------



## FMinus (May 14, 2016)

rruff said:


> I think you and many others are getting carried away again. The odds are very good that the full chip has 2048 shaders, and cut down versions will fill the space between this and Polaris 11. All indications are that this is a 480x so it will slot in well below the 1070, just as the 380x was well below the 970. So you'll need to wait until the fall before you see the cards that compete with the 1070 and 1080.
> 
> This is a smart move by AMD, because most likely their architecture will be inferior to Nvidia's but they will have several months where they have *the best and newest midrange cards*, since they'll be competing against Nvidia's Maxwell. How long has it been since that was the case?
> 
> FPS/$ will be at least as good as Nvidia's 1070. I predict Polaris 10 will match or slightly exceed 390/970 performance for $250 or less. It will be great if you are in that budget range.



How do you figure that an architecture that is not castrated from compute units is inferior to an architecture that is, is beyond me. All nvidia has right now, is clock speed. Down clock a GTX 1080 to the GTX 980 clocks and the cards would be almost the same.


----------



## Nkd (May 14, 2016)

FMinus said:


> How do you figure that an architecture that is not castrated from compute units is inferior to an architecture that is, is beyond me. All nvidia has right now, is clock speed. Down clock a GTX 1080 to the GTX 980 clocks and the cards would be almost the same.



People wont believe you. That is the damn truth. Maxwell was hungry for more clocks. Pascal is basically a super refinement of Maxwell. if you clocked them the same there would be no difference or may be a 5-10% performance bump at best. But people won't see that. Pascal has other refinements like VR and stuff other than that its a Super Super clocked maxwell shrunk down. But on the other side it does take significant advantage from clock speeds that maxwell couldn't do on 28nm. So you are right but its also fast so people have the right to brag about it but if you have a 980ti that hits 1500 you will be looking at very minimal performance increase unless you got 1080 purely for the purpose of overclocking it and hope it hist 2.1ghz. I wonder if Nvidia knows that lot of these chips won't hit that so they are selling the founders edition with binned chips.


----------



## HumanSmoke (May 14, 2016)

Nkd said:


> unless you got 1080 purely for the purpose of overclocking it and hope it hist 2.1ghz. I wonder if Nvidia knows that lot of these chips won't hit that so they are selling the founders edition with binned chips.


The Founder's Editions are still less than middle of the pack. The vendor customs - either using the reference PCB or a custom board - probably with 2 * 8-pin or 8-pin + 6-pin, and the hybrid watercooled cards should attain the levels of a FE pretty easily since the FE is probably board limited to 225W ( 75W via slot + 150W via PCIE 8-pin)


----------



## Caring1 (May 14, 2016)

Nkd said:


> ... I wonder if Nvidia knows that lot of these chips won't hit that so they are selling the founders edition with binned chips.


They are not using binned chips for the Founder's Edition.


----------



## Nkd (May 14, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> They are not using binned chips for the Founder's Edition.



May be not. But my point was pascal is pretty much gpu on crack lol. But thats always been nvidia's ammo though ever since they went with this architecture while AMD has been not heavy on clock but they have performed within range of nvidia but have much higher compute power. They went with more balanced architecture but nvidia went with brute force, we see that now. Those insane clock speeds are like Nvidia's ammo. I am sure it will be the same way this time around with polaris.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 14, 2016)

Nkd said:


> May be not. But my point was pascal is pretty much gpu on crack lol. But thats always been nvidia's ammo though ever since they went with this architecture while AMD has been not heavy on clock but they have performed within range of nvidia but have much higher compute power. They went with more balanced architecture but nvidia went with brute force, we see that now. Those insane clock speeds are like Nvidia's ammo. I am sure it will be the same way this time around with polaris.



Well, if you look at Fury X with 4096 shaders and 980ti at only 2816 (even Titan X only has 3072) you would think Fiji would be romping it all the way home.  It's not just the numbers that matter, it is the underlying architectural efficiency.  You can't call a design brief to get faster clocks 'brute' force anymore you can cramming in more shaders.

If Pascal is the performance winner because it is blazingly fast - that is what matters.  I would love to see AMD push the clocks higher because in the past they could do it well.  Perhaps without HBM to hold it back Polaris will come in at a mid point but with overclocking push it above it's fighting weight.


----------



## bug (May 14, 2016)

Nkd said:


> May be not. But my point was pascal is pretty much gpu on crack lol. But thats always been nvidia's ammo though ever since they went with this architecture while AMD has been not heavy on clock but they have performed within range of nvidia but have much higher compute power. They went with more balanced architecture but nvidia went with brute force, we see that now. Those insane clock speeds are like Nvidia's ammo. I am sure it will be the same way this time around with polaris.



You're so wrong...
The problem was everybody was stuck on 28nm for so many years. Since you could squeeze more transistors onto a die, Nvidia simply decided to scale back on compute power (they already have other cards for this) and repurpose transistors to do actual GPU work. This is how they were able to pretty much run circles around AMD wrt efficiency.


----------



## medi01 (May 14, 2016)

bug said:


> Nvidia simply decided to scale back on compute power (they already have other cards for this) and repurpose transistors to do actual GPU work. This is how they were able to pretty much *run circles around* AMD wrt efficiency.



How much is that (in %)?


----------



## HD64G (May 14, 2016)

medi01 said:


> How much is that (in %)?


Kepler vs Fiji's CGN is about 10% more efficient in 4K gaming if we compare 980Ti and FuryX and their clock difference and their difference in shader number. As for the newer architectures we should wait more for W1Z reviews for both camps' new GPUs first.


----------



## Pinktulips7 (May 14, 2016)

Enough with that AMD BS moving towards to Nvidia, This Company is going down after got slapped by intel and now Nvidia, OMG


----------



## ZoneDymo (May 14, 2016)

Pinktulips7 said:


> Enough with that AMD BS moving towards to Nvidia, This Company is going down after got slapped by intel and now Nvidia, OMG



Slapped by Intel? you mean that illegal under the table price bs they did for which they got a massive fine?


----------



## arbiter (May 14, 2016)

Nkd said:


> May be not. But my point was pascal is pretty much gpu on crack lol. But thats always been nvidia's ammo though ever since they went with this architecture while AMD has been not heavy on clock but they have performed within range of nvidia


Part of the reason AMD cards don't overclock well, is they are generally clocked near the max of the chip as it is to compete with nvidia who's chips seem to be clocked pretty low from what a lot of them CAN do.


HD64G said:


> Kepler vs Fiji's CGN is about 10% more efficient in 4K gaming if we compare 980Ti and FuryX and their clock difference and their difference in shader number.


Is that really cause fiji is faster or only comes down to memory bandwidth difference? i would bet its the ladder of that not so much first part.


----------



## Pinktulips7 (May 15, 2016)

ZoneDymo said:


> Slapped by Intel? you mean that illegal under the table price bs they did for which they got a massive fine?



AMD was getting slapped by intel every year since C2D even though AMD Fanboy was mot happy about it, AMD still in business because of intel!!! I am dine with crappy AMD, Time to move on, Since that Idiot Raza took over AMD everything going downhill.


----------



## G33k2Fr34k (May 15, 2016)

Pinktulips7 said:


> AMD was getting slapped by intel every year since C2D even though AMD Fanboy was mot happy about it, AMD still in business because of intel!!! I am dine with crappy AMD, Time to move on, Since that Idiot Raza took over AMD everything going downhill.



Well... if I understand the point you're trying to make correctly, I'd say you're partially right. AMD has been behind Intel when it comes to high performance CPUs. What they did with Bulldozer, while it looked good on paper, didn't pan out.

Bulldozer was supposed to be their counter strategy to Intel's lead in the silicon fabrication technology. So instead of competing against Intel using the same approach, that is building big cores and prioritizing single thread performance, they decided to do something different, aka bulldozer, which evidently didn't succeed. That is behind us now. AMD is releasing Zen this year. A Zen core will have double the integer resources and quadruple the floating point resources of a Bulldozer derived CPU core, in addition to high bandwidth low-latency L3 cache. Expect Zen to compete with intel's kaby Lake.

With regard to Polaris, I'm quite glad that AMD chose to release their mainstream cards first. I'm not planning on spending more than $350 CAD (~$250 USD) for a graphics card, and I think AMD's 480/480X are going to be great performers in that price category.


----------



## HD64G (May 15, 2016)

arbiter said:


> Is that really cause fiji is faster or only comes down to memory bandwidth difference? i would bet its the ladder of that not so much first part.



Upgraded CGN core was the reason. And Polaris will get an even better one...


----------



## deu (May 15, 2016)

G33k2Fr34k said:


> Well... if I understand the point you're trying to make correctly, I'd say you're partially right. AMD has been behind Intel when it comes to high performance CPUs. What they did with Bulldozer, while it looked good on paper, didn't pan out.
> 
> Bulldozer was supposed to be their counter strategy to Intel's lead in the silicon fabrication technology. So instead of competing against Intel using the same approach, that is building big cores and prioritizing single thread performance, they decided to do something different, aka bulldozer, which evidently didn't succeed. That is behind us now. AMD is releasing Zen this year. A Zen core will have double the integer resources and quadruple the floating point resources of a Bulldozer derived CPU core, in addition to high bandwidth low-latency L3 cache. Expect Zen to compete with intel's kaby Lake.
> 
> With regards to Polaris, I'm quite glad that AMD chose to release their mainstream cards first. I'm not planning on spending more than $350 CAD (~$250 USD) for a graphics card, and I think AMD's 480/480X are going to be great performers in that price category.



Ye AMD's problem was that they where too far ahead in expecting multicoresupport (which showed to be not so easy to scale no wish to support in most applikations.) That left them with single / dualcore performance down 20-40% and when trying to out-core intel and the market does not develop that way then they loose  Zen will give intel a run for their money i am sure!


----------



## EarthDog (May 15, 2016)

Instructions Per Clock is what you are talking about.


----------



## Pinktulips7 (May 15, 2016)

G33k2Fr34k said:


> Well... if I understand the point you're trying to make correctly, I'd say you're partially right. AMD has been behind Intel when it comes to high performance CPUs. What they did with Bulldozer, while it looked good on paper, didn't pan out.
> 
> Bulldozer was supposed to be their counter strategy to Intel's lead in the silicon fabrication technology. So instead of competing against Intel using the same approach, that is building big cores and prioritizing single thread performance, they decided to do something different, aka bulldozer, which evidently didn't succeed. That is behind us now. AMD is releasing Zen this year. A Zen core will have double the integer resources and quadruple the floating point resources of a Bulldozer derived CPU core, in addition to high bandwidth low-latency L3 cache. Expect Zen to compete with intel's kaby Lake.
> 
> With regard to Polaris, I'm quite glad that AMD chose to release their mainstream cards first. I'm not planning on spending more than $350 CAD (~$250 USD) for a graphics card, and I think AMD's 480/480X are going to be great performers in that price category.



I am using AMD (Graphics) since ATI 9700 Pro!!!! What a awesome Card ATI released that Nvidia was shitting in their Pants then AMD bought/Took over ATI and Everybody's knows what happened after that. AMD needs to stop rebranding their Cards every year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## rruff (May 15, 2016)

deu said:


> Ye AMD's problem was that they where too far ahead in expecting multicoresupport (which showed to be not so easy to scale no wish to support in most applikations.)



Don't you have that backwards? They used more cores to make up for their poor single thread speed. 

Based on AMD's recent track record, I think it would be incredibly optimistic to expect their new designs to be on par with Intel and Nvidia.


----------



## HumanSmoke (May 15, 2016)

Pinktulips7 said:


> I am using AMD (Graphics) since ATI 9700 Pro!!!! What a awesome Card ATI released that Nvidia was shitting in their Pants then AMD bought/Took over ATI and Everybody's knows what happened after that. AMD needs to stop rebranding their Cards every year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


To be fair, ATI's star was already fading by the time AMD acquired them (which made the $5.4bn paid all the more perplexing). Their top end (9800 Pro/XT, then X800/X850) served them well, but they were rapidly losing market share across the board and Nvidia was killing them in mobile discrete. Even with R600 getting a collective handjob from the press well ahead of launch, and guys like Charlie doing the FUD thing claiming Nvidia's G80 wouldn't have a unified shader architecture, ATI's position in the market was taking a bit hit. Funnily enough, ATI's revenue- even during their relatively dire last year, was twice that of present day AMD.


----------



## arbiter (May 15, 2016)

HD64G said:


> Upgraded CGN core was the reason. And Polaris will get an even better one...


wrong, the massive Memory bandwidth it had was what gave it the advantage at 4k not cause it was faster. Its been pretty well documented by review sites over the last year.


rruff said:


> Don't you have that backwards? They used more cores to make up for their poor single thread speed.
> 
> Based on AMD's recent track record, I think it would be incredibly optimistic to expect their new designs to be on par with Intel and Nvidia.


Hopeing to be on even terms with intel with 1 more cpu is little to optimistic. Best to shoot for say their 8 core able to directly match intel's 6 core to start which would be a bit of a jump as it is.


----------



## medi01 (May 15, 2016)

Pinktulips7 said:


> BS moving towards nVidia



That somes it up perfectly. Moving BS:


----------



## refillable (May 15, 2016)

32257870 said:


> Of course Polaris 10 won't compete with Pascal. It never was supposed to. It should compete with the R9 390 in a big way, and if AMD's new insulation technology along with other improvements allow for MUCH higher overclocks, then 32CUs might be all you need to reach near-980ti levels of performance. NEAR-980ti though. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.



Yes, sure, it's probably going to be a great card, but that'll leave a huge performance gap, for a long time (before Vega comes out) between AMD's newest and NVIDIA's newest, which may not be good for, me at least, a PC Builder. 32 CU is not confirmed but unless they did some miracle engineering, 32 CU, at best is probably just under Grenada (390), pure speculation, though.

Anyways, BS is usual for any company, NVIDIA and AMD are notorious for doing them.

Oh yes, one thing to say, I really hated, I mean REALLY hated that they decided with the new name "Fury" (Same goes for Titan). Very confusing, I wish they'll do better on naming scheme department, maybe calling Polaris 480, 470 and Vega 490 and maybe 495. Or heck, Polaris can be 470 and 460, while 480 and 490 for Vega.


----------



## HumanSmoke (May 15, 2016)

medi01 said:


> That somes it up perfectly. Moving BS:


Nice try with the trolling. The presentation and the slide are specifically Deep Learning orientated. Mixed precision - use of FP16 for object detection and recognition allied with a more comprehensive GPU to GPU/GPU to CPU interconnect. That is why the second half of the slide show the representation of four GPUs, because P100 - the focus of the presentation - has four NVLink interfaces.
I'm pretty sure only trolls and AMD fanboys try to make "Pascal 10X Maxwell" applicable across the board, rather than a the sole example it is intended for.


----------



## rruff (May 15, 2016)

refillable said:


> Yes, sure, it's probably going to be a great card, but that'll leave a huge performance gap, for a long time (before Vega comes out) between AMD's newest and NVIDIA's newest, which may not be good for, me at least, a PC Builder.



AMD will have the only cards on <28nm in the low, midrange, and laptops segments though. Maybe you don't care about that, but a lot of people do, and it seems like a smart approach with their tiny budget.


----------



## nem.. (May 15, 2016)




----------



## MrGenius (May 16, 2016)

Well there went 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Good thing I didn't waste the entire 7 minutes. Get to the point guy. Oh... you have no point. I see. Good bye!


----------



## the54thvoid (May 16, 2016)

Put nem.. on my ignore list. At least he was easy to recognise from when he was plain old nem.

Still a class action Troll suit instigator.


----------



## G33k2Fr34k (May 16, 2016)

HumanSmoke said:


> Nice try with the trolling. The presentation and the slide are specifically Deep Learning orientated. Mixed precision - use of FP16 for object detection and recognition allied with a more comprehensive GPU to GPU/GPU to CPU interconnect. That is why the second half of the slide show the representation of four GPUs, because P100 - the focus of the presentation - has four NVLink interfaces.
> I'm pretty sure only trolls and AMD fanboys try to make "Pascal 10X Maxwell" applicable across the board, rather than a the sole example it is intended for.



Every time I see a 10X or 100X from Nvidia, I know they're lying. Nvidia's PR is well known for shameless blatant lying. Only Nvidia fanboys come out to justify these ridiculous claims by Nvidia.


----------



## arbiter (May 16, 2016)

G33k2Fr34k said:


> Every time I see a 10X or 100X from Nvidia, I know they're lying. Nvidia's PR is well known for shameless blatant lying. Only Nvidia fanboys come out to justify these ridiculous claims by Nvidia.


I think you confused Nvidia with AMD there.


----------



## G33k2Fr34k (May 16, 2016)

arbiter said:


> I think you confused Nvidia with AMD there.



Nope, I didn't. I remember back when Nvidia made the claim that their GTX280 was over 100X faster than Intel's best quad core CPU at the time running certain "CUDAH" tasks. Intel decided to verify these claims and the results of Intel's benchmarks were quite a bit different, to say the least. Intel found that their the GTX280 was was around 2.5 times faster than the Core i7 960 on average, and only in one scenario it was 14 times faster (probably a CUDAH app that uses old X87 instructions instead of SSE instructions).


----------



## the54thvoid (May 16, 2016)

G33k2Fr34k said:


> Nope, I didn't. I remember back when Nvidia made the claim that their GTX280 was over 100X faster than Intel's best quad core CPU at the time running certain "CUDAH" tasks. Intel decided to verify these claims and the results of Intel's benchmarks were quite a bit different, to say the least. Intel found that their the GTX280 was was around 2.5 times faster than the Core i7 960 on average, and only in one scenario it was 14 times faster (probably a CUDAH app that uses old X87 instructions instead of SSE instructions).



Well it's encouraging to see that you find Intel a paragon of virtue and truth.  Have you not considered how Intel are perceived to manipulate things to keep AMD down?

Morale is, PR is a little bit 'showy' but tends to have a basis in some truth, albeit sometimes tenuous.


----------



## HumanSmoke (May 16, 2016)

G33k2Fr34k said:


> Nope, I didn't. I remember back when Nvidia made the claim that their GTX280...


At least there WAS a GTX 280. Remember when AMD put out false benchmark claims using a non-existent processor
*AMD posts blatantly deceptive benchmarks on Barcelona*
...and Nvidia isn't currently being sued by its investors for deception....unlike AMD, aand we haven't even touched on AMD's Bulldozer claims from 2008 onwards, or Randy "40% better" Allen, or Roy Taylor.



G33k2Fr34k said:


> Nope, I didn't. I remember back when Nvidia made the claim that their GTX280 was over 100X faster than Intel's best quad core CPU at the time running certain "CUDAH"  Intel decided to verify these claims and the results of Intel's benchmarks were quite a bit different, to say the least. Intel found that their the GTX280 was was around 2.5 times faster than the Core i7 960 on average, and only in one scenario it was 14 times faster (probably a CUDAH app that uses old X87 instructions instead of SSE instructions).


Probably? How would anyone know? Intel certainly didn't state what coding or ISA they were using. Nvidia ended up at least providing verifiable benchmark results


----------



## Ferrum Master (May 16, 2016)

HumanSmoke said:


> At least there WAS a GTX 280



Ah boney it is a AMD thread turned into intel vs nvidia war now? Calm down.

It all bad news again. The market is split releasing cards not fighting each other in performance... almost like conspiracy.


----------



## bug (May 16, 2016)

medi01 said:


> How much is that (in %)?



A lot, according to this obscure site: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_390X_Gaming/31.html


----------



## HumanSmoke (May 16, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> Ah boney it is a AMD thread turned into intel vs nvidia war now? Calm down.


Well, that's interesting,You don't have a single problem with nem, G33k2Fr34k and medi01 posting solely about Nvidia in an AMD thread, but you're so very quick decry a post that corrects some trollish comments in rebuttal.  Be careful with what you're condoning at the expense of chastising me - unless you long for the day when TPU turns into wccftech lite - after all, at least two of the aforementioned are Disqus trollers of the highest order.


----------



## Ferrum Master (May 16, 2016)

HumanSmoke said:


> after all, at least two of the aforementioned are Disqus trollers of the highest order.



Yea just don't feed the trolls. I like them calling zerglings or drowners... more appropriate. Most of us still don't side to any of them, as we own a lot of PC's utilizing any of those manufacturer products.

Polaris IMHO is a well placed product performance wise... to 1080p consumers, that actually packs the most of users still. The enthusiast segment(also me) are the most loud bunch of whiners actually, thus we can filter out the low expected performance complaints about the product. As I said, almost it looks fishy that nvidia and AMD releases products in their own niche not overlapping with each other actually. At least it looks like that to me now.


----------



## Alduin (May 16, 2016)

rruff said:


> I think you and many others are getting carried away again. The odds are very good that the full chip has 2048 shaders, and cut down versions will fill the space between this and Polaris 11. All indications are that this is a 480x so it will slot in well below the 1070, just as the 380x was well below the 970. So you'll need to wait until the fall before you see the cards that compete with the 1070 and 1080.
> 
> This is a smart move by AMD, because most likely their architecture will be inferior to Nvidia's but they will have several months where they have *the best and newest midrange cards*, since they'll be competing against Nvidia's Maxwell. How long has it been since that was the case?
> 
> FPS/$ will be at least as good as Nvidia's 1070. I predict Polaris 10 will match or slightly exceed 390/970 performance for $250 or less. It will be great if you are in that budget range.


PASCAL:
16nm maxwell with higher clock rates and
Some new Features like NVlink


----------



## ZoneDymo (May 16, 2016)

MrGenius said:


> Well there went 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Good thing I didn't waste the entire 7 minutes. Get to the point guy. Oh... you have no point. I see. Good bye!



Kids these days dont have any patients at all.....they need everything right now, right away.
The point was made at about 5:50, and its "just wait" before buying anything and he supported that argument with a long list of history of products released by every company and how waiting was often a better choice.
There ya go, now I do hope you learn some patients in the future.


----------



## ZoneDymo (May 16, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> Put nem.. on my ignore list. At least he was easy to recognise from when he was plain old nem.
> 
> Still a class action Troll suit instigator.



because he posts a video of a person calmly explaining/giving info?
ok then....


----------



## dozenfury (May 16, 2016)

On these AMD-Nvidia debates that quickly descend into fanism, I'd suggest at least comparing apples to apples (MSRP to MSRP).  Most people will wait for the MSRP models with better cooling, and AMD is sounding like they may not even have these Polaris cards in retail until August anyway.  There's no requirement to pay a premium to be the absolute first to get the 1070/1080.  And even on pure power tflops, Nvidia will always be ahead 1:1 on fps per tflop for most games due to better driver support.


----------



## Caring1 (May 16, 2016)

dozenfury said:


> On these AMD-Nvidia debates that quickly descend into fanism, I'd suggest at least comparing apples to apples (MSRP to MSRP).  Most people will wait for the MSRP models with better cooling, and AMD is sounding like they may not even have these Polaris cards in retail until August anyway.  There's no requirement to pay a premium to be the absolute first to get the 1070/1080.  And even on pure power tflops, Nvidia will always be ahead 1:1 on fps per tflop for most games due to better driver support.


Spoken like a true fanboy.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (May 16, 2016)

> Of course Polaris 10 won't compete with Pascal. It never was supposed to. It should compete with the R9 390 in a big way, and if AMD's new insulation technology along with other improvements allow for MUCH higher overclocks, then 32CUs might be all you need to reach near-980ti levels of performance. NEAR-980ti though. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.


You mean a year later, they have now come up with something to compete against a 980ti?


----------



## MrGenius (May 16, 2016)

ZoneDymo said:


> Kids these days dont have any patients at all.....they need everything right now, right away.
> The point was made at about 5:50, and its "just wait" before buying anything and he supported that argument with a long list of history of products released by every company and how waiting was often a better choice.
> There ya go, now I do hope you learn some patients in the future.


Well as for patience I have more than I need(and then some). And I passed childhood well over 2.5 decades ago. His arguments were weak at best. Inaccurate and heavily biased for the most part. The Fury "overclocker's dream" comment seriously pissed me off, it's been OC to 1450/1000 with LN2(proving it truly is an overclocker's dream). The rest was just a bunch of "no duh" stupid and pointless BS for retards. So it most certainly didn't apply to me. That guy is a horrible "journalist"(term used in its broadest and most forgiving sense). He's a complete fucking moron IMO. I'll never make the mistake of watching another one of his vids again. That's all I meant by that.


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 16, 2016)

Radeon lord said:


> PASCAL:
> 16nm maxwell with higher clock rates and
> Some new Features like NVlink




......Radeon Lord?  ....DozenFury?  I love this time of year.....


----------



## ZoneDymo (May 17, 2016)

MrGenius said:


> Well as for patience I have more than I need(and then some). And I passed childhood well over 2.5 decades ago. His arguments were weak at best. Inaccurate and heavily biased for the most part. The Fury "overclocker's dream" comment seriously pissed me off, it's been OC to 1450/1000 with LN2(proving it truly is an overclocker's dream). The rest was just a bunch of "no duh" stupid and pointless BS for retards. So it most certainly didn't apply to me. That guy is a horrible "journalist"(term used in its broadest and most forgiving sense). He's a complete fucking moron IMO. I'll never make the mistake of watching another one of his vids again. That's all I meant by that.



"stupid and pointless BS for retards"
"complete fucking moron"

"I passed childhood well over 2.5 decades ago"

You sure about that? because you certainly don't come across that way.

And you certainly cannot claim to have patients when your comment was how you just stopped watching the vid because "he had no point" thus far.


----------



## MrGenius (May 17, 2016)

At least I can spell patience correctly. Now buzz off trollio. I don't have time for your shit.


----------



## neliz (May 17, 2016)

Radeon lord said:


> PASCAL:
> 16nm maxwell with higher clock rates and
> Some new Features like NVlink




What is NVLink going to do for you? You know what NVLink is exactly?


----------



## Fluffmeister (May 17, 2016)

nem.. said:


>



Might as well wait for Vega too.

The bit about Nvidia not choosing settings that are gonna make them look slower than the competition was gold.

Muhahahaha!!!


----------



## medi01 (May 17, 2016)

> ...only trolls and AMD fanboys try to make "Pascal 10X Maxwell" applicable...



Ah, oh...
I thought it was harmless to copy&paste an nVidia slide...
I mean, clearly, anyone who'd spot that slide anywhere on the internet, would immediately be clear about the context.

Anyhow, *what about "1070 is faster than Titan X"*?
Just curious.

Or this one:








Bjorn_Of_Iceland said:


> You mean a year later, they have now come up with something to compete against a 980ti?



You might need to check Fury X benchmarks on reasonable (for cards of such power) resolutions.

And 480 (that's the fastest card that is expected in June) is definitelly NOT supposed to compete against 980Ti. It's a competitor to 1050/1060 (yet to be announced).


----------



## ZoneDymo (May 17, 2016)

MrGenius said:


> At least I can spell patience correctly. Now buzz off trollio. I don't have time for your shit.



Sure you do, you are on a forum looking for some news, you have oceans of time


----------



## P4-630 (May 18, 2016)

https://translate.google.com/transl...&utm_campaign=hardwareinfo&edit-text=&act=url


----------



## Alduin (May 19, 2016)

neliz said:


> What is NVLink going to do for you? You know what NVLink is exactly?


I said LIKE NVLINK.
It helps with Sli


----------



## neliz (May 20, 2016)

Radeon lord said:


> I said LIKE NVLINK.
> It helps with Sli



y...no

NVLink is not available on graphics cards.


----------



## Xzibit (May 20, 2016)

Radeon lord said:


> I said LIKE NVLINK.
> It helps with Sli



Tom Peterson from Nvidia already addressed it.

Old bridges were running at below 600mhz
Newer bridges (LED & HB) bridges can run at +600mhz
Old SLI used a combo of SLI bridge along with PCI-E talk to achieve SLI in resolutions exceeding 1440p@60 (ie 1440@120 was SLI+PCI-E)

HB Bridges will allow up to 5k over SLI Bridge without the need for PCI-E talk in 2-way SLI.






He also points out that Nvidia prefers LDA Explicit for multi GPUs instead of MDA.  Not sure if that will be part of their GameWorks initiative but not good for consumers that want to mix different GPUs.


----------



## neliz (May 20, 2016)

NVLink is a data-bus that drives 4 GPU cards, interconnected with a theoretical max of 40GB per device.

Pcie Express has 82 pins, an SLI connector  is 26 pins, an actualy NVLink Interface consists of 2x 400-pins connectors.


----------



## dozenfury (May 24, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> Spoken like a true fanboy.



And that's the problem I'm quickly seeing with these forums.  If you make a comment one side doesn't like - even if it's backed up by facts, people throw out the mindless "you're just a fanboy" attack.  And that definitely mutes much intelligent and fair discussion based on factual information.  BTW, I'm an AMD owner - just to show how wrong that comment was.


----------



## Caring1 (May 25, 2016)

dozenfury said:


> And that's the problem I'm quickly seeing with these forums.  If you make a comment one side doesn't like - even if it's backed up by facts, people throw out the mindless "you're just a fanboy" attack.  And that definitely mutes much intelligent and fair discussion based on factual information.  BTW, I'm an AMD owner - just to show how wrong that comment was.


When a person generalises and states Nvidia will always be better, my comment cannot be wrong.
Stick to facts and I don't have an issue with what you say.


----------

