Sunday, October 30th 2016

AMD Releases Specifications On The Radeon Pro 400 Series Graphics

by
Raevenlord
 Discuss (16 Comments)
If you were wondering what the exact specs were on AMD's Polaris-imbued Radeon Pro 400 series of graphics cards, recently announced to be the driving GPUs on the 15-inch MacBook Pro, you need not imagine what they could be anymore. Under their "Meet the Creators" program, the company has now published the specifications.

From top to bottom, the Radeon Pro 460 packs a total of 16 Compute Units (CUs), totalling 1024 stream processors, with peak theoretical performance of up to 1.86 teraflops. The middle of pack Radeon Pro 455 cuts those to 12 CUs and 768 stream processors, with peak theoretical performance of up to 1.3 teraflops. Finally, the lowest performer of the bunch is the Radeon Pro 450, which features only 10 CUs (640 stream processors) and has a theoretical bandwidth of up to 1 teraflops. Also of note is the fact that all three of the parts leverage the same 80 Gb/s memory bandwidth.
Source: Radeon Creators

Related News

Add your own comment

16 Comments on AMD Releases Specifications On The Radeon Pro 400 Series Graphics

#1
Assimilator
Guess I was right.

Radeon Pro 460 = 16 CUs / 1.86 TFLOPS @ 35W
Radeon RX 460 = 14 CUs / 2.15 TFLOPS @ 75W

To get the TDP to under half, AMD must be doing some crazy binning and have made massive cuts to the clocks.

I imagine Intel and Apple had some strong words over the continued absymal performance of the Iris graphics, which lead to Apple having to bundle the Radeon GPUs with these new Macbooks, making them larger, hotter, and driving up the BOM. If AMD manage to produce a Zen APU that is IPC-competitive with Haswell and delivers performance close to these "Radeon Pro" parts, they will have a winner on their hands, and Intel will be sitting in the corner kicking themselves.
Posted on Reply
#2
Steevo
AssimilatorGuess I was right.

Radeon Pro 460 = 16 CUs / 1.86 TFLOPS @ 35W
Radeon RX 460 = 14 CUs / 2.15 TFLOPS @ 75W

To get the TDP to under half, AMD must be doing some crazy binning and have made massive cuts to the clocks.

I imagine Intel and Apple had some strong words over the continued absymal performance of the Iris graphics, which lead to Apple having to bundle the Radeon GPUs with these new Macbooks, making them larger, hotter, and driving up the BOM. If AMD manage to produce a Zen APU that is IPC-competitive with Haswell and delivers performance close to these "Radeon Pro" parts, they will have a winner on their hands, and Intel will be sitting in the corner kicking themselves.
I think they may have got some wafers from alternate sources, as GLOFLO.....
Posted on Reply
#3
RejZoR
This is what AMD was actually advertising at Computex what everyone thought it was RX480. RX480 was a performance on a budget, that's why it was not as power efficient as it should be.

JayzTwoCents was testing a RX480 GTR which was pulling like 40-50W less than regular RX480 while clocking higher. iirc
Posted on Reply
#4
evernessince
AssimilatorGuess I was right.

Radeon Pro 460 = 16 CUs / 1.86 TFLOPS @ 35W
Radeon RX 460 = 14 CUs / 2.15 TFLOPS @ 75W

To get the TDP to under half, AMD must be doing some crazy binning and have made massive cuts to the clocks.

I imagine Intel and Apple had some strong words over the continued absymal performance of the Iris graphics, which lead to Apple having to bundle the Radeon GPUs with these new Macbooks, making them larger, hotter, and driving up the BOM. If AMD manage to produce a Zen APU that is IPC-competitive with Haswell and delivers performance close to these "Radeon Pro" parts, they will have a winner on their hands, and Intel will be sitting in the corner kicking themselves.
AdoredTV (Tech youtuber) did a video on this. There are various accounts of people who have purchased regular RX 480s that only consume 80ish watts. It's very possible that AMD will release a refresh of the 400 series if they can increase die samples across the board. That power efficiency is even better than Nvidia's.
Posted on Reply
#5
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
evernessinceAdoredTV (Tech youtuber) did a video on this. There are various accounts of people who have purchased regular RX 480s that only consume 80ish watts. It's very possible that AMD will release a refresh of the 400 series if they can increase die samples across the board. That power efficiency is even better than Nvidia's.
There is tons of information floating around right now. Desktop RX460's in the 20-30w range for actual consumed power etc. There also seems to be preferential treatment for vendors to get the GPU's.
Posted on Reply
#6
chaosmassive
its clear now why RX 460 has 2 CU disabled
Apple got fully enabled chip of Polaris 11 first
Posted on Reply
#7
Chaitanya
cdawallThere is tons of information floating around right now. Desktop RX460's in the 20-30w range for actual consumed power etc. There also seems to be preferential treatment for vendors to get the GPU's.
That preferential treatment makes sense, considering these laptops do sell a lot and might mean more revenue for the company.
Posted on Reply
#8
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
ChaitanyaThat preferential treatment makes sense, considering these laptops do sell a lot and might mean more revenue for the company.
Not even by type of GPU, XFX is undercutting everyone else wattage wise by 40+ watts. My sapphire clocks well, but consumes 170-190w (GPU only according to afterburner) at the same clocks the XFX cards are around 125w
Posted on Reply
#9
owen10578
RejZoRThis is what AMD was actually advertising at Computex what everyone thought it was RX480. RX480 was a performance on a budget, that's why it was not as power efficient as it should be.

JayzTwoCents was testing a RX480 GTR which was pulling like 40-50W less than regular RX480 while clocking higher. iirc
Yeah man I got an XFX RX 480 and its odd that it consumes much lower than other RX 480s I have...also clocks a little better but not nearly as good as Jayztwocents. Also the HIS cards behave the same... P.S. I have a little mining farm heheh

So...the Radeon Pro 460 is based on an even more cut down Polaris 10? Aka Ellesmere which is in the 470/480
Posted on Reply
#10
thevoiceofreason
cdawallNot even by type of GPU, XFX is undercutting everyone else wattage wise by 40+ watts. My sapphire clocks well, but consumes 170-190w (GPU only according to afterburner) at the same clocks the XFX cards are around 125w
You can probably undervolt it quite a bit, I have a sapphire rx running at 1.050V at normal clocks and some people are stable at even less. XFX cards are supposed to be running on lower voltage out of the factory.
Posted on Reply
#11
owen10578
thevoiceofreasonYou can probably undervolt it quite a bit, I have a sapphire rx running at 1.050V at normal clocks and some people are stable at even less. XFX cards are supposed to be running on lower voltage out of the factory.
Actually the XFX at the same voltage still runs with less power and is cooler. I think they're better binned or something. Also I saw a correlation between temperatures and power consumption where below 70C you start to see it has lower power consumption and gets lower the lower the temperatures.
Posted on Reply
#12
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
thevoiceofreasonYou can probably undervolt it quite a bit, I have a sapphire rx running at 1.050V at normal clocks and some people are stable at even less. XFX cards are supposed to be running on lower voltage out of the factory.
I was running 1.168v the video being mentioned was at 1.175 for the same clocks. The xfx drew less power at higher voltage.
Posted on Reply
#13
Chaitanya
cdawallNot even by type of GPU, XFX is undercutting everyone else wattage wise by 40+ watts. My sapphire clocks well, but consumes 170-190w (GPU only according to afterburner) at the same clocks the XFX cards are around 125w
I have noticed that, somehow XFX seems to have made those AMD gpus work for them better compared to competition. Although I was talking about prefrential treatment meted out to system partners over AIB makers.
Posted on Reply
#14
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
ChaitanyaI have noticed that, somehow XFX seems to have made those AMD gpus work for them better compared to competition. Although I was talking about prefrential treatment meted out to system partners over AIB makers.
Someone has to be paying for preferential binning. My brothers card is just like the one from the reviews. It is the lower end XXX edition and hits 1430 on stock volts and +20% power.
Posted on Reply
#15
ShurikN
cdawallSomeone has to be paying for preferential binning. My brothers card is just like the one from the reviews. It is the lower end XXX edition and hits 1430 on stock volts and +20% power.
So both XXX and GTR have lower power draw and better OC? OR just the GTR
Posted on Reply
#16
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
ShurikNSo both XXX and GTR have lower power draw and better OC? OR just the GTR
I am at 1480 with the sapphire so it is kind of a toss up as to what you want to think on that. He hit 1430 at stock voltage and only a 20% bump in power on the XXX
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Apr 27th, 2024 09:17 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts