the54thvoidOh, that's quite far away. :(

One year after Pascal. FWIW, a Titan X (not full GP102 core) is 37% faster than a 1080 at 4k Vulkan Doom. It's just when people call Vega's performance stupendous and then repeat such things, it's a bit baity. Once Vega is out it's on a smaller node, has more cores and more compute with more 'superness' than Pascal. So if it doesn't beat Titan X, it's not superb enough frankly.



The architecture is a year old.

RejZoRYeah, well, they apparently found a way. Because the traditional "prefetching" just wouldn't make any kind of sense, we already do that in existing games. All Unreal 3.x and 4.x games use texture streaming which is location based around the player, so you don't store textures in memory for entire level, but just for the segment player is in and has a view of. The rest is streamed into VRAM per need basis as you move around and done by the engine itself.

efikkanManual prefetching in a game is possible, because the developer might be able to reason about possible movement several frames ahead, I've done this myself in simulators.
But it's impossible for the GPU to do this itself, since it only sees memory accesses and instructions and clear patterns in these.

RejZoRYou do know GPU isn't just hardware these days, it's also software part and drivers sure can know a whole lot of things about what and how game is shuffling stuff through VRAM.

efikkanEven the driver is not able to reason about how the camera might move and which resource which might be needed in the future. The only thing the driver and the GPU sees is simple buffers, textures, meshes, etc. The GPU have no information about the internal logic of the game, so it has no ability to reason about what might happen. The only way to know this is if the programmer intentionally designs the game engine and tells the GPU this somehow.

TotallyGood catch I didn't see till you pointed that out I had assumed that it was relative performance(%) between the best performing card and all the others but seeing the top performing card at 98.4 indicates that is not the case.

TotallyYour conclusion based on the data is wrong. You need to break the data into their proper components. you need to look at the 9XX, 10XX, 3XX, and 4XX separately since they are all different arc, when lump them together like that you are hiding the fact that the scaling of the 10XX(1060->1080) is pretty bad and being propped up by the 9XX when lumped together as AMD vs. Nvidia.

RejZoRIt does. It sees what resources are being used on what basis and arrange the usage accordingly on a broader scale and not down to individual texture level.

SteevoIf you played through a game and identified all the data points of FPS less than 60 you could go find the reasons, and preemptively correct the issue by either prefetching data

CammAMD just didn't play in the high end this generation for various reasons.

TotallyThe reason they crippled it was that was Titan cutting into their own workstation graphics business. People aren't going to give up their hard earned when they don't have to and the original Titan presented a very viable alternative to their Quadro line, so Titan in that form had to go. I say it was more a self-preservation move than cost-cutting.

jabbadapThe problem on your Gflops chart is that Gflops depends on gpu clock and you have taken them on ihvs given numbers. Thumb of rule were that on amd side given gflops are probably little too big, card is throttling clocks back before given up-to clock GFlops(furyX being exception because of water cooling, oh and GFlops for RX480 are not from up-to clock's which should be 5,834GFlops). And for nvidia given GFlops figure is too small, because of real gpu clock is higher than given boost clock GFlops.

I.E. Titan X Gflops are given as 2*1.417GHz*3584cc=10,157GFlops while in gaming gpu clock is higher than that, in tpus review boost clock for titan xp is ~1.62GHz which means 2*1.62GHz*3584cc= 11,612GFlops. Why this matters is that real boost clock for nvidia's cards varies more per card and thus the real GFlops differs more from the given value.

ensabrenoir......dosent matter when they release it cause nvdia has a counter punch ready.

efikkanI'm just curious, what is the counterpart from Nvidia? (Except for 1080 Ti which will arrive before Vega)

Captain_TomI fully expect Vega 10 to beat the Titan XP. In fact I would say the real question is if it beats the Titan XP Black.

ensabrenoir....counter "punch" .......Nvdia could just drop the price of the 1080s, or start talking about the 20 series or do nothing and let the 1080ti ride. They seem confident that it'll retain the crown even after vega......

cdawallNot really these are targeted at the 1080Ti not 1080. This would be about average for AMD vs Nvidia release schedule. I do however find it to be a bit annoying on the hype train as per usual. I was expecting a Jan-Feb release.

owen10578Vega 11 replacing Polaris 10? So is this going to be a complete next gen product stack aka RX 5xx? I thought its supposed to add to the current product stack at the high end. The information seems off.

TheGuruStudFilling the SPs with the much enhanced scheduler should do it easily.

Captain_TomJust read their bloody map!!! 2016 had the 480 as a stopgap while they got their nearly all HBM2 line-up ready.