Different clock rates (NDA traps, or maybe just different AIB cards with different factory OC) could account for most if not all of these disparate benchmarks. We aren't talking about that huge of a variation in performance, just 10%-20%.
270x doesn't use 180 watts. It uses much less. http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1070/22.html
Why is the 390 -> 390X gap from 79% to 97%? That doesn't line up with the scores above.
Why is the 390 -> 390X gap from 79% to 97%? That doesn't line up with the scores above.
He said that they said it was retail, and last I looked, retail products are pretty much final in terms of clockspeed.
Drivers are a different matter though.
Clock speeds are at the discretion of the AIB. Unless they're all reference cards, they could and probably will have different factory clocks. This is typical of any new GPU release.
The last few months of hype and the inevitable disappointment:
1. AMD will beat Nvidia to release because it's a new node. (false)
2. Samsung 14nm FF is superior to TSMC FF and achieves 2.5x density, so 230mm2 Polaris should easily match Fury X and will be a disappointment if not. (false)
3. Polaris 10 early benchmarks aren't disappointing because it's a cut down chip. (false)
Now we're looking at RX 480 potentially being slower than GTX 980 and R9 390x, and definitely being slower than an OC'd GTX 980. Man this is turning into a huge disappointment.
Dude why did you worship "half gm200 size" and then blasts polaris 10? It is half the hawaii sizeCouldn't agree more.
SteamVR puts it below Radeon R9 390 / Geforce GTX 980, and barely above the 'good enough' for VR. Note that they didn't even mention VR for the Radeon RX 470, probably because it's below the minimum required.
Seriously, the best they got out of 232mm² worth of 14nm LPP silicon (more if it were using Pascal's less dense process) is barely matching the old Hawaii (if that)? No matter how you twist it, that's fairly unimpressive. If we look at the competition, 314mm² GP104 is considerably faster at almost half GM200's size.
If you look at perf/watt, their 110W (TDP?) part delivers 80% Geforce GTX 970 performance @ Fire Strike. Problem is, Geforce GTX 970 is a 2-year old 145W TDP part on 28nm planar. GP106 could very well deliver better perf/watt and perf/mm² while matching Polaris 10's performance based on today's results.
Dude why did you worship "half gm200 size" and then blasts polaris 10? It is half the hawaii size
Dude why did you worship "half gm200 size" and then blasts polaris 10? It is half the hawaii size
Except today's SteamVR score puts it below Hawaii XT, meanwhile GP104 is 31.5% faster than GM200.
Let me ask you guys a serious question.
Why do you think there's only 1 Polaris 11 based SKU, the RX 460?
Think about it and use your logic.
Then do you really think Polaris 11 is only 1024 SP or 16 CU?
Even if your theory was true, I doubt they will release these imaginary products with higher CU count for regular desktops.
So with the gains showcased in those leaks (R370X -> RX470 and R380X -> RX480), could you extrapolate the gains of 290x to Vega 10 (which should compete with 1070)?
In addition Vega was stated to have an even higher perf/w, probably due to HBM?
This could be compared to the gains from 970GTX to 1070GTX for relevant metrics (performance or perf/watt) and ballpark who'll be ahead for that battle... Ofc Nvidia could release a 1070Ti as well....
Sorry, after overclocked it is more like http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38275319&postcount=1Except today's SteamVR score puts it below Hawaii XT, meanwhile GP104 is 31.5% faster than GM200.
And yes, the reason there's only 1 Polaris 11 SKU, is it's the harvested part, 1024 SP. I posted this yesterday that if the SP count is 1024, you can be sure it's a cut chip because earlier SiSoft leak list the ES has 20 CU, 1280 SP. If you think 1024 SP is the full chip, you have to ask yourself: Is AMD selling cut Polaris 11 to Apple? What's the more logical situation here..
This could be compared to the gains from 970GTX to 1070GTX for relevant metrics (performance or perf/watt) and ballpark who'll be ahead for that battle... Ofc Nvidia could release a 1070Ti as well....
If you look at perf/watt, their 110W (TDP?) part delivers 80% Geforce GTX 970 performance @ Fire Strike. Problem is, Geforce GTX 970 is a 2-year old 145W TDP part on 28nm planar. GP106 could very well deliver better perf/watt and perf/mm² while matching Polaris 10's performance based on today's results.
Sorry, after overclocked it is more like http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38275319&postcount=1
So basically you're paying the same price for 23% more performance.
Now take a look at Polaris 10, it is 65% the price of the cheapest 390X ($350) but offers around the same performance as 390X in firestrike. You do need to remember that not all people in the world lives in America (Americans population in the world is only 4.3%), the rest of the world had to pay 390X at MSRP, so Polaris 10 is 53% of the price of 390X ($429).
at almost half the price you get nearly similar performance.
And that is a negative? Wow the amount of negative shilling is very apparent here.
Where are you getting FS results for rx470? I'm seeing on vcz they got ~13,500 3dmark11 points which matches 970 and a to overclock above 16,000 which is above 980 ref
http://videocardz.com/61005/new-amd-radeon-rx-480-3dmark-benchmarks
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-and-980-reference-review,20.html
Must be supply issue, basic economics. Nvidia needed to release the cards even when the quantities are limited. This is not even on the same page as jacked up 290/290X's prices because that was hogged by miners.It's not the same price.
$699 1080 vs $649 980Ti. Most custom 1080 are around $699 as well, with some of them even higher. -_-
People keep on using this false MSRP when the cards are selling way above that.
Right now in my region, 1080s are ~$1179 AUD while 980Ti custom models are $899.
I'm using the only official result provided by AMD so far, 9.090 pts @ Fire Strike.