No it won't (or it shouldn't unless AMD made changes) as their current memory compression doesn't. Both AMD and Nvidia already use lossless compression, which means when you decompress something, you get the same result as what you had prior to compressing it.
Think of it like the FLAC audio codec which is a way of compressing audio files. All of the information is retained and you can get back exactly the same data as was input.
Here's my minimal expectation for the RX480. I want ~390X performance at stock clocks with the ability to overclock to 1500mhz. I have a feeling I'm going to be disappointed in the RX480. AMD always find a way to fail. Please let me be wrong.
I should probably read an article on this, but do they need a new architecture for the compression changes or is it driver level, meaning they could apply what they've done to all of gcn?
I am not sure if he is trying to get a job at NV or he doesn't understand that launches can be in a different order (NV's Maxwell went: GTX750/750Ti - low end first, then GTX970/980 - marketing high-end, then GTX960/950 - mainstream/performance segment, then Titan X/980Ti - enthusiast segment).
It would be akin to expecting a $249 HD7850 to compete with a $399 GTX670 and $499 GTX680. It would be somewhat forgivable had AMD not communicated many times that their high-end cards are Vega, not Polaris.
I should probably read an article on this, but do they need a new architecture for the compression changes or is it driver level, meaning they could apply what they've done to all of gcn?
Nobody knows but for example someone mentioned powercooler will have theirs mid July. It took like 2-3 weeks for non reference 1070's to show up so figure about the same time frame.How long until we get non reference coolers? Would love to get one from XFX or Sapphire with a better cooler in late July.
Nobody knows but for example someone mentioned powercooler will have theirs mid July. It took like 2-3 weeks for non reference 1070's to show up so figure about the same time frame.
Yea I just went and entered that too. I most likely will probably wait until mid July to get one anyway.Powercolor's drawing to win a Devil RX 480 is on July 11, so the expectation is somewhere around then at least.
Mopetar said:It's done in hardware as far as I'm aware. You could theoretically do it in software, but it may not be practical for a GPU to do depending on the implementation details for the algorithm.
You seem to be very much devoted to comparing videocards on paper rather than actually using them (remember how you defended the worthless FurMark as somehow relevant to discussing a videocard's power usage).
GTX960 is an engineering marvel compared to the GTX760, outperforming it in nearly every metric that matters. As an end consumer product, in educated tech circles and longevity wise, it was a terrible product. Perf/mm2, perf/Tflops, all of these metrics are useless if in the end a $149-179 RX 470 and $199-249 RX 480 are the best consumer products in the $150-300 price range. You continue to discredit P10 by coming out with some obsure metrics no one else buy you cares about while ignoring that P10 is about to bring 70% more performance than a GTX960 in the same performance class. It absolutely doesn't matter if AMD used a V12, twin-turbo V6, supercharged V8, twin-scroll turbo inline-6, or a combination of twin-turbo and supercharging. All that matters to the 84% target market is the end result to the consumer.
Right now NV has increased prices of GTX970 -> 1070 by $70-120 ($399-$449) and increased the prices from GTX680 -> 1080 by roughly 24-40% ($499->$620-$699). Use any engineering metric you want in the world, AMD is replacing HD7850 at a similar price, while NV is jacking up prices at the cost of consumer value. Consumers actually buying RX 480 will not care about obscure metrics like Perf/mm2 or Perf/Tflops.
Probably not. But I still think that if it only matches Hawaii (especially if it is closer to 390 than 390X) it is falling short of what it should be. Back in 2012, 7870 (full Pitcairn) provided about 79% of the performance of the GTX 670 (cut GK104). I think we both agree that P10 is the successor to Pitcairn (roughly the same die size and market positioning) and that even if Nvidia has inflated its price point, GP104 is the successor to GM204 which is the successor to GK104. But if P10 only gives 390-390X performance, that would only be 65-70% of GTX 1070 performance (at the 1080p resolution). In other words, assuming no last-minute driver fixes, P10 is doing worse compared to GP104 than Pitcairn was in comparison to GK104. And that's without taking into account that GTX 1070 is much more severely cut-down from the full chip than GTX 670 was.
How is this supposed to work in software? It would have to be implemented in the ROPs, and they are pretty much fixed function.
It's not an isolated event, there have been a lot of driver instability rumors
A lot of people, I'm sure you can back that up link to three. A lot implies much more than 3 but start there.yeah, I never said that
just pointing out that a lot of people saying the release drivers are unstable isn't a good thing
A lot of people, I'm sure you can back that up link to three. A lot implies much more than 3 but start there.
And where are you pulling those numbers from?A lot in this case moreso implies the percentage of negative reports out of all reports on launch drivers is high. If you have 6 actual driver reports and 3 show up bad then it's a lot.
A lot in this case moreso implies the percentage of negative reports out of all reports on launch drivers is high. If you have 6 actual driver reports and 3 show up bad then it's a lot.
and where did that magic percent come from?Probably no major difference between 16.6.2 and 16.5.2, I'll give it exactly 5%.
Probably no major difference between 16.6.2 and 16.5.2, I'll give it exactly 5%.
The performance difference doesn't matter. What does is the cards crash with unsupported driversProbably no major difference between 16.6.2 and 16.5.2, I'll give it exactly 5%.