The analysis posted is absurd. The entire reason the performance per watt metric exists is so to avoid the multitude of conclusions that can be reached when looking at stock vs oc vs temp vs die size across different architectures.
AMD is ahead of nVidia in perf / watt. Full stop. Pascal is showing 60-70% better perf / watt vs maxwell, which isn't bad. This would suggest they can create a 100 w actual tdp gtx 970 but what we're seeing with p10 is 100w gtx980+ performance and 70-80w gtx 970 perf in rx 470. P11 is likely to kick ass in notebooks as a consequence.
Shareholders should be happy. It remains to be seen just how good rx480 performs for enthusiasts when wattage is dialed up.
AMD has been slapped in mobile and mass market. While we're sitting around wondering whether rx480 is 390x +/-20% the real intention of p10/11 - efficiency gains - has already been a massive success. nVidia is for once categorically behind amd in efficiency.
So....
It's really really interesting that these kinds of things are being said:
Nvidia is categorically behind? AMD is ahead in perf per watt? Spoken in such absolutes!! Sure, I guess those kind of comments aren't getting criticized.
Anyway, we can't speak in such absolutes about polaris vs pascal when it comes to per per watt and then have an issue when others project....especially when the latter clearly states it to be projections based on limited info.
But, just because we happen to be posting in a thread that has the 470 in a chart with pascal....and the fact that amd provided some numbers, which are in the article in the op. You know, it was some numbers amd gave which makes you assume that Polaris will have some great perf per watt advantage in the first place. But, let's just follow this out here....
We have some percentages by amd which makes it easy to assume that Polaris will have a great effiency lead. And, at the same time, we also have some numbers from amd that this article in the op talks about. One is 110watt, which they compare to their older architecture. The other, some performance figures.
So, we have this chart and we have the 470 score. We have this 110 watt that amd provided and is used in their efficiency figures.
-we also have the 1080 in the chart, and we know what it's tdp is. We also can find pretty exact figures that have been tested....
So, based in both scores, using 110watt provide by amd and the known 1080 power consumption-----it's kind of not adding up to the 470 having a major perf per watt advantage. Not here, not even. It's actually, going by the info here, no advantage for Polaris.
Now mind you, this is going on limited info. But, that is all we have right now. And speaking specifically in reference to the data in the op...which the thread is about. Perhaps we shouldn't be talking in such absolutes when it comes to Polaris effiency advantage vs pascal.
At least, the numbers in the op benchmark doesn't show such things...that is, if we use the tdp amd provided for the performance