measuring pixels as if the marketing flunkie that put that chart together (several times) was at all that accurate is like converting the bible to numbers to predict the date of the apocalypse
Of course, more leaks would be nice. But to your example: same is true for ARM, MIPS, PIC, AVR at high enough clocks. So no point has been made.And if Bible was written by AMD marketing, then we'd be @ ~5th coming of Jesus by now.
This thread keeps going without any real info and leaks. Wake me up when we have a solid estimate of clocks, then we can start making educated guesses about perf if AMD did not screw up design. Remember, any Intel gen since Sandy will destroy Zen with ease if it has clock advantage that is substantial enough.
Their power consumption numbers simply do not match their perf/w claims.I'm mentally fully prepared to see Zen failing,l however I'll still be extremely gutted if it happens because of the manufacturing process.
Based on the Polaris overclocking and power draw results, the 14nm LPP process looks to be significantly worse than I expected (and my expectations were non-existent to begin with) :'(
The reference cards are at least somewhat limited by the cooling, however the < 1350MHz (average, based on reviews) Fmax is still extremely disappointing. Power delivery wise the reference cards are absolutely fine since they feature a six phase digital VRM. Also a card featuring GPU this small, running at clocks as low as ~1266MHz should not violate the PCI-E device power delivery specifications D: I'm mentally fully prepared to see Zen failing,l however I'll still be extremely gutted if it happens because of the manufacturing process. And frankly I don't see any other way Zen to fail, since I'm pretty confident about the design itself.
Their power consumption numbers simply do not match their perf/w claims.
Starting from now, any new claim they make about Zen better be backed by a live demo.
Saying they outright lied would be an understatement. Its FX all over.
I never thought that Polaris would match Pascal in terms of performance/watt since NVIDIA has had a pretty solid lead there. But a 14LPP product, given how nice FinFETs are, failing to compete on performance/watt with a TSMC 28nm part is really unfortunate and disappointing.
I wouldn't put the blame entirely on the process. As I have said on these forums before, 16FF+ is a more efficient process than 14LPP, but GTX 1080 is ~82% more efficient than the RX 480 according to TPU. The majority of that delta likely comes from architecture, not process.
Welcome to the world of reality
High = Higher SIDD (lower voltage operation, runs hotter)
Lower = Low SIDD (higher voltage operation, runs cooler)
Are you trying to suggest that higher voltage leakage = higher operating voltage = runs cooler? Pretty sure you got the thermal parts backwards.
The more voltage leakage the higher the operating voltage needs to be in order to compensate for the excessive voltage drop associated with lower leakage resistance and thus the higher operating temps.
There appears to be huge variations in the leakage between the different Polaris 10 ASIC specimens. The factory programmed ASIC leakage value (SIDD) can be read from the fuse registers (interpreted as ASIC "Quality" by GPU-Z) and here is what some of the review samples had:
High = Higher SIDD (lower voltage operation, runs hotter)
Lower = Low SIDD (higher voltage operation, runs cooler)
Note: a rough definition.
Muropaketti: 87.1%
TPU: 83.0%
Sweclockers: 74.3%
Nordichardware: 75.6%
Hexus: 75.2%
The sample Muropaketti received ran so hot that the card throttled at stock, despite the fan was running at 100% speed.
If TPUs sample was already exceeding the PCI-E power specifications by > 11%, I wonder by how much do the highest leaking samples violate it
Also the reviewed cards (at least TPU) weren't even using prototype or ES silicon, but the very same stuff the retail cards are shipped with. This is pretty unusual since it's been a good while since I've seen a day 1 review featuring anything but ES silicon. Sometimes even the very first retail cards have ES marked silicon on them.
Higher leakage means that the transistors s threshold voltage is lower, hence they conduct (leak) more when switched off but at the same time since they are closer to the conduction state a lower voltage is required to make them switch as fast (conduct the same current) as low leakage siblings.
Are you trying to suggest that higher voltage leakage = higher operating voltage = runs cooler? Pretty sure you got the thermal parts backwards.
Isn't it pretty common knowledge that better ASIC quality means less voltage required to operate at stable clocks due to lower voltage leakage and thus higher ASIC quality cards run cooler due to their lower operating voltage but overclock worse than less ASIC quality due to less headroom?
The more voltage leakage the higher the operating voltage needs to be in order to compensate for the excessive voltage drop associated with lower leakage resistance and thus the higher operating temps.
Unless you are privy to knowledge that the majority is ignorant to and you would like to share and or elaborate on further?