antihelten
Golden Member
- Feb 2, 2012
- 1,764
- 274
- 126
This road map. Perf/watt over time.
doh!, I don't know how I forgot about that one.
Based upon that graph it would look like Vega has ~50% better efficiency than Polaris (and thus 3.75 times the efficiency of 28nm GPUs).
Of course an increase in efficiency doesn't necessarily mean an increase in performance/IPC, but then again that was actually what we saw with the Kepler to Maxwell transition. Maxwell had roughly a 40-45% increase in efficiency (compared to Titan), along with roughly a 25% increase in IPC per core. If the Polaris to Vega transition is the same, then we might also be looking at roughly a 25% increase in IPC. This, along with the 60% increase in shader, would lead to a total improvement of more or less 100% (this all assumes that Vega and Polaris has the same clocks of course).
Combined with the numbers from my previous post, this would put Vega about 30-35% ahead of GP104. There's no way Nvidia would be able to compete with this without a new GPU.
Of course this assumes that the Polaris to Vega transition would be similar to the Kepler to Maxwell transition, which is very speculative to put it mildly.
The 2.5x already seems wrong since the CEO wont commit to it with investors. And there is no numbering on the left. So you dont even know if the scaling is supposed to be linear either.
Doing a bit of pixel counting reveals that the Polaris box is sitting almost exactly 2.5 times higher than the 28nm GPU box, relative to the x axis. So it would appear that the graph is actually linear, but of course it's still just a PR slide, so grain of salt and all that.
Last edited: