Why is it whenever an AMD product underperforms it's GloFo's fault? 14LPP isn't as good as 16FF+, but the performance delta at the process level is like 10-15% tops.
GloFo gonna GloFo.
Why is it whenever an AMD product underperforms it's GloFo's fault? 14LPP isn't as good as 16FF+, but the performance delta at the process level is like 10-15% tops.
So performs worse than the no connector 75W GTX 950s and draws more power?
TPU only measures the GPU, Chiphell graph is for the entire system (109W in not the RX 460 alone ).
Also RX 460 compete against the GTX 750Ti not the GTX 950.
Also RX 460 compete against the GTX 750Ti not the GTX 950.
From the leaked benches Polaris 11 barely outperforms a 2.5 years old 28nm planar 750 Ti and uses more power.
GloFo isn't to blame for it all.
Why is it whenever an AMD product underperforms it's GloFo's fault? 14LPP isn't as good as 16FF+, but the performance delta at the process level is like 10-15% tops.
I don't think AMD agrees with you on that one, given that they themselves have compared it to the 950.
I don't think we can conclude yet whether or not the 460 uses more power than a 750 Ti. As AtenRa mentioned the ChipHell numbers are system power, and since we don't have comparable numbers for the 750 Ti, we can't really compare yet.
We have the leaked PurePC results where RX 460 is hotter and uses a bit more power:
http://videocardz.com/63033/gigabyte-radeon-rx-460-windforce-2x-performance-leaked
Tomorrow we find out if the much better perf/watt than Maxwell they promised earlier this year turns out to be true or not. And no, the full chip at lower clocks wouldn't do miracles so that excuse is not valid.
That's an aftermarket 460 and 750 Ti though, so the reference numbers are still up in the air.
Any benchmarks that has the RX 460 bellow R7 260X are subject to question.
That's why I am saying it is power limited, and the clocks are dropping below base due to hitting the 75W limit. When this was originally rumored to be a 50 W part.
That comparison was for perf/watt at 60fps cap, also that RX 460 they used back then could be the full chip and not the cut down version they are using for the RX 460 today. The product itself today (RX 460) compete against the GTX 750Ti.
How are you so quick to dismiss that Glofo is not to blame. AMD is basically pumping a lot more voltage than necessary as to qualify a lot more dies as working Rx 480. The fact that you can undervolt and get better performance due to reduced clock throttling shows that the process has significant variance which is forcing AMD to use more voltage to qualify the maximum dies possible.
Agreed. Even more, I feel that the 460 was in fact the rumored 450 that has that ammount of shadders for the lowest tier market and OEMs.Dr
How convenient, comparing a new 14 nm card with the previous generation 28 nm card from your competitor. It had better win, and should win by a lot more than it does.
Actually, the 460 will "compete" with whatever the market determines, not some artificially constrained scenario posited by AMD to make the chip look more competitive than it really is. Basically, it "competes" against any card of similar price that does not require a six pin connector. The 460 seems to me by far the worst of the Polaris line. Its only saving grace is that it offers semi-competent 1080p performance without a six pin connector. Yes, it beats nVidia's previous generation 750 Ti (but not by as much as it should) and probably would lose to a 75 watt 950, although I consider that to be a sort of fringe card, much like the "green" 9800 GTs that came out a few years ago. And we haven't seen the true competitor yet, which will be the nVidia 10xx equivalent. Given the significant performance/watt advantage nVidia still owns, I would expect that they could squeeze a lot more performance into a sub 75 watt card, should they care to. I am also hoping nVidia (or later AMD) chooses to put out a card at around a hundred watts with performance intermediate between the 460 and 470.
It's the same custom model from Gigabyte (Windforce 2X), it is comparable. And I'm not concluding anything, I clearly said 'from the leaked benches'.
I'm not so sure there is anything to worry about. AMD might send full Polaris 11 to laptops (as the 480m) and workstations where the margins are much higher.Its more worrying AMD can't sell the RX460 as a 1024 shader card. 1024 shaders at 1.1GHZ+ would get closer to a GTX950. Polaris 11 does not look a very big GPU either. The R7 370 has nearly 15% more shaders.
Dr
How convenient, comparing a new 14 nm card with the previous generation 28 nm card from your competitor. It had better win, and should win by a lot more than it does.
Actually, the 460 will "compete" with whatever the market determines, not some artificially constrained scenario posited by AMD to make the chip look more competitive than it really is. Basically, it "competes" against any card of similar price that does not require a six pin connector.
There's a review of RX 470 on Serbian Benchmark.rs web site but I dunno if accidentally or on purpose, they've put results of Saphire Nitro rx 460 4gb.
http://www.benchmark.rs/artikal/test_sapphire_radeon_rx_470_nitro_8_gb-4169/6 .
Seems that it does around Gtx 950 performance, but in DX12 same as or higher then Gtx 960.
Can't believe I did Sign up on Anandtech forum just so everyone can check this out.
There's a review of RX 470 on Serbian Benchmark.rs web site but I dunno if accidentally or on purpose, they've put results of Saphire Nitro rx 460 4gb.
http://www.benchmark.rs/artikal/test_sapphire_radeon_rx_470_nitro_8_gb-4169/6 .
Seems that it does around Gtx 950 performance, but in DX12 same as or higher then Gtx 960.
Can't believe I did Sign up on Anandtech forum just so everyone can check this out.
I'm not quite sure how you can tell that the performance is similar to a 950, when the review doesn't include a 950 (as far as I can tell).
Either way the performance of the 460 is equal to 48% of a 480, which is quite decent when it only has 39% as many shaders (don't know what the core frequency is though). In comparison the PurePC review had the 460 at 43% of a 480, however this was with aftermarket models, a 4GB 480 instead of 8GB, and with both cards running in silent/quiet mode.