wait until VR units become standard in self-driving cars--no longer will humans ever have to be concerned that they will encounter another human in public again. It's already difficult for too many people today.
Yeah, I have zero interest in it, and don't understand why anyone is interested in it.
I could maybe understand if it was more realistic, but it still looks like crap compared to reality, and that's going to be the case for a long time yet, as far as I can tell.
Even if it were realistic, I still have no interest in false reality.
And there's no way I am walking around my house with a thing on my head so I can watch CNN or porn or pretend I'm in the Civil War.
We already have people who can't pay attention to reality just from looking at their cell phones. They walk into things, crash their car, walk into you, etc.
They can't get along without their cell phones. If you take them away, they are like drug addicts without their fix.
I can't imagine what we'll get when people have the habit of wearing VR gear and being in a false reality for hours a day.
Well, to each his own.
Polaris was touted to be extremely efficient at Computex. AMD bragged about it and under delivered once again. It barely matches Maxwell's efficiency when it comes 2 years later and benefits from a full node shrink.
That's a strangely declarative statement considering the piles of new info pointing towards wonky boards and drivers in the review sample, at least.
Other cards seem to be doing exactly what they were touted to do.
It's one thing to look at some poor initial results and criticize them justly--but ignoring all of the conflicting data and updated drivers and retail boards that may not be part of this sample is rather disingenuous.
Raja said on Pcper that their focus was on the Polaris 11, the architecture was designed around it not Polaris 10. This is why your seeing the Rx 480 struggle in terms of power draw and frequency range.
RTG was built to make AMD focus on discreet graphics again, something that AMD didn't think well be profitable. Also he said Polaris is the first step to get back into the market and they know that that the competition is ahead atm. You should all go watch the interview it gives idea of what to expect from AMD in the future.
Well even if that is the case why the hell did they send them out? If they can't even cherry pick cards for review samples the general public is screwed. Unless some of these are cherry picked and it's gonna get worse.
Polaris was touted to be extremely efficient at Computex. AMD bragged about it and under delivered once again. It barely matches Maxwell's efficiency when it comes 2 years later and benefits from a full node shrink.
That's a strangely declarative statement considering the piles of new info pointing towards wonky boards and drivers in the review sample, at least.
Other cards seem to be doing exactly what they were touted to do.
It's one thing to look at some poor initial results and criticize them justly--but ignoring all of the conflicting data and updated drivers and retail boards that may not be part of this sample is rather disingenuous.
Since we are already in the DX-12 era, with all major AAA games coming the next 6-8 months being DX-12 titles like Dues-Ex, Civilization VI, BattleField 1, WatchDogs 2 etc etc, why dont we see how that perf/watt will be in those and the rest of the DX-12 games ?
One review measured the power consumption in Ashes Of The Singularity and it was 110W, how about Reviews measure the perf/watt in newer DX-12 titles like Warhammer and Hitman ?? Why nobody even benchmarked the one free DX-12 game available today ?? Forza Motorsport 6: Apex.
Since we are already in the DX-12 era, with all major AAA games coming the next 6-8 months being DX-12 titles like Dues-Ex, Civilization VI, BattleField 1, WatchDogs 2 etc etc, why dont we ALL demand from Reviews to see how that perf/watt will be in those and the rest of the DX-12 games ?
One review measured the power consumption in Ashes Of The Singularity and it was 110W, how about Reviews measure the perf/watt in newer DX-12 titles like Warhammer and Hitman ?? Why nobody even benchmarked the one free DX-12 game available today ?? Forza Motorsport 6: Apex.
What new info are you referring to? I am not caught on the latest rumors, but the majority of reviews (including, TPU, PCper) mentioned that Polaris10's efficiency barely matches Maxwell's. The only other controversy I am aware of is about the power draw over the PCIE slot, but I doubt that would play a role in the card's efficiency.
Since we are already in the DX-12 era, with all major AAA games coming the next 6-8 months being DX-12 titles like Dues-Ex, Civilization VI, BattleField 1, WatchDogs 2 etc etc, why dont we ALL demand from Reviews to see how that perf/watt will be in those and the rest of the DX-12 games ?
One review measured the power consumption in Ashes Of The Singularity and it was 110W, how about Reviews measure the perf/watt in newer DX-12 titles like Warhammer and Hitman ?? Why nobody even benchmarked the one free DX-12 game available today ?? Forza Motorsport 6: Apex.
I'd rather see benchmarks on a platform agnostic API like Vulkan.
But that's why I prefer TPU's format of aggregating an average of games. Their methodology doesn't favor either team.
there has been a smattering of info, I believe, from AMD but mostly from other review sights about the the new Wattman/Crimson package not being well optimized. Some posted reviews also show wildly different power draws that are inconsistent with the gloomy ones.
Basically: there are a number of reviews that show poor efficiency just as there are a number of reviews that show things are quite fine. Either decide which ones to pick as "the truth," or accept that something else is going on. Just too many variables out there to make a conclusive statement about this being a real issue or not. Also consider that the majority of reviewers received different boards than what are available to retail.
And then there is this bizarre review:
https://techaltar.com/amd-rx-480-gpu-review/4/
take that with a grain of salt--seems like no one has heard of this place--but those power draws actually show better than expected and benchmarks that make this look like the greatest card ever.
....yeah. Who knows. lol.
check out the main review thread. It is wildly inconsistent in terms of performance. That tells me there is something of a chip/board lottery going on with at least what was available for reviewers (One would think that AMD would not send such boards out to reviewers knowing this was going on, so that is probably true to some degree for retail cards as well. Or it's just drivers and some combination of the both)
Only one review that contradicts dozens of other ones that are far more reputable? That's one anomaly I would attribute to testing methodology or credentials.
I hope it will clear out, but if it's another screw up from AMD, then you can just say that AMD never fails to disappoint with their botched launches.
that is some weird @#$% going on. like, what the hell.Still hard to fathom, all this talk by AMD about their new power features and Wattman... and this happens:
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06...el_potenzial_fuer_undervoltage_bei_der_rx_480
Just a simple under-volt in Wattman, they dropped power usage by 33W AND performance increased by 4.7%!
Instead of a 150W card that's behind a 390X, you now have a ~120W RX 480 that has 390X performance.
This is quite telling, because it's clear AMD's new power features are just not working as intended. It is not extracting peak optimal performance out of the chip at all.
This reminds me of the 7950 and 280 boost edition, where they just jacked up vcore to 1.25 default (earlier 7950 had 1 to 1.125 vcore) causing them to use a lot more power for nothing.
Yet another fail.
Vulkan may be more GCN favorable than DX-12.
You do know that out of 16 games in the TPU reviews the last months, 10 games are NVIDIA GameWorks and only a single one is AMD Gaming Evolved (HITMAN) and that one is benchmarked in DX-11.
Vulkan may be more GCN favorable than DX-12.
You do know that out of 16 games in the TPU reviews the last months, 10 games are NVIDIA GameWorks and only a single one is AMD Gaming Evolved (HITMAN) and that one is benchmarked in DX-11.
Still hard to fathom, all this talk by AMD about their new power features and Wattman... and this happens:
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06...el_potenzial_fuer_undervoltage_bei_der_rx_480
Just a simple under-volt in Wattman, they dropped power usage by 33W AND performance increased by 4.7%!
Instead of a 150W card that's behind a 390X, you now have a ~120W RX 480 that has 390X performance.
This is quite telling, because it's clear AMD's new power features are just not working as intended. It is not extracting peak optimal performance out of the chip at all.
This reminds me of the 7950 and 280 boost edition, where they just jacked up vcore to 1.25 default (earlier 7950 had 1 to 1.125 vcore) causing them to use a lot more power for nothing.
Yet another fail.
that is some weird @#$% going on. like, what the hell.
I mean AMD likes to overvolt their chips and this is a chronic problem on them at this point, just look at Phenom IIs or FXes that could do stock clocks at -0.2 to -0.3v less depending on the particular model..
Now that's more like what's you'd expect from a 14nm class product. Why can't they get these kind of things right on launch? RX480's image could've been so much better at 120w for this segment vs the competition. You'd think they'd have gotten the factory overvolting "problem" under control after all these years and all those power management slides... What the hell.
I understand jacking up voltage across the board gets you better yields on otherwise mediocre silicon, but is it actually the reason they do this all the time or just piss poor binning to save money and guarantee functional dies?
I understand jacking up voltage across the board gets you better yields on otherwise mediocre silicon, but is it actually the reason they do this all the time or just piss poor binning to save money and guarantee functional dies?