I have never bought an AMD card and I have nothign against AMD either. I hope the Polaris is faster than a 1070 and less money than a 1070. We need more competition to bring the prices down.
That's impossible. 232mm2 chip with rumoured 1266mhz GPU clocks was never designed to beat a 314mm2 chip with 1683mhz GPU boost clocks, and also you want it to cost less? Think of x70/x80 cards as GTX670/680 while Vega 10 is HD7950/7970. That makes Polaris 10 HD7850/7870 level cards that competed with GTX660 (aka GTX1060/1060Ti GP106). Polaris 10 will also cost substantially less than the $379-449 prices of 1070. Another way to look at it is GP104 is a 1440p 60Hz card while Polaris 10 is a 1080p 60Hz card. Both make perfect sense for their respective market segments.
Looks like you have not been paying attention. AMD have said time and time again that they are targeting the mainstream and performance segments first. Translation - $300 and down, where >80% of the market lies (in units). Their goal is to regain market share they lost last generation due to the 20nm debacle. So they will ship the mainstream chips first, with high-end later. Nvidia is going the opposite route releasing their high-end first, mainstream later. The end result is Nvidia is unchallenged in the high-end space, while AMD will be unchallenged in the mid-range space.
Don't worry, AMD haven't given up on high-end, there's Vega coming for that. Similarly, Nvidia haven't given up on the <$300 market, they have GP106 and GP107 coming (and possibly a further cut down GP104).
If AMD doesn't release a card thats 50% faster than Titan X for $150 I'm never buying from them again. I'd rather pay Nvidia $10,000 for a 25% faster than Titan X card!
:thumbsdown:
AMD is going to be bringing high end GPUs to mainstream, this has been their goal forever and what they've talked about. They want everyone to be able to have a VR ready computer, not only the select 7.5m gamers with 290/970+ performance card @ $300+ entry price.
http://wccftech.com/amd-polaris-mainstream-vr-market/
https://youtu.be/p010lp5uLQA?t=933
Why be so sarcastic and why exaggerate so much? Nvidia peopel arent paying $10000 for card and why cant AMD release a fast card for cheaper? They are the vastly smaller company and seem to be playing catch up quite often. Let be real Nvidia dominates AMD for a reason. AMD has messed up too many times and have had the same strategy for a decades now. I want AMD to pick it up. I am not a fanboy at all. I want whatever is the best bang for the buck. But AMD pisses me off
Because AMD has constantly had better price/perf cards compared to Nvidia since Hawaii first came out. Hasn't done them much good as far as market share goes and people constantly want cheaper and faster or no buy. How the hell is the company supposed to grow if they have to constantly provide cheaper parts that are faster? Nvidia loves their massive profits per sale compared to AMD.
Why be so sarcastic and why exaggerate so much? Nvidia peopel arent paying $10000 for card and why cant AMD release a fast card for cheaper? They are the vastly smaller company and seem to be playing catch up quite often. Let be real Nvidia dominates AMD for a reason. AMD has messed up too many times and have had the same strategy for a decades now. I want AMD to pick it up. I am not a fanboy at all. I want whatever is the best bang for the buck. But AMD pisses me off
So why is Nvidia far bigger if AMD has constantly had better price/performance cards?
That's impossible. 232mm2 chip with rumoured 1266mhz GPU clocks was never designed to beat a 314mm2 chip with 1683mhz GPU boost clocks, and also you want it to cost less? Think of x70/x80 cards as GTX670/680 while Vega 10 is HD7950/7970. That makes Polaris 10 HD7850/7870 level cards that competed with GTX660 (aka GTX1060/1060Ti GP106). Polaris 10 will also cost substantially less than the $379-449 prices of 1070. Another way to look at it is GP104 is a 1440p 60Hz card while Polaris 10 is a 1080p 60Hz card. Both make perfect sense for their respective market segments.
However isn't 1070 consisting of just 75% of the 314mm2 die in terms of performance & Cuda Cores. Well it keeps the size but is a cut down version.
That maybe makes it easier to cool down etc. But still Polaris 10 should easily be head to head to 1070 or even above it considering the slightly better density between the 16nm FinFET of the 314mm2 chip vs the 14nm FinFET
As we know from the apple chips the difference in the 2 nodes provides about 9% size difference . And when you add the fact that that comparison is between the 16nm FinFET Nvidia is using vs the 14nm FinFET LPE and not the 14nm FinFET LPP that AMD is using for Polaris then the difference between a cut down 314mm2 chip vs a full 232mm2 P10 might be in huge favor for Polaris
314mm2 cut down version is relative power of a 235mm2 chip.
232mm2 chip adding 9% for density could equal a 252mm2 chip made at 16nm FinFET
If we add 10% for the LPE to LPP difference (samsung states 15% difference not in density but in performance) then it jumps to possible relative comparison to equal a 277mm2 16nm and that is way more than what 1070 is.
I am completely unaware if i can use such comparisons in reality but that is what i am reading the past month and what makes most sense to me
Meaning a P10 can and should beat 1070 unless AMD goes for much less power efficiency vs performance. While it is a 232mm2 chip and it should cost less than the 1070 (even before considering how much overpriced the 1070 is)
That's exactly what they've been doing for years? Other than the top-end name one segment where AMD doesn't deliver better price/performance.
Yeah 1070 is just 1060TI.Polaris 10 should compete with it.Or be within 10% of 1070.However isn't 1070 consisting of just 75% of the 314mm2 die in terms of performance & Cuda Cores. Well it keeps the size but is a cut down version.
That maybe makes it easier to cool down etc. But still Polaris 10 should easily be head to head to 1070 or even above it considering the slightly better density between the 16nm FinFET of the 314mm2 chip vs the 14nm FinFET
As we know from the apple chips the difference in the 2 nodes provides about 9% size difference . And when you add the fact that that comparison is between the 16nm FinFET Nvidia is using vs the 14nm FinFET LPE and not the 14nm FinFET LPP that AMD is using for Polaris then the difference between a cut down 314mm2 chip vs a full 232mm2 P10 might be in huge favor for Polaris
314mm2 cut down version is relative power of a 235mm2 chip.
232mm2 chip adding 9% for density could equal a 252mm2 chip made at 16nm FinFET
If we add 10% for the LPE to LPP difference (samsung states 15% difference not in density but in performance) then it jumps to possible relative comparison to equal a 277mm2 16nm and that is way more than what 1070 is.
I am completely unaware if i can use such comparisons in reality but that is what i am reading the past month and what makes most sense to me
Meaning a P10 can and should beat 1070 unless AMD goes for much less power efficiency vs performance. While it is a 232mm2 chip and it should cost less than the 1070 (even before considering how much overpriced the 1070 is)
The calculations you have done are really only relevant to see if Polaris can compete per clock. Which is extremely likely.
You've already talked about the higher density a few times, which will affect the chips thermally. And there are plenty of unknown arch' differences, with the nV chip being designed for high clocks.
So the real unknown is how much slower the Polaris chips will be clocked, and how far from peak efficiency AMD will push them in an attempt to compete.
Indeed. The 1.27Ghz clocked Polaris 10 chip is better but not even close to enough. 1.5Ghz is the minimum that AMD need in order to compete unless they are going really overboard on density. Fiji had ~11% more transistors than GM200, Polaris will likely double that advantage at least.
Actually considering 1920 CC and 1683 clock speed on the 1070 then a 2304 CU on a P10 will need a clock speed of ~ 1400 to give us the same FLOPS rate.
Considering 16nm should provide similar or even less clocks jump than 14nm LPE and then the 14nm LPP is stated to provide even better power efficiency and clock rates than it's predecessor. Then even 1500 mhz clock shouldn't be hard to reach and that will put Polaris 10 on even higher Flops rate than 1070
Then we are left with the GCN4 changes to push up AMD's FLOPS performance closer to that of Nvidia.
Actually considering 1920 CC and 1683 clock speed on the 1070 then a 2304 CU on a P10 will need a clock speed of ~ 1400 to give us the same FLOPS rate.
Considering 16nm should provide similar or even less clocks jump than 14nm LPE and then the 14nm LPP is stated to provide even better power efficiency and clock rates than it's predecessor. Then even 1500 mhz clock shouldn't be hard to reach and that will put Polaris 10 on even higher Flops rate than 1070
Then we are left with the GCN4 changes to push up AMD's FLOPS performance closer to that of Nvidia.
Sorry but your thinking is fundamentally flawed. Or more precisely it's way too simplistic, even though it may turn out to be close to the truth. Your posts build up hype and expectations but you methodology is just wrong. And I find if odd that a new poster, who obviously has covered all the arguments, would come in here to spread these expectations.
The main reason your calculations are wrong is simply the frequency vs IPC argument. There are deliberate trade-offs in designing a chip, and your calculations are assuming both companies made the same decisions. You are making claims like "1500 mhz clock shouldn't be hard to reach" but this is based on nVidia's architecture; not AMD's.
We simply don't know enough to come to the conclusions you have, but as i said, you might be right. AMD could also release Polaris 10 with 900mhz clocks and super IPC and blow away a 1080.
So why is Nvidia far bigger if AMD has constantly had better price/performance cards?