Comparing this info with GCN:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4455/amds-graphics-core-next-preview-amd-architects-for-compute/4
GCN is 16 ALU x 4 SIMD per CU = 64 "SPs"
Durango looks to have GCN CUs based on the VG data (which indicates the same 16 wide SIMD)
Cache also appears to be configured much like GCN:
GCN Memory CU:
16KB Read L1 (data and texture cache)
32KB Read L1
64KB Local Data Store
Durango: LSM (Local Store Memory = same as GCN Local Data Store?) is also 64KB
GCN L2 = 64KB to 128KB per Memory controller, Caymen class has 512KB
Durango L2 is 512KB (4 x 128KB); looks very GCN like
A lot of the architectural notes comparing Durango versus Xbox 360 apply to GCN as well (e.g. GCN also accepts compressed textures in cache).
The information on page 3 regarding fill rate and alphablending is dissappointing and indicates the ESRAM wasn't leveraged for crazy fill rate for transparencies (which the low bandwidth on the ESRAM already indicated).
EDIT: the ESRAM info was interesting though, especially the shared memory addressing. If it is low latency (?) and offers simple ways to tile and read/write back and forth Durango could be quite a bit faster than Cap Verde. Could...
Kind of sad that a 2013 console is getting a GPU (Cap Verde class) that cannot run very high settings at 1080p and hit 60Hz in games like Warhead, BF3, Dirt 3, Batman AC, etc. Best case seems 30Hz on High/Med with post-process AA on current PC titles doesn't indicate much room for growth.