right, so I'm BSing because I wont buy a 480 to test myself, when there are tons of reviews on the internet showing Polaris 10's power draw to be north of 160w, to the point that AMD had to publicly address it. But apparently that's not proof, and some Youtube videos of Afterburner readings are?
Which do you think is more likely to be accurate, actual power draw numbers, or Afterburner?
You're bs'ing because you're not interested in any numbers just garbling random facts into a pile so you can throw crap on the wall. The issue with the power draw wasn't that the card drew over 160w, but because it drew over 75w from the motherboard, breaking siig specs. But don't let the facts stop you from demanding crap you really have no interest in, cuz it will only get in the way of your tirade.
It drew over 75watts from the motherboard, because it was drawing over 160 watts in the first place.
You aren't even making any sense anyway. I'm very interested in numbers, numbers that are real and measured. Since when has what afterburner reports been taken as real measured numbers?
Here are some real numbers, as in numbers someone measured with the tools to do so.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-radeon-r9-rx-480-8gb-review,5.html
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Power-Consumption-Concerns-Radeon-RX-480
"my tirade" is based on something called "facts". "facts" are not something you seem to have.
Unless Vega has a drastic efficiency improvement, they will not be able to build a GP102 competitor with it. They'd be looking at a 350+ watt TDP.
Titan XP is a cut down gp102 471mm die with gddr5x. Full die has 30 SM's. Nvidia also sells a gp100 610mm die with 16GB HBM2 and a 250W TDP. Full die has 60 SM's. Previous generation Titan XP utilized a 601mm die. You really believe AMD is going to announce a card that is twice as fast as the current Titan XP in the next 6 months? Because that's what Nvidia is already producing. Certainly they don't want to be forced to sell them to gamers at much lower margins than Tesla's. But if they are forced to, they have much bigger guns in reserve than the Titan XP.
Even just using a full gp102 die plus HBM2 along with any tweaks Nvidia has made over the last year will result in a performance gain of well over 5-7%. Nvidia has played their hand? Please at least attempt to argue with facts.
[redacted]GTX 1060 power is around 120w , were as RX 480 power is around 160w . As u said when a HBM2 is swapped in place of gddr there might be 15w less, then power usage will be around 145w . then its around 20% more power to compete with its counter part.
If we apply this 20% to NV titan's AMD competitor , 20% more of 250w is 300w . By the time vega hits the market 14nm process also gets matured bit more than how it was on polaris release. i don't think big vega will need 350w or even 300w.
As far as performance if the leaked benchmarks are for small polaris then it will be very good for AMD.
Does AMD have a track record of doing things like this?Hope its not HBM based, it would be stupid. AMD can easily lauch a 48Rop/~3000 cores/384-bit part that be in the 1080 performance territory.
AND about power consumption, it would be at most 50/60 watts more.
Uhh..no, considering the 2nd sentence of his post attacked nvidia users as "NV loyalists who will never buy AMD," the clear implication is that people who buy Nvidia are not objective and just buy based on brand.
RX 480 Die consumes 110W of power. It has been proven in number of reviews. All of the rest of the board with memory consumes the rest 50W of power. 2 stacks of HBM2 will consume 10W. So whole GPU package, without the board, if we would make Polaris 10 HBM2 would consume around 120W of power. And Small Vega is most likely around 175W TDP GPU. Memory in RX 480 consumes around 37-40W of power. So here is where you get biggest difference. Cores are actually pretty efficient, especially on lower core clocks.110w? lol. The 480 pulls north of 160w at stock speeds. HBM2 would save, at most, 15w off of that. A 1080 is around 1.8x faster than a 480 and a GP102 is 2.3x or so faster. You do the math.
If AMD pulls magic out of a hat, they'll have a GP102 competitor with about a 300w TDP. Vega was never going to be anything more than a big Polaris GPU with HBM2 (that it needs for no other reason than for power consumption). It was never going to compete with anything faster than the 1080. HBM2 is the only reason we didn't see this card months ago. You people are kidding yourselves if you think otherwise.
This card is a GTX 1070 competitor.
They are simply showing the card in its best light, which yes, allows it to compete with a card a tier above it. It's not like the 1070 and 1080 are far apart.
If the RX 490 was as fast as a 1080, that would leave a gap in the space that the 1070 occupies.... There is no way AMD does that.
This is really just common sense.
I was watching this video from AdoredTV, when it got me. AMD is doing exactly the same thing, as back then, but with BOTH: CPUs and GPUs.
If 4C/8T Zen truly can compete with 4790K at fraction of the cost, and much better efficiency, if 8 core/16 Thread CPU can compete with 5960X at half the cost, and if they can bring competitor for GTX 1080 at lower price tag and around similar efficiency they have created a go-to gaming platform not only for high-end gamers.
TAM. That is what they might want to go for. For 1700$ USD you would be able to buy only 5960X+ GTX 1080. AMD may be aspiring to provide CPU, motherboard, and DUAL GPU setup in which single GPU can be as fast as GTX 1080, for the same money.
Project Quantum.
Again, disclaimer. This is only what I think might happen, and nobody has to agree on this, with me.
All due respect, Glo, I think if we here in the forums hear another "If AMD can......" comment, I think we will all collectively jump off the nearest high building. We are looking to get past "if" and see some actual progress from them, which isn't likely due to their declining history and super low (comparatively) R&D budget. AMD is the next Cyrix, if not already. I truly do hope Zen is good all around, not in just one or two ridiculously rare instances or apps. That would be refreshing.
Well I write this because few weeks ago I have had the priviledge to talk with a game developer, who have had his hands on both Vega, and Zen CPU. However, I was not able to get out from him any information on performance. Nothing. Zero. He could not talk about it.All due respect, Glo, I think if we here in the forums hear another "If AMD can......" comment, I think we will all collectively jump off the nearest high building. We are looking to get past "if" and see some actual progress from them, which isn't likely due to their declining history and super low (comparatively) R&D budget. AMD is the next Cyrix, if not already. I truly do hope Zen is good all around, not in just one or two ridiculously rare instances or apps. That would be refreshing.
It's not a huge advantage. 1050/1050 Ti are Samsung and they're very similar to other Pascal cards. The clocks might be moderately lower (10%-ish), but not huge.I'd be quite impressed if Vega performed at GTX 1080 level considering TSMC 16nm provides a huge advantage over Samsung 14nm.
You are not right at all. You need to get checked out! There is ZERO evidence, ZERO even rumors saying there is a 30sm Titan X, that is utter bullcrap! But not only that, your next sentence is where you go into cook land, saying Nvidia has a 60sm refresh, that is INSANE! That is certifiably insane!
Nvidia already released their newest architecture, the 1000 series IS IT! There is no "secret" uber, ultra 60sm magical unicorn card that has double the performance of Titan X2. That is just absurdly INSANE!
AMD has the primary supply of HBM2, they co developed the memory, of course they are going to be buying up the supply, Nvidia would be lucky if they release an HBM2 card in mid Q3 2017!
Then there is big Pascal, the big daddy Nvidia GPU developed under GPU codename GP100. This is the GPU that will empower (for the consumer side) the enthusiast class products e.g. the Titan etc. Make no mistake, this product will not launch anytime soon for consumers. Expect at the very best a launch late this year closer to the Christmas season, likely even later in Q1/Q2 2017 (we think).
[redacted]
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_radeon_rx_480_gaming_x_review,5.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_1060_gaming_x_review,8.html
Here is MSI gaming X 1060 6GB consuming 140W, compared to MSI gaming X 480 8GB(notice how 480 has 2GB more memory, so that is at least 15W more purely from memory) consuming 170W. 170-15=155W
So the 1060 6gb uses 140W, while the 480 8gb uses 155W. That is a 15W difference, this is not eve a LED bulb level of difference. Literally one LED bulb. If you are lifeless turd who games 8 hours a day, for 6 days a week, for a whole year your parents will have to pay few dollars more in electricity for the year if you gamed on RX 480 8GB as compared to 1060 6GB.
Unless the difference is 50W or more in the mid range segment that its not as issue, its pointless to argue power draw! At the high end unless the difference is 100W for the same performance its meaningless. Even 100W is literally just 1 light bulb change, go from a normal 100W light bulb to a 15W led one and whoala!
Infraction issued for inappropriate language.
-- stahlhart
I think amd can give us a gtx 1080 level of performance, at 250w+ consumption, lower price, little to no oc headroom...not a great product since its late to the party by 6 months, but still better then nothing...nvidia can just lower prices and be competitive again..