Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [VC]GTX 1060 specifications leaked - faster than RX 480
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[VC]GTX 1060 specifications leaked - faster than RX 480 - Page 38  

post #371 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post

Just because GNC can't clock high on 28nm doesn't mean it wouldn't be able to clock high on 14nm. If anything, it should be able to allow them to clock higher because their power savings are giving them more to play with core voltage. Why it is true GNC never really clocked well, this wasn't always true as demonstrated with your GCN 1.0 example. Their smaller cards tend to clock pretty well. And Polaris is indeed a smaller card...

I wouldn't just ignore the facts that I presented you and shrug it off as, "Oh, well GNC doesn't clock well, so even though 14nm promises clockspeed improvements by up to 50% compared to previous gen, I'm going to ignore this fact because GNC doesn't clock that well on 28nm"

It does. GCN pipeline just isn't that long which is why the cores are smaller and they can pack more for a given area. What finfet improvements allow is the drawing out of potential that was already in the chips. The problem with GCN however is that every time AMD improved the architecture and improved the IPC and performance, it hurt the clocks. That's why GCN 3 overclocks worse than GCN 2 and GCN 2 overclocks worse than GCN 1. It's a consistent pattern. It's not the size of the chips, its the architecture. Tonga overclocked worse than tahiti and Hawaii and in reviews, just went a tad over 1100 much like fury X did. Even worse is the fact that fury x was made on a more advance and higher clocking node process than GCN1 tahiti. It just shows you how much these architectural changes damaged GCN's clocks.

LN2 removes the leakage and thermal constraints of an architecture and shows how well the core can overclock, hence's why it's a preview of the next node. Both Polaris and Pascals are clocking very close to their last gens, ln2 clocks. The difference is maxwell Ln2 clocks were 2200 while fiji's were 1450mhz. These clocks are a function of the architecture since, at the time, maxwell and GCN3 were using the same nodal technology.

What finfet allowed for AMD was it afforded AMD to add further to GCN(which if done on 28nm would have lowered clocks futher), while allowing them to boost clocks to 1266mhz while keeping power consumption somewhat in check.

Why pascal got a bigger boost was they already had an efficient architecture, which allowed them to add more clocks rather than save clocks to gain additional performance per watt.
post #372 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevChelios View Post

but 1400+ on air is still high for GCN

Where did the other 20% go though? It just vanished out of thin air? Are we really to believe there is a some huge GCN penalty and that's it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111 View Post

It does. GCN pipeline just isn't that long which is why the cores are smaller and they can pack more for a given area. What finfet improvements allow is the drawing out of potential that was already in the chips. The problem with GCN however is that every time AMD improved the architecture and improved the IPC and performance, it hurt the clocks. That's why GCN 3 overclocks worse than GCN 2 and GCN 2 overclocks worse than GCN 1. It's a consistent pattern. It's not the size of the chips, its the architecture. Tonga overclocked worse than tahiti and Hawaii and in reviews, just went a tad over 1100 much like fury X did. Even worse is the fact that fury x was made on a more advance and higher clocking node process than GCN1 tahiti. It just shows you how much these architectural changes damaged GCN's clocks.

LN2 removes the leakage and thermal constraints of an architecture and shows how well the core can overclock, hence's why it's a preview of the next node. Both Polaris and Pascals are clocking very close to their last gens, ln2 clocks. The difference is maxwell Ln2 clocks were 2200 while fiji's were 1450mhz. These clocks are a function of the architecture since, at the time, maxwell and GCN3 were using the same nodal technology.

What finfet allowed for AMD was it afforded AMD to add further to GCN(which if done on 28nm would have lowered clocks futher), while allowing them to boost clocks to 1266mhz while keeping power consumption somewhat in check.

Why pascal got a bigger boost was they already had an efficient architecture, which allowed them to add more clocks rather than save clocks to gain additional performance per watt.

So the guy who runs HardOCP is just a big fat liar with nothing to lose:



So even though we gained 20% from 1050MHz with the RX 480's 1266MHz clockspeed we magically lost that leftover 20-30% clockspeed uplift as promised by the 14nm process because of the inevitable automatic tajoh GCN clockspeed penalty. thumb.gif
Edited by BiG StroOnZ - 7/5/16 at 1:17am
post #373 of 735
well maybe 1 in 100, under water, 480 will reach that 1600Mhz thumb.gif

the rest 99 on air will be 1400-1450

so he's not wrong per se rolleyes.gif
The Green Beast
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770K @ 4500 Mhz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming Crucial Ballistix 2x8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD Crucial M550 500GB SSD Samsung 850 Evo 1TB HDD Seagate 7200rpm 3TB Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO; Xilence X5 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Acer Predator XB271HU 27" IPS Gsync 1440p 165Hz CM Storm QuickFire XT Cherry Red 800W modular 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Black Logitech G900 Chaos Spectrum SteelSeries QcK+ 4mm SK Gaming Realtek On-board 
  hide details  
The Green Beast
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770K @ 4500 Mhz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming Crucial Ballistix 2x8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD Crucial M550 500GB SSD Samsung 850 Evo 1TB HDD Seagate 7200rpm 3TB Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO; Xilence X5 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Acer Predator XB271HU 27" IPS Gsync 1440p 165Hz CM Storm QuickFire XT Cherry Red 800W modular 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Black Logitech G900 Chaos Spectrum SteelSeries QcK+ 4mm SK Gaming Realtek On-board 
  hide details  
post #374 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevChelios View Post

well maybe 1 in 100, under water, 480 will reach that 1600Mhz thumb.gif

the rest 99 on air will be 1400-1450

so he's not wrong per se rolleyes.gif

I feel like it would make more sense if it ended up like the 970 average overclocks, where cards we able to do 1600,1550,1500,1450 etc. With most aiming for the 1500MHz mark.

It just seems like there is so much contradictory information out there right now. The leaks of cards doing 1500MHz+ and then of course someone claiming to have similar information from AIB partners, then of course the 14nm process itself which basically says all of this is possible. Then you have other people saying it's impossible, not going to happen, 1400MHz is going to be the max, it makes you wonder what exactly is going on.

The icing on the cake is the fact that AMD designed an overclocking tool for their GPUs incorporated in the driver, why would AMD go through all this trouble of making an overclocking tool if the card had bad overclocking headroom? Doesn't seem to make sense, is it possible der8auer just didn't win the silicon lottery? As stated by the AIB partners, "it's a lottery draw" as they said.
Edited by BiG StroOnZ - 7/5/16 at 6:30pm
post #375 of 735
post #376 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derp View Post




source ? redface.gif
My System
(1 item)
 
  
CPU
asus laptop 
  hide details  
My System
(1 item)
 
  
CPU
asus laptop 
  hide details  
post #377 of 735
So slightly faster than a throttling reference 480.

Meh. If this isn't priced at $250 or less and these benches are real then pass
Dang
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 7820x @ 4.7ghz, 3.0ghz Mesh (from SL) X299 ASUS ROG Strix-E MSI Quicksilver 1070 8GB 32gb 3800mhz (Model F4-3600C16Q-32GTZKK) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Intel 730 256gb SSD Intel 530 256gb SSD Seagate Barracuda 2TB HDD Seagate Barracuda 1TB HDD 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Deepcool Captain 240EX White Windows 10 Pro AOC G2460PF 24” 144hz FreeSync EVGA 750w G2 
CaseMouseMouse PadOther
NZXT H440 Zowie EC1-A Huge Dr Pepper, Monster, and Vape 
  hide details  
Dang
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 7820x @ 4.7ghz, 3.0ghz Mesh (from SL) X299 ASUS ROG Strix-E MSI Quicksilver 1070 8GB 32gb 3800mhz (Model F4-3600C16Q-32GTZKK) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Intel 730 256gb SSD Intel 530 256gb SSD Seagate Barracuda 2TB HDD Seagate Barracuda 1TB HDD 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Deepcool Captain 240EX White Windows 10 Pro AOC G2460PF 24” 144hz FreeSync EVGA 750w G2 
CaseMouseMouse PadOther
NZXT H440 Zowie EC1-A Huge Dr Pepper, Monster, and Vape 
  hide details  
post #378 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derp View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)




Too good to be true so a fake.
post #379 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post

Where did the other 20% go though? It just vanished out of thin air? Are we really to believe there is a some huge GCN penalty and that's it?
So the guy who runs HardOCP is just a big fat liar with nothing to lose:



So even though we gained 20% from 1050MHz with the RX 480's 1266MHz clockspeed we magically lost that leftover 20-30% clockspeed uplift as promised by the 14nm process because of the inevitable automatic tajoh GCN clockspeed penalty. thumb.gif

My predictions have been accurate so far on Polaris.

It's partners word on the matter and I suspect partners don't want you to buy reference cards but instead want you to buy their versions and derivatives of the rx 480. The margins are better for them.

Cards did get a frequency boost. The stock clocks of cards like tonga were 1000mhz and these usually overclocked to 1150mhz or so with a none reference cooler.Having cards now clock at 1266 and overclock to 1400 is a boost over last gen. You might want to dub it the tajoh GCN clockspeed penalty but the GCN penalty is very real as seen from GCN to GCN4 nowadays. On 28nm, GCN's clocks got worse even those the process that each GPU was made on was an more advanced and higher clocking node then the previous version of GCN. Add in Nvidia was using the same technology and process and continued to improve clocks, and it adds more evidence to my hypothesis.

It isn't just the process that determines frequency, it's the architecture as well.

1450mhz FIJI when running on ln2 should have been a redflag about the frequency potential of GCN as well as the frequencies maxwell was reaching under ln2. It real evidence as is the current clocks and overclocks of Polaris.

This guy is ranked number 4 on hwbot so he knows what he's talking about. This card was hard modded and overvolted to levels beyond safe for air cooling and even 24/7 water cooling. Aib partner cards should get really any better considering they are not going to go as balls out as this guy did.

In reviews, using the stock cooler, overclocks vary only 50mhz between the best and worst which is about 4% which means binning won't play a crazy difference. The sooner we can squash the 1.6ghz rumors, the less hype that is built up, which is better at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post

I feel like it would make more sense if it ended up like the 970 average overclocks, where cards we able to do 1600,1550,1500,1450 etc. With most aiming for the 1500MHz mark.

I just seems like their is so much contradictory information out there right now. The leaks of cards doing 1500MHz+ and then of course someone claiming to have similar information from AIB partners, then of course the 14nm process itself which basically says all of this is possible. Then you have other people saying it's impossible, not going to happen, 1400MHz is going to be the max, it makes you wonder what exactly is going on.

The icing on the cake is the fact that AMD designed an overclocking tool for their GPUs incorporated in the driver, why would AMD go through all this trouble of making an overclocking tool if the card had bad overclocking headroom? Doesn't seem to make sense, is it possible der8auer just didn't win the silicon lottery? As stated by the AIB partners, "it's a lottery draw" as they said.

Rumors, are what lead to the trainwreck of hype that was the rx 480. Actual evidence was already present on how polaris was going to perform but fanboys believing the most optimistic rumors were true vastly raised polaris' expectations.

The highest overclocked rx480 in reviews was the one in Guru3d and this was 1375mhz. The worst clocked ones were 1325mhz. This is only a 4 percent difference. What this means is the silicon lottery isn't going to be playing a big role.

What Dauer said was he expect most samples to overclock to 1400mhz for AIB which is safe. What he expect from better samples is 1450mhz for safe clocks. This agrees with the 4% variance as above.
Edited by tajoh111 - 7/5/16 at 12:56pm
post #380 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatmario View Post

source ? redface.gif

images are from xfastest.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [VC]GTX 1060 specifications leaked - faster than RX 480