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 44  

post #431 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolfail9001 View Post

Well, how much did 380's performance improve 960 over a year? Dare to take a guess? Well, according to TPU

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_380X_Strix/23.html

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Palit/GeForce_GTX_1080_GameRock/25.html

It (the lead) has dropped from ~17% to ~6% averaged over fairly large game sample.

You are comparing the percentage of the 960 and 380 to the performance of a 380X in the first chart and the percentage of performance to a 1080 in the second. That will cause massively slower cards like the 960 and 380 to get relatively closer in such a chart as the difference between the two compared to a card that 3x faster. The difference is that a 1080 is LESS than 3 times faster than a 380 but MORE than 3 times faster than a 960. Its an awkward comparison to begin with because it deals in percentages vs vastly different performing cards rather than just showing avg frame rate between the 380 and 960 from two different time periods. Hell, the first chart was only 8 months ago, not even a full year.
post #432 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post

We know right away your predictions are incorrect in that you claim with each revision of GCN, the clocks got slower. Except here with the newest iteration of GCN with Polaris they improved their clockspeeds by 20%. Then even you claim up to 1450MHz clocks are possible. That brings us to a total of around 38% clockspeed increase from last gen. So, not only did the process have something to do with it, they almost reached their baseline target of 40% increase in clockspeeds from switching to 14nm.

I really doubt AIB partners would flat out lie to a member of the press so he in turn flat out lies to the public. Doesn't seem to make that much sense. Sure companies like to promote their products but 1480MHz-1600MHz is a flat out lie according to you. So, obviously this wouldn't benefit the AIB partners or the press to be saying this type of stuff if it wasn't at least slightly accurate.

So regardless of your supposed clockspeed penalty, we automatically know with Polaris that this is not true. Because again, their baseline target is 40%, and @ 1450MHz you would be @ 38% from 1050MHz. While most AMD cards can do 1100-1150 we will use 1050 because its what every card is capable of. So while yes it isn't just the process and of course the architecture itself has something to do with it. We see 1425MHz possible on Air already with reference PCB.

I'm not doubting that the guy doesn't know what he is doing, but K|NGP|N tends to break all of his records running cards modded similarly, but again typically they are not reference cards that he is able to break his records with. He is using his own custom cards to do this level of overclocking. Which proves again, that even though the card was hard modded and overvolted it is still a stock PCB card. If max overclocks were able to be reached under LN2 with reference cards, why would there ever be a need for a K|NGP|N Edition, Lightning, Classified, HoF, etc. Why would K|NGP|N prefer to use his own cards?

We also see quite a variance in overclocks with the reference card (we have numbers ranging from 1330-1480MHz), which indeed indicates that binning is important and basically all cards made the cut from AMD (probably why there is a power issue with the reference cards). This means AIB cards will come with factory overclocks so the binning will be quite different.

So in the end if it indeed clocks to 1450MHz that means they increased their clockspeeds by almost 40% which was the baseline target with 14nm, and again this is with 4th Generation GCN, so there was no regression in clockspeed (as you insist and continually repeat). And of course we know AMD is going to have revisions of these cards:



Which means again, it is most likely NOT GCN that is limiting the clockspeeds entirely, it is most likely a manner of manufacturing process maturity. Which means, as the process gets more mature, they will be able to hit their full 40-50% clockspeed improvement targets.

Polaris would have been on target to get the same decrease in frequency if it wasn't for 14nm finfet. I already said finfet was improving the clocks that could be achieved with GCN. Hence why I said GCN hitting 1266mhz and 1450mhz is a product of finfet. These clocks when we include the cooling would have never been reached on 28nm with equivalent cooling. Hence why I mentioned, why it might not necessarily be the process that's holding back AMD from reaching higher clocks, but the architecture itself.

What I was trying to get at is these clocks could have been higher if it wasn't for the frequency regression of GCN. E.g If GCN 1 was used, aka the frequency of tahiti on LN2 at 28nm, we could be seeing stock clocks be at 1500mhz with the potential to overclock to 1800mhz, much like maxwell's improvements on finfet. The problem was GCN if it was by design or by accident, doesn't clock as high with the more advanced variants. There is no question Tahiti reached the highest clocks, then hawaii, and lastly Tonga/fiji. If we look at hwbot, the highest tahiti's reached near 1800, the highest hawaii 1600 and the highest fiji reached was 1450mhz with ln2.

What 14nm is allows is those fiji ln2 clocks to be drawn out on air much like how 2200mhz may be achievable with pascal on a good enough sample. 1600mhz is beyond the clocks that were last achieved on 28nm on tonga/fiji which means I don't think we will get there even with the improvements of 14nm finfet or 16nm finfet.

Polaris got an increase because of finfet but the increase wasn't as large as Nvidia's increase. Why we are seeing clocks being limited so far and not the frequency jumps that Nvidia got are the limits of the GCN architecture.

Architecture has as much to do with frequency as the process they are made on.

At the end your actually agree with me half way. And that what I was insisting. The current frequency and limits are a product of the GCN architecture and the improvements of finfet. I never said GCN4 was going to clock worse when built on finfet, I said if GCN4 was made on 28nm, it would have shown the frequency regression pattern. Finfet counters this pattern but doesn't mean we are going to see 1.6ghz GCN chips.

Also, this 1.48ghz should not be included in the overclockability of an average sample. It is too overvolted for 24/7 usability and the author admits this and the power consumption and costs make it impractical to apply to a card. E.g AIB card or stock card + hard mod + water block = just a bit above a gtx 980 with a cost near 1070 with the water block, - 30% performance vs a gtx 1070 and over twice the power consumption.

Hence real world overclockability, which preserve the rx 480 value proposition is more along the lines of 1400mhz to 1450 on a good sample.

AMD exclusive partners have everything to gain by having people wait to buy their AIB models. AMD reference cooler has the lowest margins because it has the lowest cost and has the lowest potential for marketing. Also for partners that are not sapphire, because they are buying the cards from sapphire to rebuy, they lose part of the margin in the process. In addition because the rx 480 doesn't have too much competition in its price range, they don't have to worry too much about losing a sale to nvidia(atleast prior to the 1060 launches). Because of this, they would rather customers wait, so they can sell you a heavier margin AIB card, then to sell you a low margin reference design.

Reference cards overclocks as seen in reviews and hard modded cards by professional overclockers are much better evidence for the overclockability of polaris than some rumors and a single phrase by a person a couple weeks ago was said by the very same people clinging to these rumors, that his words couldn't be trusted and he was a shill for Nvidia.
Edited by tajoh111 - 7/5/16 at 7:40pm
post #433 of 735
One thing is for sure Tajoh11, IF we do indeed see 1500-1600MHz AIB 480's I think its safe to say that your predictions were not at all correct and maybe we can get a little break from your twenty-paragraph diatribes slavering over Nvidia's oh-so-dominant technology advantages and perfect architectures?
post #434 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

One thing is for sure Tajoh11, IF we do indeed see 1500-1600MHz AIB 480's I think its safe to say that your predictions were not at all correct and maybe we can get a little break from your twenty-paragraph diatribes slavering over Nvidia's oh-so-dominant technology advantages and perfect architectures?

But what if they are correct again? Everything about my performance/clock predictions, performance per mm2 and power consumption figures came true as well as the number of chips that we would see this year and the specific segments that they were going to launch with. This frequency prediction has a good chance of proving right as well. You have to ask yourself why was I so accurate for this launch when I don't have sources, where guys like mahigan were so off the performance mark that a dogs prediction were closer to the mark? I was going to take a break anyways until the next architecture launch.

I am not saying Nvidia's architecture is perfect as they have their flaws when most directx 12 titles show, but they have just a consistent advantage almost everywhere. When in their hands with their marketing/brand advantage it gives them enough leverage to push AMD out of the market which is the last thing I want. But the reality exists looking at Polaris, that they need something better than GCN. GCN ages well but this isn't a selling point reviewers or marketers can use to sell cards. They need a big push in performance per watt so that their large cards are faster(and don't need water cooling) and their low end cards are preferable to partners and oems.

I want AMD to stop underpricing their products in respect how much they cost to make. This is not a good long term strategy with so little money in the war chest.

I would rather see AMD have better products so they can charge more for them. I would happily pay 300-350 dollars for a polaris chip if the full die was almost as fast as a gtx 980 ti particularly after the founders edition stunt and Nvidia's abandoning the improvement of driver improvements for Keplar owners. AMD needs the money and I would rather have AMD have worse price to performance but generally faster products. I want engineering advances from AMD so they can charge more.
post #435 of 735

pretty disappointing since this is being hyped as a bloodbath 480 killer, and costs so much more money.
post #436 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLCLimax View Post

pretty disappointing since this is being hyped as a bloodbath 480 killer, and costs so much more money.

How much does it cost? has price been confirmed yet?
Core 3000
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I5 2500K Z77 Sabertooth Evga GTX 670 FTW  8GB Mushkin Silverline 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Sandisk Ultra Seagate Coolit Eco Win 8 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Hanns-g 28" Razer Black Widow Ultimate 600w PC Power & Cooling Silencer MKIII Modded Fractal Design Core 3000 
MouseAudio
Razer Abyssus ALC882 
  hide details  
Core 3000
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I5 2500K Z77 Sabertooth Evga GTX 670 FTW  8GB Mushkin Silverline 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Sandisk Ultra Seagate Coolit Eco Win 8 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Hanns-g 28" Razer Black Widow Ultimate 600w PC Power & Cooling Silencer MKIII Modded Fractal Design Core 3000 
MouseAudio
Razer Abyssus ALC882 
  hide details  
post #437 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111 View Post

But what if they are correct again? Everything about my performance/clock predictions, performance per mm2 and power consumption figures came true as well as the number of chips that we would see this year and the specific segments that they were going to launch with. This frequency prediction has a good chance of proving right as well. You have to ask yourself why was I so accurate for this launch when I don't have sources, where guys like mahigan were so off the performance mark that a dogs prediction were closer to the mark? I was going to take a break anyways until the next architecture launch.

I am not saying Nvidia's architecture is perfect as they have their flaws when most directx 12 titles show, but they have just a consistent advantage almost everywhere. When in their hands with their marketing/brand advantage it gives them enough leverage to push AMD out of the market which is the last thing I want. But the reality exists looking at Polaris, that they need something better than GCN. GCN ages well but this isn't a selling point reviewers or marketers can use to sell cards. They need a big push in performance per watt so that their large cards are faster(and don't need water cooling) and their low end cards are preferable to partners and oems.

I want AMD to stop underpricing their products in respect how much they cost to make. This is not a good long term strategy with so little money in the war chest.

I would rather see AMD have better products so they can charge more for them. I would happily pay 300-350 dollars for a polaris chip if the full die was almost as fast as a gtx 980 ti particularly after the founders edition stunt and Nvidia's abandoning the improvement of driver improvements for Keplar owners. AMD needs the money and I would rather have AMD have worse price to performance but generally faster products. I want engineering advances from AMD so they can charge more.

You might want to post some evidence of your "predictions" and mahigans failed ones before calling him out, or anyone else for that matter.. Polaris performs pretty close to where he said it would iirc.. It's the perf/watt that caught a lot of people by surprise.

Everything is speculation, no one knows exactly what is happening besides AMD/Nvidia. Guessing a few things is meaningless as even a broken clock is right twice a day..

Nvidia having an advantage everywhere except DX12 is a bit of an oxymoron wouldn't you say? A large part of Nvidias advantage in perf/Watt is because they cut out most of the stuff/don't have what makes AMD strong using DX12 in the first place..

How do you know what margins AMD is getting on P10? We also don't know what happened with the 14nm process they used, it's pretty clear something went wrong considering how much people can under-volt P10.. Vega will be using TSMC as far as i know, one chip in the Polaris family on a different process to Nvidia doesn't give us any insight into the future/ show us where Polaris would of stacked up against Pascal if they were both using the same process.
Edited by GorillaSceptre - 7/5/16 at 8:41pm
post #438 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

You are comparing the percentage of the 960 and 380 to the performance of a 380X in the first chart and the percentage of performance to a 1080 in the second. That will cause massively slower cards like the 960 and 380 to get relatively closer in such a chart as the difference between the two compared to a card that 3x faster. The difference is that a 1080 is LESS than 3 times faster than a 380 but MORE than 3 times faster than a 960. Its an awkward comparison to begin with because it deals in percentages vs vastly different performing cards rather than just showing avg frame rate between the 380 and 960 from two different time periods. Hell, the first chart was only 8 months ago, not even a full year.

I hope you realize that 380X review is used as data point for 380 performance?

Or that flew over your head too? Though yes, it is indeed correct, it's not a full year, though point stands. The point is that you can even compare 380 to 290, to make it funnier.
post #439 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111 View Post

Polaris would have been on target to get the same decrease in frequency if it wasn't for 14nm finfet. I already said finfet was improving the clocks that could be achieved with GCN. Hence why I said GCN hitting 1266mhz and 1450mhz is a product of finfet. These clocks when we include the cooling would have never been reached on 28nm with equivalent cooling. Hence why I mentioned, why it might not necessarily be the process that's holding back AMD from reaching higher clocks, but the architecture itself.

What I was trying to get at is these clocks could have been higher if it wasn't for the frequency regression of GCN. E.g If GCN 1 was used, aka the frequency of tahiti on LN2 at 28nm, we could be seeing stock clocks be at 1500mhz with the potential to overclock to 1800mhz, much like maxwell's improvements on finfet. The problem was GCN if it was by design or by accident, doesn't clock as high with the more advanced variants. There is no question Tahiti reached the highest clocks, then hawaii, and lastly Tonga/fiji. If we look at hwbot, the highest tahiti's reached near 1800, the highest hawaii 1600 and the highest fiji reached was 1450mhz with ln2.

What 14nm is allows is those fiji ln2 clocks to be drawn out on air much like how 2200mhz may be achievable with pascal on a good enough sample. 1600mhz is beyond the clocks that were last achieved on 28nm on tonga/fiji which means I don't think we will get there even with the improvements of 14nm finfet or 16nm finfet.

Polaris got an increase because of finfet but the increase wasn't as large as Nvidia's increase. Why we are seeing clocks being limited so far and not the frequency jumps that Nvidia got are the limits of the GCN architecture.

Architecture has as much to do with frequency as the process they are made on.

At the end your actually agree with me half way. And that what I was insisting. The current frequency and limits are a product of the GCN architecture and the improvements of finfet. I never said GCN4 was going to clock worse when built on finfet, I said if GCN4 was made on 28nm, it would have shown the frequency regression pattern. Finfet counters this pattern but doesn't mean we are going to see 1.6ghz GCN chips.

Also, this 1.48ghz should not be included in the overclockability of an average sample. It is too overvolted for 24/7 usability and the author admits this and the power consumption and costs make it impractical to apply to a card. E.g AIB card or stock card + hard mod + water block = just a bit above a gtx 980 with a cost near 1070 with the water block, - 30% performance vs a gtx 1070 and over twice the power consumption.

Hence real world overclockability, which preserve the rx 480 value proposition is more along the lines of 1400mhz to 1450 on a good sample.

AMD exclusive partners have everything to gain by having people wait to buy their AIB models. AMD reference cooler has the lowest margins because it has the lowest cost and has the lowest potential for marketing. Also for partners that are not sapphire, because they are buying the cards from sapphire to rebuy, they lose part of the margin in the process. In addition because the rx 480 doesn't have too much competition in its price range, they don't have to worry too much about losing a sale to nvidia(atleast prior to the 1060 launches). Because of this, they would rather customers wait, so they can sell you a heavier margin AIB card, then to sell you a low margin reference design.

Reference cards overclocks as seen in reviews and hard modded cards by professional overclockers are much better evidence for the overclockability of polaris than some rumors and a single phrase by a person a couple weeks ago was said by the very same people clinging to these rumors, that his words couldn't be trusted and he was a shill for Nvidia.

While the architecture itself remains the same, here with 14nm it is a similar scenario with GCN 1st Generation. Smaller die chip, new process, high clockspeeds. It has a lot more in common with GCN 1st Gen cards that it does with 2nd Gen or 3rd Gen cards (where the trend for bigger and more power hungry begins to take over).

Surely it wouldn't make sense if custom cards were capable of only doing 1400-1450MHz, when there is a dry ice run on hwbot with a RX 480 and he's only hitting 1460MHz (he even says himself this is achievable with water). Obviously there is some issues with the reference card, if when cooling is not a limitation, they still are only able to achieve 1460MHz. Or in the case of the example you were using 1480MHz. I mean, if custom AIB 480's can hit 1450MHz, but a reference card can only do 1460MHz with dry ice? That doesn't seem to add up here.

Again seems more like a limitation with the reference design, rather than a direct product of GCN.

Here my point is, that here with Polaris, it is a more similar scenario as the 7970, compared to the 290X and the Fury X. The major reason why you saw a regression in clockspeeds, is because the cards became bigger with more Stream Processors, and of course as a result became more power hungry. These types of directions with GPU design will automatically as a result make it harder for a card to clock higher. You tend to see this with any big die cards. Perfect example is the stock clocks of the 980 and 970, compared to the 980 Ti. And of course the average overall overclocks changed:

http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce_gtx_980/

http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce_gtx_980_ti/

Quite a variance in average Air and Water results.

So while we can agree that GCN doesn't clock as well compared to NVIDIA's architectures, the pattern you are seeing of regression in clockspeeds with GCN is more closely related to the size of the GPUs that they were releasing with each GCN revision. As you can see with NVIDIA, even NVIDIA loses clockspeeds when it comes to their big die cards and AMD's direction for quite a while has been mainly on big die cards.

Here with Polaris much smaller card, so has the ability to be more promising in terms of clockspeeds right from the get go and already we are seeing that coming to fruition. As the clocks they are achieving now with this card is far better than anything we've seen in a while from AMD.

There was another person who got a 480 to 1487MHz with an H100, so it's not limited to extreme hardmodding:



Better sample sizes could prove to be better in terms of what voltage mods can do. Also @ 1480MHz it will be faster than a 980. This 480 @ 1487MHz with no memory overclock (meaning more gains) did 67.5 fps in Valley 1.0 which is right around Fury/Nano performance. Again without a memory overclock. So it is better than a plain old 980.

I agree with you that 1450MHz is almost 40% but I do believe there is more to be discovered if not now, maybe with future AIB cards (couple months out), and definitely with revisions of the card because by then 14nm will be more mature. The only reason for this is I would like to see more numbers with AIB cards because I find it peculiar that a dry ice run with reference 480 only yielded 1460MHz but yet you seem to believe that AIB cards will be able to make it 1450MHz. Which means there is an inherent problem with the reference design. Because that doesn't seem to add up. It also doesn't make very much sense that with a volt mod 1480MHz is the max oc of the card but yet AIB cards have the ability to make it to 1450MHz stock. So with hwbot level modding, you only gain a 2% increase in clockspeeds? You have to at least agree with me that that doesn't make much sense and der8auer's results might not the end all be all.

While AIB partners have something to gain, you have to agree that it would be quite counterproductive to tell a member of the press their cards are hitting certain clockspeeds, when in fact it was just some scheme to sell more AIB cards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

Well to be fair, the GCN architecture has been very lackluster in clock potential since its launch (and clock speeds have steadily declined since the 7970). That said, I do agree that 14nm should allow for higher clocks than we are currently seeing but we are also limited by the fact that only reference boards have been launched and tested so far so we really can't say for sure what the absolute clock speed potential of P10 is as of yet...

The flip side of this lower clock speed potential than Nvidia's Maxwell and Pascal architectures is that generally GCN scales much better with higher clocks, so even though the ultimate speed may be lower than Nvidia, the performance for each MHz is higher...

If you read above, I have a basic explanation as to why we see a regression in clockspeeds since the 7970, it's a lot more logical than just saying, "It's GCN."

I agree that we only have reference boards right now showing clock potential, so I'm more interested in seeing where AIB cards end up because from what we see and hear right now it just isn't adding up.

I do believe that they will scale much better in the end, but at 1450MHz you are only really at Nano/Fury performance or overclocked 980 Performance. I say only, because seeing Fury X performance only 100MHz or so away is kind of disappointing.
post #440 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by ekg84 View Post

How much does it cost? has price been confirmed yet?

Judging by suppliers 300$ in murica and 300-360e in europe. No official conf. yet though
Gaming RigX
(21 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3970x Asus P9X79 HIS 7970 Kingston Predator 2x8gb DDR3 2133 mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Seagate Constelation 1TB Intel 330 WD 3TB  Seagate Baracuda 2TB Sata III 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H110 Windows 7 Ultimate Philips 24' EEL IPS 1080P  CM Quickfire Storm Red Switches 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 850w ZX None Logitech G400s QCK Mass 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Beyerdynamics DT 770 Pro 80ohm headphones  Fiio E10 headphone amp/dac  Magnat Supreme 2000 - x2 Marantz PM7200 amp 
Audio
Shure SE215 
  hide details  
Gaming RigX
(21 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3970x Asus P9X79 HIS 7970 Kingston Predator 2x8gb DDR3 2133 mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Seagate Constelation 1TB Intel 330 WD 3TB  Seagate Baracuda 2TB Sata III 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H110 Windows 7 Ultimate Philips 24' EEL IPS 1080P  CM Quickfire Storm Red Switches 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 850w ZX None Logitech G400s QCK Mass 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Beyerdynamics DT 770 Pro 80ohm headphones  Fiio E10 headphone amp/dac  Magnat Supreme 2000 - x2 Marantz PM7200 amp 
Audio
Shure SE215 
  hide details  
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