AMD Polaris 11 in shows CompuBench has 1024 Shader processors

#5256412 Posted on: 04/11/2016 09:19 AM

---

Interesting!
So close to unveiling of next generation cards!

#5256437 Posted on: 04/11/2016 10:36 AM

---

Aren't those clock speeds too low? Nvidia has long been able to beat or compete with AMD's GPUs despite using less transistors (that is, cheaper chips) by having higher clocks. It seems strange to me AMD wouldn't use this opportunity to get some power for free doing the same. Unless I remember completely wrong, I seem to recall reading that shifting to 14/16 nm would allow increasing the speed.

#5256440 Posted on: 04/11/2016 10:39 AM

---

Well they might be going for lower clocks. Who knows how high these might overclock if true tho.

#5256447 Posted on: 04/11/2016 10:58 AM

---

I wonder if 16GB for a single GPU are true (I know they can do it, but do they really need it?)

#5256449 Posted on: 04/11/2016 11:01 AM

---

It has been benchmarked with some very specially old driver... As it states CL_Driver_Version: 1956.4 (well, it at least matches time of test)
We have 2004.6

Then it has 16 compute units and only 1 tenth of Fiji performance (64CU).
It has basically parameters of HD 7850, but is still 3 times slower? Why would someone test it with old driver? Likely it is modded driver/vBIOS on HD 7850 and downclocked.

If I did same thing with mine, I can call it Vega Engineering Sample. I can set default vBIOS max clock as 600MHz, but OC it to standard 1050 or above. And world will believe that 600MHz Vega performs as well as 1050MHz Fiji.

Internet will flop over it at least twice.

#5256450 Posted on: 04/11/2016 11:04 AM

---

I though 8GB HBM2 would be enough. Its up to 16GB so maybe we'll see 8-16GB versions.

#5256459 Posted on: 04/11/2016 11:31 AM

---

Yes I was wondering the same. I know they can, but tbh it feels like a bit of overkill. Wouldn't expect that from AMD, but maybe they have too many of those HBM2 modules?

#5256461 Posted on: 04/11/2016 11:41 AM

---

I do not think Polaris 10/11 will have HBM. No reason for higher complexity if you can do with 256bit bus.

But I hope AMD will really bring low end parts 1st, this time around. They sell more. And it will allow AMD to learn better 14/16nm. +each passing month means TSMC/GloFo improves those manufacturing processes a bit.

And on other hand, having released Top Dog cards 1st means that developers will not know performance of Low End and many more games will run badly.

#5256472 Posted on: 04/11/2016 12:03 PM

---

If CFX/SLI with stackable VRAM due to DX12/Vulkan will actually scale well, I honestly don't really see them doing this. Seeing as atm 4GB seems just about enough, and 8GB sounds future-proof.

Although 8-16GB VRAM as standard would encourage devs to use amazing textures. Pretty much the main reason I've been pissed off so much with what's going on with game graphics until recently. Think back 2012. I couldn't see a single bloody reason to have all those shiny and sh!tty shaders instead of better texture quality. Don't even let me get started on those games with ridiculous amount of post-processing effects aimed to hide the crappy texture quality. It would probably be easier to just make better quality textures.
The best examples would be high-res texture mods for Skyrim or Mass Effect. Those things look absolutely beautiful.

Sometimes I think the GPU industry is ran by morons who don't actually know what they're doing.
My opinion as a hobbyist in 3D modeling and rendering: Texture quality and global illumination should be the main focus of improving graphics. We are finally nailing texture quality. Global illumination and other ray tracing effects must follow.

#5256478 Posted on: 04/11/2016 12:16 PM

---

If CFX/SLI with stackable VRAM due to DX12/Vulkan will actually scale well, I honestly don't really see them doing this. Seeing as atm 4GB seems just about enough, and 8GB sounds future-proof.

Although 8-16GB VRAM as standard would encourage devs to use amazing textures. Pretty much the main reason I've been pissed off so much with what's going on with game graphics until recently. Think back 2012. I couldn't see a single bloody reason to have all those shiny and sh!tty shaders instead of better texture quality. Don't even let me get started on those games with ridiculous amount of post-processing effects aimed to hide the crappy texture quality. It would probably be easier to just make better quality textures.
The best examples would be high-res texture mods for Skyrim or Mass Effect. Those things look absolutely beautiful.

Sometimes I think the GPU industry is ran by morons who don't actually know what they're doing.
My opinion as a hobbyist in 3D modeling and rendering: Texture quality and global illumination should be the main focus of improving graphics. We are finally nailing texture quality. Global illumination and other ray tracing effects must follow.

I have given up hope on anything CFX / SLI related improving...

yet again, I don't see 2016's top release from AMD needs 16GB of HBM2 vram. It simply wouldn't benefit form it I think, not even at 4K. Also, as HBM2 supply won't be that abundant (at least I think it won't be), it wouldn't make much sense to put more than enough on a single card. Also makes it more costly etc.

Yeah, Skyrim was the first time I seriously saw what mod textures can improve over stock. I'm not even sure every game is shipped with textures that fit 4K resolutions today...

#5256486 Posted on: 04/11/2016 12:46 PM

---

Same here i promise myself never ever again to go SLI or CFX as they are going the way the dodo bird went ...


I'm still waiting for a single VGA to handle 4k at 60fps in order for me to upgrade my display and VGA at once but i don't see it happening anytime soon sadly :/ , nevertheless let's see what this new cards will bring to the table.

#5256513 Posted on: 04/11/2016 02:14 PM

---

Same here i promise myself never ever again to go SLI or CFX as they are going the way the dodo bird went ...


I'm still waiting for a single VGA to handle 4k at 60fps in order for me to upgrade my display and VGA at once but i don't see it happening anytime soon sadly :/ , nevertheless let's see what this new cards will bring to the table.

Same here, for both of those things. Even if multi-GPU ends up improving, I still probably won't go for it until there is decent Linux support too. I also don't intend to upgrade my current GPU or display until I can play something at 4k smoothly.

#5256548 Posted on: 04/11/2016 03:45 PM

---

I somehow can't believe that any of those specs are true. Either the shader processors are too few, or the clock speeds to low, or both. If they are true, AMD is in deep trouble, but they seem very calmly confident about the whole thing which is leading me to believe that all the rumored specs are probably wrong.

#5256551 Posted on: 04/11/2016 03:53 PM

---

Totally agree. And when I think that I was so close to pulling the trigger on another 970. Boy would I have been disappointed.



That's exactly my first reaction when I saw the specs. 1024 stream processors and 128-bit memory bandwidth is very low. It sounds like an entry level card, not midrange.

#5256552 Posted on: 04/11/2016 03:53 PM

---

The clocks are probably wrong which makes the tflop output wrong.

In order to get Hitman @ 60Fps @ QHD they need at least 390x levels of performance which is about 6Tflops.

We know that the GP100 is clocked at ~1300 so I would imagine that AMD can hit around that as well. At 1300Mhz, the Polaris 10 listed there would hit 6Tflops. I think it's the clocks because if it had too many more shaders the chip would be too big for Vega to even reasonably exist. Plus it just seemed low to me when I first saw the leak.