you guys are behind 😉

you guys are behind 😉

Nice rig 😉 lol Anyway. Stop saying "MHz don't matter", first of all it makes it seem like 'MHz' are a thing, secondly they do matter, they just don't completely describe the performance. MHz is a unit of frequency, it tells you how many times in the cycle completes in one second. Using the FP32 example; you have units that do floating point arithmetic, as of the last five years or so they implement the new FMA (fused multiply-add) instructions so you have 2 floating points ops per cycle. You have 2816 floating point execution units on a 980Ti So that's 2 every cycle on each of the 2816 units 1,500,000,000 cycles per second (1500mhz) --- (2 x 2816) x 1,500,000,000 = ~8,450,000,000,000 floating point operations per second. You can also calculate other theoretical throughputs considering the frequency; for render output units for examples, or texture mapping units, the clock matters. Obviously having 2x units at half the frequency is the same as half the units at double the frequency. The Fury X has a FP32 performance of 8,600,000,000,000 flops To match this performance a 980Ti needs to be clocked at (8,600,000,000,000)/(2x2816) = 1527 mhz

Fiji will sell along with Polaris. Just saying... The performance per watt game is annoying since it depends on the application and settings in question to determine the power consumption. It's possible to remain very power efficient at a certain clock and explode with a small bit of tinkering. This is Maxwell II in a nutshell. I suspect Polaris is similar, and that's why AMD changed from up to 2.5x to up to 2.0x perf-per-watt. They had to increase clocks. Those with 290s and up probably have no reason to upgrade unless they want Pascal. Nevertheless AMD confirmed its position with Polaris 10/11 for release in June. Hopefully it's not all that will be offered. These are essentially all notebook grade GPUs.

AMD demonstrated its “Polaris” 10 and 11 next-generation GPUs, with Polaris 11 targeting the notebook market and “Polaris” 10 aimed at the mainstream desktop and high-end gaming notebook segment. “Polaris” architecture-based GPUs are expected to deliver a 2x performance per watt improvement over current generation products and are designed for intensive workloads including 4K video playback and virtual reality (VR). ***61623; AMD continued to expand its leadership position in VR, unveiling new technologies and collaborations across a variety of sectors, including gaming, education, and media. o AMD introduced the Radeon™ Pro Duo GPU, part of the world's most powerful platform for VR designed for creating and consuming VR content. AMD’s Radeon™ Pro Duo GPU with its LiquidVR™ SDK is a platform aimed at most all aspects of VR content creation: from entertainment to education, journalism, medicine, and cinema. o 20th Century Fox, New Regency, Ubisoft Motion Pictures, and VR development studio Practical Magic chose the AMD Radeon™ Pro Duo GPU featuring the AMD LiquidVR™ SDK to bring the upcoming ASSASSIN’S CREED movie VR experience to life

and that's why performance / (transistor*clock) is... a nonsense metric 🤓 look, performance is tangible metric, and so is transistor# clock.. no one gives a **** about clock, because its significance is already accounted for in performance what performance / (transistor*clock) metric does is... it punishes high-clocking arch/design. makes no sense.

Nonsense metric to many, not to me. It gives insight into architecture. Outlook for future. When I had i7-720qm it had good performance per clock as 2nd and any generation after. But it was clocked too low to be great as it was 45nm chip. Then 2nd generation came on 32nm and achievable clock speeds changed a lot. Understanding technological (dis)advantages for each technology is important. If you happen to know that in 2 months some disadvantage will be gone...

^ Above reply to you too, since you seem to think that 800Mhz somehow means bad performance...not saying it WILL be good performance, but unless you know exactly how the new architecture(or updated) performs, then you can't make that call.

Of course it's bad. The very same table has two other chips of the same new GCN architecture left and right, both boasting higher clocks. Clock rate is basically free performance as long as the processor can handle it (as proven by millions of overclockers). Just to make it clear, I don't actually believe this article's info to be correct, but if it was, I don't see why AMD would opt to go for an overly complicated chip requiring so slow clocks to be stable as opposed to a simpler, cheaper structure that would achieve the same or better performance with a bit higher clocks. AMD's finances are screwed as they are. The move to 14nm ought to make voltages lower automatically, so they wouldn't need to fry the chip to get the MHz.

Because you never stated what this metric actually stands for. [/qUote] actually please don't. it's a useless metric. and that's even without going into nuances, like the ease with which you simply divide perf/tran with clocks^1. Even if clocks weren't useless metric, why not divide with sqrt(clocks) or with clocks^2 or ln(clocks). Why did you decide weighing factor to be exactly ^1? it's a ridiculous metric, lets agree to that 🙂 lets rather deal with more pressing issues - like can AMD win mobile this round, and... why did they lower Polaris to 2x perf/W!