AMD Computex 2016 - Polaris and Zen Revealed

[Energycore]

Just now, RagnarokDel said:

6700k is better for gaming tho

Not for ashes it isn't.

 

But yes.

[RagnarokDel]

1 minute ago, Energycore said:

Not for ashes it isn't.

 

But yes.

fair enough

[Belgarathian]

6 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

6700k is better for gaming tho

 

5 minutes ago, Energycore said:

Not for ashes it isn't.

 

But yes.

Under DX11 (which feeds your GPU from a single thread. Note: Nvidia introduced basic DX11.1 multi threaded workloads, but wasn't widely supported) the 6700k would be a better performer due to the higher clock speed giving you better single core performance (if we assume IPC is the same between 6950X and 6700k), but under DX12 you have much, much better support for multi thread workloads meaning that the 6950X is going to be the better performer. 

 

On another note, that positions the upcoming Zen CPUs with 8 cores and 16 threads as a huge disruption for Intel. DX12 may be AMD/RTGs saving grace. 

[Energycore]

Just now, Belgarathian said:

 

Under DX11 (which feeds your GPU from a single thread) the 6700k would be a better performer due to the higher clock speed giving you better single core performance, but under DX12 you have much, much better support for multi thread workloads meaning that the 6950X is going to be the better performer. 

 

On another note, that positions the upcoming Zen CPUs with 8 cores and 16 threads as a huge disruption for Intel. 

AMD could honestly ask $700 for their 8/16 Zen SKU and it would be a good value compared to the 5960X.

So I bet they'll cost about that much.

[reapersivan]

So a 390 would still be better than the X400?

[Energycore]

Just now, reapersivan said:

So a 390 would still be better than the X400?

Than the RX 480? I don't think so. Compute performance of the 480 is higher. But we don't know until June 29.

[Humbug]

3 hours ago, Clanscorpia said:

Zen will have 40% IPC improvement with 8c/16 and AM4.

40% IPC improvement over what?

 

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Why were the AMD CF GPUs demoing at only 51% utilization, when the point was to show how much faster it could be than a GTX 1080, if it could do more?

It could be a number of things

-as usual the drivers for a new architecture need to specifically tuned

-the ashes of the singularity dual GPU implementation may not be well optimized enough yet

-maybe the game is not GPU limited anymore with two GPUs in the testing scenario, so it hits a CPU limit so the GPU utilization cannot go any higher

 

1 hour ago, jjar35 said:

Also the fact that nVidia can do with one card what takes AMD 2 albeit with a ~$100 increase

LOL, AMD can do that too. This just happens to be the 480 GPU. Wait for the 490 and higher if you're looking for high end.

 

2 hours ago, EarthboundHero said:

My 390 can already run Doom Ultra 60+ FPS.

it had better, considering how much it costs.

 

 

[Energycore]

2 minutes ago, Humbug said:

40% IPC improvement over what?

Over Excavator, the architecture found on the 8350. Puts it around Haswell IPC, roughly.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, Energycore said:

Over Excavator, the architecture found on the 8350. Puts it around Haswell IPC, roughly.

If they actually give us 8 cores of properly clocked haswell-level IPC, it should act basically like a 5960x.  If they price it right (and I suspect they will if that's their mainstream offering) this could be huge!

[FatalityDiablo]

rip jenhsun huang

[Energycore]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

If they actually give us 8 cores of properly clocked haswell-level IPC, it should act basically like a 5960x.  If they price it right (and I suspect they will if that's their mainstream offering) this could be huge!

I'm more interested in how much their 4/8 SKU costs

 

And how well it overclocks.

[Humbug]

7 minutes ago, Energycore said:

Over Excavator, the architecture found on the 8350. Puts it around Haswell IPC, roughly.

What? fx-8350 is piledriver architecture.

That's why I wanted to know; 40% IPC gains compared to what? Without being specific it's hard to interpret.

[Energycore]

4 minutes ago, Humbug said:

What? fx-8350 is piledriver architecture.

That's why I wanted to know; 40% IPC gains compared to what? Without being specific it's hard to interpret.

Dammit I guess I got them mixed up.

 

What I remember was 40% over the 8350.

[Humbug]

2 minutes ago, Energycore said:

What I remember was 40% over the 8350.

Ok. I guess then a zen running at 4Ghz would perform like a theoretical fx-8350 overclocked to 5.6Ghz

 

Now that we know the IPC is good what remains to be seen is if they can hit good clock speeds with Zen. If they cannot hit good clock speeds then that will negate the IPC gains somewhat. I hope they get about 3.8Ghz on the flagship part.

[M4st4M1nd]

Wow. This is amazing news. I'm going team red

[Energycore]

Just now, Humbug said:

Ok. I guess then a zen running at 4Ghz would perform like a theoretical fx-8350 overclocked to 5.6Ghz

 

Now that we know the IPC is good what remains to be seen is if they can hit good clock speeds with Zen. If they cannot hit good clock speeds then that will negate the IPC gains somewhat. I hope they get about 3.8Ghz on the flagship part.

It's not that simple. Zen did away with clustered multi-threading and added simultaneous multi-threading, which results in as much as 100% better performance in stuff like Cinebench compared to the 8350.

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, M4st4M1nd said:

Wow. This is amazing news. I'm going team red

Although it's going to be hard to beat SLI 980s with Polaris

[Humbug]

1 minute ago, Energycore said:

It's not that simple. Zen did away with clustered multi-threading and added simultaneous multi-threading, which results in as much as 100% better performance in stuff like Cinebench compared to the 8350.

I was just talking about the single threaded performance...

[zMeul]

I dunno where to reply, there are about 3 topics on AMD's Computex conference

oh well ...

 

• regarding the RX480 vs GTX1080 Ashes so called "benchmark" - you don't even need to look closely to see AMD tweaked the settings to work in their favor; what's up with the ground quality Rajah?!?!
• price - like Anand also noted, the RX480 will be available in two variants, 4GB and 8GB; do not expect the 8GB variant to be available at 200$
• performance - according to the compute perf, the RX480 will be slower than R9 390
• we don't want to be known as the cheaper alternative - riiigt!? 

we shall see the actual benchmarks from 3rd party sources

 

ps: dunno if anyone notice it, but they put 2 x RX480 (2 x 150W) against a single GTX1080 (180W) - LOL!

Edited June 1, 2016 by zMeul

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

I dunno where to reply, there are about 3 topics on AMD's Computex conference

oh well ...

 

• regarding the RX480 vs GTX1080 Ashes so called "benchmark" - you don't even need to look closely to see AMD tweaked the settings to work in their favor; what's up with the ground quality Rajah?!?!
• price - like Anand also noted, the RX480 will be available in two variants, 4GB and 8GB; do not expect the 8GB variant to be available at 200$
• performance - according to the compute perf, the RX480 will be slower than R9 390

we shall see the actual benchmarks from 3rd party sources

I'm pretty pissed about tweaked settings. They could have shown how it compares with similar settings even if it scored a bit below and that wouldn't have been outrageous.

 

Did they advertise less compute than the R9 390? I was hearing 5.5 TFLOPS for the 480 compared to 4.9 in the older part.

[vanished]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

I dunno where to reply, there are about 3 topics on AMD's Computex conference

oh well ...

 

• regarding the RX480 vs GTX1080 Ashes so called "benchmark" - you don't even need to look closely to see AMD tweaked the settings to work in their favor; what's up with the ground quality Rajah?!?!
• price - like Anand also noted, the RX480 will be available in two variants, 4GB and 8GB; do not expect the 8GB variant to be available at 200$
• performance - according to the compute perf, the RX480 will be slower than R9 390

we shall see the actual benchmarks from 3rd party sources

You think there's only 3?   I wish ...

[Megazero]

Just now, Energycore said:

I'm pretty pissed about tweaked settings. They could have shown how it compares with similar settings even if it scored a bit below and that wouldn't have been outrageous.

 

Did they advertise less compute than the R9 390? I was hearing 5.5 TFLOPS for the 480 compared to 4.9 in the older part.

Is it 5.5? When I saw >5 on their slide I assume it's something like 5.02 like the 970

[Humbug]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

• regarding the RX480 vs GTX1080 Ashes so called "benchmark" - you don't even need to look closely to see AMD tweaked the settings to work in their favor; what's up with the ground quality Rajah?!?!

If it turns out that it's not just the contrast ratio, then AMD deserves to get a lot of heat for this. It would also be an incredibly stupid PR move because it should have been obvious that it would backfire on them.

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, Energycore said:

Did they advertise less compute than the R9 390? I was hearing 5.5 TFLOPS for the 480 compared to 4.9 in the older part.

both PCPer and Anand point to 5 TFLOPS; while R9 390 has 5.12 - so, it's about there

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

both PCPer and Anand point to 5 TFLOPS; while R9 390 has 5.12 - so, it's about there

That's interesting because it also suggests not significantly higher clockspeeds than last generation.