Rx 470 TDP and Performance Revealed

[Trixanity]

33 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Yup, that's basically the same thing as my guess! I'm guessing that next year vega 10 will be the new fury and fury X at 500<, vega 11 will be the 390/X replacement at 300-450 dollars, and p10 and p11 will stay where they are. Vega 10 would have hbm 2 and vega 11 g5x. Of course vega 11 isn't confirmed but it just doesn't make sense for AMD to leave a whole section of the market uncontested.

I'm still fairly positive that AMD will launch an RX 485, which is a Polaris 10 with more a few more CUs and probably higher clock speeds (binned chips), and that it'll launch in like a year or be an Apple exclusive chip sometime in upcoming products - or both (as in Apple exclusive for the foreseeable future until stock is good and then desktop launch)

[DocSwag]

14 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

I'm still fairly positive that AMD will launch an RX 485, which is a Polaris 10 with more a few more CUs and probably higher clock speeds (binned chips), and that it'll launch in like a year or be an Apple exclusive chip sometime in upcoming products - or both (as in Apple exclusive for the foreseeable future until stock is good and then desktop launch)

Wait, with a few more CUs? But p10 maxes out at 36 CUs...

Me no understand

[manikyath]

18 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Given AMD's track record, I think it'll get at least 10% faster in the course of its life span. AMD's GPUs have a tendency to start off a bit less than expected but improving over time - a slow start if you well. Nvidia has a tendency to start with a bang and impressing everyone all around but very little improvement during its life span and eventually performing less than expected when driver support trickles to a halt.

 

I think that's a fair presentation of the two. One could argue that AMD should be better prepared when launching their cards and I'll agree on that. The inconsistent launch performance hurts their sales.

my 970 has gotten a rough 10% faster since when i got it, if that's the mindblowing driver optimizations the amd side of the pond is talking about i may be sticking to my nvidia habits a bit longer

 

and if 10% is future proof, amd sees the future to be very, very stale.

[Trixanity]

4 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Wait, with a few more CUs? But p10 maxes out at 36 CUs...

Me no understand

Speculation of course but some of us just think something's fishy with Polaris 10 and the new node, so that the yields on the good stuff aren't up to snuff. And AMD's new naming scheme leaves room for RX xx5 variants. Although perhaps that would still be a 36 CU binned chip anyway.

And there is rumors brewing that Apple is ordering a fuckton of chips from AMD, so if that's the case, then they're definitely reserving some chips for that order and Apple usually demands priority and the best they can offer.

[Trixanity]

30 minutes ago, manikyath said:

my 970 has gotten a rough 10% faster since when i got it, if that's the mindblowing driver optimizations the amd side of the pond is talking about i may be sticking to my nvidia habits a bit longer

 

and if 10% is future proof, amd sees the future to be very, very stale.

Sadly I can't find the table I'm looking for, but basically it shows how well AMD cards improve over the years whereas Nvidia cards stagnate.

The 10% was a conservative estimate. I'd rather be conservative about it than promise 30% improvements, particularly when I can't remember the exact numbers and that I can't find the thing I'm looking for that backs up my statement.

[ace_cheaply]

31 minutes ago, manikyath said:

my 970 has gotten a rough 10% faster since when i got it, if that's the mindblowing driver optimizations the amd side of the pond is talking about i may be sticking to my nvidia habits a bit longer

 

and if 10% is future proof, amd sees the future to be very, very stale.

Driver optimization record includes the 290x losing handily to the 780ti on launch and is now handing the 780ti its ass back after kicking it off.

[DocSwag]

7 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

Driver optimization record includes the 290x losing handily to the 780ti on launch and is now handing the 780ti its ass back after kicking it off.

Not to mention how at first the 680 beat the 7970 at stock and now the 7970 is tied with if not better than the 680.

[captain cactus]

1 hour ago, ace_cheaply said:

Because Polaris 10 came first, and then they decided to make the smaller, slower Polaris 11.   They started on Vega 10 first, and realized they wanted an uber gpu, and so they have Vega 11.  It's the sequence of development

Polaris 11 was there first for the mobile market. AMD later decided that it wanted a beefed up version for the desktop and somehow called it Polaris 10. The Vega part's right though.

[Humbug]

35 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

Driver optimization record includes the 290x losing handily to the 780ti on launch and is now handing the 780ti its ass back after kicking it off.

7970 overtaking the 680 and 290x overtaking the 780ti may not be entirely due to driver optimization. I admit AMD's longterm support is better but there are also hardware reasons for it.  The old nvidia GPUs still perform well on old games but when you move towards newer 2015 and 2016 titles demanding more memory throughput and VRAM and high res textures etc things swing the other way. The 680 has only 2GB.

 

today a GTX 970 is equivalent to a rx480. In two years time when most of the AAA games are using Vulkan or dx12 obviously the rx 480 will pull ahead. And then probably people will blame nvidia drivers again.

[Clanscorpia]

On 7/1/2016 at 5:56 AM, WereCat said:

Just watch PCPER review .. 

Those were 8GB cards that had a bios that allowed for switching to 4GB so they could test the 4GB card without needing to send reviewers 2

[DocSwag]

46 minutes ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Polaris 11 was there first for the mobile market. AMD later decided that it wanted a beefed up version for the desktop and somehow called it Polaris 10. The Vega part's right though.

Actually it's the other way around... P10 came first and then AMD cut it down to make P11. If you watched the entire interview pcper had with Raja (I don't why I watched that whole thing it's over an hour what am I doing with my life) Raja mentioned somewhere in there that P10 was the original Polaris GPU they developed and that P11 came after P10.

[captain cactus]

36 minutes ago, Humbug said:

7970 overtaking the 680 and 290x overtaking the 780ti may not be entirely due to driver optimization. I admit AMD's longterm support is better but there are also hardware reasons for it.  The old nvidia GPUs still perform well on old games but when you move towards newer 2015 and 2016 titles demanding more memory throughput and VRAM and high res textures etc things swing the other way. The 680 has only 2GB.

 

today a GTX 970 is equivalent to a rx480. In two years time when most of the AAA games are using Vulkan or dx12 obviously the rx 480 will pull ahead. And then probably people will blame nvidia drivers again.

AMD was always ahead with the VRAM game. 580 had 1.5GB, 6970 had 2GB. 680 had 2, 7970 had 3. 780(including the Ti) had 3, 290(X) had 4 (and later 8GB as well). 980 had 4, 390(X) had 8. In almost all cases (certainly the most recent ones) the memory throughput was also way higher. The 980Ti had a throughput of 336GB/sec, while the 390 series had 384GB/sec on a wide 512-bit bus Only with the Fury series did AMD have lower VRAM numbers than its competition, just because of the use of HBM.

[DocSwag]

7 minutes ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

AMD was always ahead with the VRAM game. 580 had 1.5GB, 6970 had 2GB. 680 had 2, 7970 had 3. 780(including the Ti) had 3, 290(X) had 4 (and later 8GB as well). 980 had 4, 390(X) had 8. In almost all cases (certainly the most recent ones) the memory throughput was also way higher. The 980Ti had a throughput of 336GB/sec, while the 390 series had 384GB/sec on a wide 512-bit bus Only with the Fury series did AMD have lower VRAM numbers than its competition, just because of the use of HBM.

Even though Nvidia had less memory throughout they usually have had much better compression though-AMD memory compression was essentially non existent until gcn 1.2 whereas all Maxwell cards had a lot of memory compression going on essentially making the actual memory bandwidth on Maxwell cards much higher than what it seemed from face value.

[AlTech]

On ‎7‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 4:52 AM, Energycore said:

32 CUs on the 470? That's like, 88% of an RX 480.

 

I might get a 470 instead

But there's lower clockspeeds. It should be around 70-80% of an RX480

 

On ‎7‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 2:02 PM, laminutederire said:

It was like that for reviewer cards which were 8GB ones. We'd have to see a 4GB to see if it really has those.

RX 470 is only available with 4GB VRAM.

 

 

[alamox]

On 01/07/2016 at 3:45 AM, Repost said:

Considering the 480 already performs similar to a 380x in many games and benchmarks, the real value card is the 470 then. 

 

you realize that 480 is 10% faster than 970 ? 10% slower than 980 ? in what planet does that equates  to similar to 380X, thats 40% performance difference...the 470 should be about 10% slower than 970, making it at least 20% faster than 380X with much better OC headroom, since 470 spec are too close  to 480 it should be less than 7-10% from spec and 5-10% from clock

[VerticalDiscussions]

Wait what? Isnt overwatch meant to be "demanding", even at 1080p? I tought the 1080 didnt even have over 200 fps at max settings, how can a RX 470 have 121?

 

PS: No, i dont have or ever played the game, which probably couldnt be maxed either on my current 770...

[DocSwag]

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

But there's lower clockspeeds. It should be around 70-80% of an RX480

 

RX 470 is only available with 4GB VRAM.

 

 

But you can get them clock speeds back through overclocking!  

1 hour ago, alamox said:

 

you realize that 480 is 10% faster than 970 ? 10% slower than 980 ? in what planet does that equates  to similar to 380X, thats 40% performance difference...the 470 should be about 10% slower than 970, making it at least 20% faster than 380X with much better OC headroom, since 470 spec are too close  to 480 it should be less than 7-10% from spec and 5-10% from clock

Wait what where did you see that? The 480 is 10% faster than the 970? What? I think that's only in dx12....

 

Plus just look at my OP.... The firestrike score of the 470 is between the 380 and 380x, and I looked around a bit and it seems in the other games the 470 is around the level of the 380x.

 

If you have evidence to suggest otherwise please show it to me, but I don't see where you are getting those claims from.

[Energycore]

Makes sense to release small Vega first - yields on 14nm are sure to be terrible for the first batch and AMD doesn't have to compete with GP102 until it's actually released.

 

So the 490/490X will be 1070 / 1080 level cards and then the Furies will be 1080ti level

 

Maybe.

[alphaproject]

But... what TDP is the 470 REALLY going to run at....

 

The 480 is capable of drawing close to 200 watts actually, which is not even close to being as efficient as the 1070, rotfl.

 

So will the 470 draw closer to the actual TDP or 140-150 watts actually.