What makes Pascal so powerful?

[3 Lions]

We have the 1050Ti which is nearly on par with a 770, we have the 1060 which can beat the 980 and we have the 1070 that is faster than a Maxwell Titan X. How does Pascal do this? 

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, LinusTechTipsFanFromDarlo said:

We have the 1050Ti beating the 770, we have the 1060 which can beat the 980 and we have the 1070 that is faster than a Maxwell Titan X. How does Pascal do this? 

Brute clock speed and small improvements...

[Remixt]

Smaller manufacturing process = more cuda cores on the same die size plus architecture updates. It's pretty much the same reason (in a very tiny nutshell) that cpu performance is better now than it was 2 years ago too.

[Hunter115]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Brute clock speed and small improvements...

and smaller note

[The_Denks]

Smaller manufacturing process

More transistors

Higher memory bandwidth

Higher core and memory clocks

About $2 billion in R&D

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Hunter115 said:

and smaller note

This mostly affects power consumption...

[App4that]

A monkeys foot.

[Damascus]

13 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

This mostly affects power consumption...

Doesn't less power consumed = less heat and therefore higher clocks?

[Glenwing]

14 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

This mostly affects power consumption...

It affects power efficiency, which you can either use to do the same thing with less power consumption, or do more with the same power consumption, or somewhere inbetween.

[arbellason55]

23 minutes ago, LinusTechTipsFanFromDarlo said:

We have the 1050Ti which is nearly on par with a 770, we have the 1060 which can beat the 980 and we have the 1070 that is faster than a Maxwell Titan X. How does Pascal do this? 

A sacrifice of AMD tears to the GPU overlords.

[PCGuy_5960]

9 minutes ago, Damascus said:

Doesn't less power consumed = less heat and therefore higher clocks?

Not necessarily, for example, Ryzen runs extremely cool, BUT, it doesn't clock as high as a 7700K or a 6900K... 

[Damascus]

4 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Not necessarily, for example, Ryzen runs extremely cool, BUT, it doesn't clock as high as a 7700K or a 6900K... 

Isn't that power delivery?  A pascal card tends to have both great power delivery and efficiency, allowing really high clocks

[ivan134]

Node shrink. Allows you to fit more transistors in the same space than you previously could. This same thing happens every node shrink.

[App4that]

Just now, ivan134 said:

Node shrink. Allows you to fit more transistors in the same space than you previously could. This same thing happens every node shrink.

So what's up with Polaris?

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, Damascus said:

Isn't that power delivery?

Nah, even if you use the best AM4 motherboard, Ryzen still overclocks like crap...

[ivan134]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

So what's up with Polaris?

???

I don't know the context of you question.

[App4that]

5 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

???

I don't know the context of you question.

The RX 390 with a 28mn process has 2560 cores.

The RX 480 with a 14nm process has 2304 cores.

 

Both perform the same. Marginal clock speed improvement with Polaris.

[Glenwing]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

The RX 390 with a 28mn process has 2560 cores.

The RX 480 with a 14nm process has 2304 cores.

 

Both perform the same. Marginal clock speed improvement with Polaris.

He said "fit more transistors in the same space". He's talking about more cores per square mm of silicon. Of course, you can also choose to just not add more cores and keep the extra silicon savings instead.

[PCGuy_5960]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

Both perform the same. Marginal clock speed improvement with Polaris.

Nope... The 480 is a lot closer to the 390X and the Fury.....

[App4that]

Just now, Glenwing said:

He said "fit more transistors in the same space". He's talking about more cores per square mm of silicon. Of course, you can also choose to just not add more cores and keep the extra silicon savings instead.

More a question as to the performance. The node shrink really didn't impact performance that much. The largest impact was the efficiency.

 

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Nope... The 480 is a lot closer to the 390X and the Fury.....

No, the 390x always gave me the giggles. My 290 could catch one LOL. The Fury smokes a RX 480. When the drivers are there.

[Glenwing]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

More a question as to the performance. The node shrink really didn't impact performance that much. The largest impact was the efficiency.

I think he was saying that the performance increase comes from being able to fit more cores than what was previously possible. If you choose not to use the space to put more cores though then you aren't going to see performance gains, you'll take power draw improvements instead.

 

 

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

The Fury smokes a RX 480. When the drivers are there.

Only in Vulkan and DX12... In DX11, the 1060 beats both

[ivan134]

9 minutes ago, App4that said:

The RX 390 with a 28mn process has 2560 cores.

The RX 480 with a 14nm process has 2304 cores.

 

Both perform the same. Marginal clock speed improvement with Polaris.

Well before I get to a lot of nuances, the fact that 2304 SPs is giving you the same performance as 2560 SPs is evidence of what I'm talking about. If it were an Hawaii chip with 2304 SPs, overclocking to 1266 MHz wouldn't give you the same performance as a 290.

 

"Marginal clock increase" is also irrelevant. The 1060 does what it does at a higher cock speed too. The fact that Polaris isn't as high is irrelevant because GCN arch does more per MHz than Maxwell/Pascal. My 1338 MHz 480 card is on par with a 980 as you can see from hardware Canucks 480 vs 1060 review where they used the nitro+ that comes OCed to 1342 (just 4 MHz higher than mine).

Edited March 15, 2017 by ivan134
Typing on phone, autocorrect

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

My 1338 MHz 480 card is on par with a stock or moderately overclocked 980 as you can see from hardware Canucks 480 vs 1060 review where they used the nitro+ that comes OCed to 1342 (just 4 MHz higher than mine).

FIFY

[App4that]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

Well before I get to a lot of nuances, the fact that 2304 SPs is giving you the same performance as 2560 SPs is evidence of what I'm talking about. If it were an Hawaii chip with 2304 SPs, overclocking to 1266 MHz wouldn't give you the same price as a 290.

 

"Marginal clock increase" is also irrelevant. The 1060 does what it does at a higher cock speed too. The fact that Polaris isn't as high is irrelevant because GCN arch does more per MHz than Maxwell/Pascal. My 1338 MHz 480 card is on par with a 980 as you can see from hardware Canucks 480 vs 1060 review where they used the nitro+ that comes OCed to 1342 (just 4 MHz higher than mine).

Overclock the 980 to 1500MHz, retest

 

This is my point.

The 980ti has 2816 cuda cores, the 1070 has 1920 cuda cores. Both perform the same.