AMD Polaris

Discussion in 'Technology' started by bfun, Jan 25, 2016.

  1. So what do we know so far? There are 2 chips. Polaris 10, a mobile low-end version and Polaris 11, a desktop version. Polaris 11 might come in two variants. A $600 and $450 version. All chips are compatible with GDDR5 and HMB2 memory. Launch date is probably August 2016.
  2. It kind of sounds like they aren't even trying to compete with nvidia. They're focusing on low power GPUs for notebooks. They ducked out of the performance wars with Intel because they couldn't win, and now they're doing the same thing with GPUs. I don't think AMD will be around much longer tbh.
  3. Both Nvidia and AMD are focusing heavily on their mobile GPU this time round. The performance per watt of both chips is going to be a huge improvement. We might be seeing something with Xbox 1 performance on a Surface Pro. In this regards AMD will actually have the edge. Their mobile GPU is expected to be out 6+ months before Nvidia's .

    As far as the big chips both are releasing around the same time although there have been some speculation Nvidia might be behind schedule. I don't believe they have shown a working card yet.
  4. Based on part number sales it looks like AMD will have 5 Polaris cards. The Vega is probably a professional series card but it could also be a dual GPU or really powerful single GPU card.

    C913/C924 - Cut down Polaris 10/full Polaris 10
    C980/C981 - Cut down Polaris 11/Full Polaris 11
    C993 - Vega 10
  5. Here is AMD's new road map. The latest interpretations from AMD is that Vega is the new flag ship card but probably wont appear until 2017. It will use HBM2. Polaris 10 and 11 will show up in a few months and will probably use GDDR5/X because it's cheaper. Polaris will have the largest performance/watt increase in any generation of GPUs. AMD has shown both Polaris 10 and 11 chips at their events.

  6. So it turns out the Polaris 10 is the desktop version and the Polaris 11 is the mobile version.

    Now we have a Polaris 10 seen running Hitman on ultra at a steady 60fps. This would make it as fast or more likely faster than Fury X. Also noted is that the card will be similar in size to the Fury Nano which might indicate 4GB of HBM1 memory or maybe just well placed DDR5. Also, the Polaris 11 was show running 4K VR content with passive cooling. It seems these cards are going to be easy to cool.

  7. One of the latest rumors is the Nintendo NX will be getting a Polaris GPU. Sounds like at a minimum it will be a little faster than the PS4 and at a maximum could be as fast as the rumored PS4K. Of course if the PS4K actually materializes in 2016 it might have a Polaris chip as well. If it comes later it would be another custom APU or Vega GPU.
  8. #8 cmdrmonkey, Apr 16, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2016
    I still don't believe the PS4K rumors that were started by Kotaku. I think we'll see Nintendo NX in Q4 of this year, and PS5 and Xbox 4 probably in late 2017 or 2018. I really doubt Sony would fragment the PS4 hardware. Sega did something similar back in the 90's with the Genesis addons, and it was a disaster. I also doubt they could do 4K gaming at an affordable price point this year. You would need something on par with a 980 Ti, which is way too expensive for the forseeable future to put in a console.

    I do however believe that Sony and Microsoft will move ahead sooner than expected with their next consoles. These consoles are woefully underpowered, and just can't keep up in many of the big AAA multiplatform games. Just look at what a mess Fallout 4 was on the consoles for instance, while it ran fine on PC.

    In a few years, affordable GPUs that can handle 4K in some games should be a thing. I think what we're actually seeing is Sony getting ready for the PS5, which will run some games at 4K. And it might use a Polaris GPU and HBM.
  9. Looks like it will only be the Pro designated laptops that would get it, as the just-announced Macbook refresh is still using Intel's integrated GPUs.
  10. Will they be using Skylake CPUs?
  11. Yeah, the MacBooks have Skylake now. The biggest speed boost seems to come from the new SSDs they're using, especially when it comes to disk write...80-90% faster.
  12. Now that SSDs using PCI-E are becoming more commonplace I should hope that these expensive Mac products are taking full advantage of them.
  13. That disk write speed is in comparison to the PCIe SSD that was already in the previous gen Macbook.
  14. From a quick google it looks like the 2015 was hitting 500-600MB/s on it's SSD.

    You'd expect a good PCI-E SSD to achieve over 1000MB/s these days so they've given it an upgrade to bring it in line.

    A single lane of PCI-E 3.0 can hit 985MB/s and most newer SSDs are 4x so hopefully we see some good speeds in the future. PCI-E 4 is something like 1960MB/s per lane so the history of storage being the bottleneck in computers is long gone.
  15. So the latest rumors seem to be confirming that the 490X (Polaris 10) is near 980Ti speeds. I take that to mean it's as fast as a Fury X but with OC headroom for premium cards. Additionally AMD might be able to sell the 490X for around $300. If that's true it would be an amazing value. Personally I've gotten tired of the $500 to $1000 high-end cards. It's still early but I'm predicting a good price war between the 1070 and 490X. Offers Near 980 Ti Performance For 300 USD
  16. Competition would be nice. I'm also tired of $500+ cards. I really miss the $200-300 big bang for the buck cards of yesteryear like the 8800GT and GTX 460.
  17. AMD officially unveiled the 480 at Computex. The biggest piece of news is the price which is $200. AMD also took aim at the 1080 showing two 480s @ <$500 in crossfire beating the $700 1080 in Ashes of Singularity which is a heavily AMD favored game. There was no mention of the 480X.

    I think AMD has something good. 84% of all graphics cards bought are under $300 and for the moment it doesn't it have any competition. The 480 is 50% faster than a $200 960GTX and maybe 8% faster than a $260 970.
  18. #20 cmdrmonkey, Jun 1, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2016
    Seems like a smart move to go after the $200 price point. The majority of people do not buy $500+ high-end cards. Most will never spend more than about $300, and $200 seems to be the sweet spot where most people buy. The 970 has been popular because the price often dips below $300, and it offers most of the performance of a 980 or 980Ti for much less money.

    If this can get into the same ballpark of performance as cards like the GTX 970 and 980, but at an MSRP of $200, I see them having a real winner on their hands. This could be the spiritual successor to cards like the 8800GT, Radeon 4850, and GTX 460 that so many people have been wanting. Those cards were awesome because they gave you ~90+% of the performance of the expensive high-end cards, but at ~$200.