Page 1 of 432 1231151101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 4311

Thread: Polaris 10 size / performance estimation

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Switzerland Geneva Cern
    Posts
    2,951

    Polaris 10 size / performance estimation

    I will try to estimate performance of polaris 10 using info available.

    Helpfull links: TSMC 16nm
    Wikipedia transistor count

    1) polaris 10 is expected to be about Cape Verde size (~120mm2) or nvidia 750ti (~140mm2)
    2) polaris 10 is expected to be significantly more efficient than older amd cards.

    So die size of polaris 10 should be greater than 100mm2 and smaller than 150mm2.

    According to claims about 16nm - 14nm process chips have aproximately 2x the density of 28nm. Using also data provided from wikipedia we can see that both amd and nvidia manage to increase at least 1.7 times their transistor count when changing process.

    Therefore i believe polaris 10 will have aproximatelly 1.7 - 1.8 higher transistor density than 28nm amd cards. Since it is the first design of amd on a new process i will use Cape Verde transistor density as a basis on my calculations (designs that come after always manage higher transistor densities than initial designs)

    Cape Verde has according to wikipedia 12.2 million transistors / mm2 so polaris 10 should have at least 20 million transistors / mm2 and less than 25 million transistors / mm2 (1.8 times the density of tahiti).

    Lowest estimated transistor count 20x100 = 2 billion transistors.
    Highest estimated transistor count 25x150 = 3.7 billion transistors

    I believe the transistor count of polaris 10 will be somewhere in the middle (probably quite similar to Pitcairn transistor count which is 2.8 billion)

    Pitcairn AKA 270x has according to techpowerup very similar performance to nvidia 950.

    This probably is not a coincidence since amd chose to compare polaris 10 to 950.

    Now for the last part, IMO polaris 10 is optimised for efficiency so it will not have higher clocks like most maxwell cards. I believe stock will be around 900 - 1000MHz.

    Also polaris 10 will be according to amd much more efficient as an arch thus achieving higher utilisation in most tasks. But in order to achieve there will probably be less shaders / mm2 (same as tahiti --> tonga).

    Since Pitcairn has 1280 shaders (and does not have tonga - fury X arch changes) it is not unreasonable to expect polaris 10 to have around 1024 shaders. However performance should be similar to 270x.

    So according to these reviews: 270x, 950 Pitcairn uses about 10% more power than nvidia 950 (LOL so much about maxwell extreme efficiency )

    It is very reasonable to expect that polaris 10 to use around 60W vs 950 97W and 270x 111W. I believe amd chose a specific - favorable use case that would make power consumption difference appear bigger (as all companies do on their presentations). This matches also TSMC and samsung claims about either ~70% less power consumption or ~65% more speed.
    Since amd (according to their presentation chose to focus on efficiency) this also must not be a coincidence.

    To sum up my estimation about polaris 10:

    1024 shaders, 130mm2, 22 million transistors / mm2, 2.8 billion transistors 60W TDP ~1GHz clocks, performance similar to 950 (probably clocks will be set to be somewhat higher for marketing reasons).

    Amd could also decide to release another version of polaris 10 chip clocked higher eg 1150MHz to compete with 960. This card however would probably need a 6pin cable because it would have > 75W TDP.

    Of cource other configurations are possible such as

    896 shaders, 110mm2, 20 million transistors / mm2, 2.2 billion transistors 65W TDP ~1.1GHz clocks

    Or

    1280 shaders, 140mm2, 23 million transistors / mm2, 3.2 billion transistors 70W TDP ~900MHz clocks

    What do you think?
    Current rig: i5 3570 @3.8GHz, Asus 7750, Dell 24'' 2560X1440, Corsair Vengence 16GB Ram DDR3 @1600MHz, Chieftec 550W PSU, 480GB OCZ SSD + 500GB Seagate + 1TB WD hd, Windows 10 64-bit

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    7,552
    Whichever does lower power. So probably the latter is more likely. But lest we forget improvements to a lot of GCN.

    I expect power aimed at 30-75W. 75W for full chip at 1ghz ish and 30W at cut down 800-850Mhz
    -Q

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Switzerland Geneva Cern
    Posts
    2,951
    Quote Originally Posted by testbug00 View Post
    Whichever does lower power. So probably the latter is more likely. But lest we forget improvements to a lot of GCN.

    I expect power aimed at 30-75W. 75W for full chip at 1ghz ish and 30W at cut down 800-850Mhz
    Some cut down versions will probably be laptop parts. I believe polaris 10 will be very popular in laptops. Nvidia 970M and 980M may be very fast but they do consume huge amounts of power for a laptop. IMO anything more than 30W gpu in a laptop is asking for trouble. My nvidia 6800 laptop died in 2 years just a week after the period that i would get refund. It turned out temps where ~90C when under a demanding gpu load. The psu was 180W i think.

    Now polaris 10 @ 40W will probably be somewhat slower than 970M (which is on par with 960). But it will provide at least 80% of 970M using half the power or even less. That will make it much better solution for almost all laptops.
    Current rig: i5 3570 @3.8GHz, Asus 7750, Dell 24'' 2560X1440, Corsair Vengence 16GB Ram DDR3 @1600MHz, Chieftec 550W PSU, 480GB OCZ SSD + 500GB Seagate + 1TB WD hd, Windows 10 64-bit

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,907
    I had read less than 50W. Now, that might only be @ 850MHz though, since that's what they showed.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    965
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerdmaster View Post

    So according to these reviews: 270x, 950 Pitcairn uses about 10% more power than nvidia 950 (LOL so much about maxwell extreme efficiency )

    It is very reasonable to expect that polaris 10 to use around 60W vs 950 97W and 270x 111W.
    Your comparison is hardly accurate because you are comparing an overclocked Geforce 950 with a basic Radeon 270x and on top of that you even use the power consumption numbers of 270x from a much older review(1.5 year older) even though you can find It in 950's review.

    Here is another review of Geforce 950 OC edition
    https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...Gaming/28.html
    which consumes even less power.

    If we compare power consumption numbers we get:
    EVGA 950 vs 270x(older review number)
    97W vs 111W = 14.4%

    EVGA 950 vs 270x(newest review number)
    97W vs 119W = 22.6%

    MSI 950 vs 270x(older review number)
    91W vs 111W = 21.97%

    MSI 950 vs 270x(newest review number)
    91W vs 119W = 30.77%

    Pitcain uses more power than just ~10% and we are still comparing It with OC editions and not a basic one which wasn't reviewed on Techpowerup site so In my opinion Maxwell is certainly more efficient than Pitcain.

    I will be very happy If Polaris has the same power efficiency as Maxwell or even better excluding the gains from moving to a smaller node.

  6. #6
    According to TPU, a 270X is now on par with 960 and about 15% faster than a 950.



    GCN keeps on giving.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by gamervivek View Post
    According to TPU, a 270X is now on par with 960 and about 15% faster than a 950.

    GCN keeps on giving.
    Yep, if you look it's the 975MHz 1024SP R7 370 that is on par with the 950. And you'd have to assume that a 1024SP Polaris would be even faster ? (Once optimized)

    That's why I believe that people who are looking at it as 'So how many SPs could we cram in ?' are looking at it the wrong way round. Because in power consumption and economic terms, the better question, and the one I believe AMD are likely to ask is ' So how many do we actually need ?'

    Die area costs money. And personally I believe that AMD won't spend one more cent on it than they have to in order to beat the 950/750ti.
    To find the right answers you must ask the right questions.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Switzerland Geneva Cern
    Posts
    2,951
    I wasnt aware that amd managed to give gcn such a performance boost across all cards. I remembered when they managed to surpass 980ti on 4k.

    In that case its no wonder polaris 10 manages to have so low power consumption when amd compared it to 950. It is probably utilised closer to 50% than 100% as many people have suggested.

    GPU Name: GM206
    GPU Variant: GM206-300-A1
    Process Size: 28 nm
    Transistors: 2,940 million
    Die Size: 228 mm?

    Typical gaming from TPU 104W

    GPU Name: Curacao
    GPU Variant: Curacao XT
    Process Size: 28 nm
    Transistors: 2,800 million
    Die Size: 212 mm?

    Typical gaming from TPU 119W

    Seems amd consumes just 14% more power but has similar performance, die size and transistor count.

    That means that a polaris 10 with 1024 sps will be more than enough to surpass 950. It really depends on how well drivers will be optimised for new games that will be used on reviews.
    Current rig: i5 3570 @3.8GHz, Asus 7750, Dell 24'' 2560X1440, Corsair Vengence 16GB Ram DDR3 @1600MHz, Chieftec 550W PSU, 480GB OCZ SSD + 500GB Seagate + 1TB WD hd, Windows 10 64-bit

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Switzerland Geneva Cern
    Posts
    2,951
    What probably had a very negative impact on amd cards in 7000 series and newer gcn cards was probably that they used way more power on multi monitor and blu ray.

    Seems the combination of having higher power consumption and lower performance was what killed amd sales (even if performance was very close to be noticable in most cases).

    I bet polaris 10 will have multi monitor and blu ray power consumption fixed.
    Current rig: i5 3570 @3.8GHz, Asus 7750, Dell 24'' 2560X1440, Corsair Vengence 16GB Ram DDR3 @1600MHz, Chieftec 550W PSU, 480GB OCZ SSD + 500GB Seagate + 1TB WD hd, Windows 10 64-bit

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    965
    Quote Originally Posted by gamervivek View Post
    According to TPU, a 270X is now on par with 960 and about 15% faster than a 950.
    ...
    GCN keeps on giving.
    I see, thanks for mentioning It. In the last half the year GCN gained a nice boost in performance. Good knowing they are still improving their drivers.
    With this improvement Radeon 270x should be compared with Geforce 960 which performs the same.
    Radeon 270x 119W
    Geforce 960 104W
    That's 14.4% higher power consumption.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux