380X had 4 cards above it. 390, 390X, Fury, and Fury X. There was also a pretty big jump from 380X to 390 - twice the ROPs, ~twice the bandwidth, 25% more shaders.
I'd agree with the 6750XT / slightly slower 6700XT (slower memory). There's a pretty solid jump to the 6800 - 50% more ROPs and...
I did one iteration of Core cycler without any issues earlier today actually cause repoman0 mentioned it. I don't know what you mean by manually, but I'll keep running it and hopefully it keeps passing.
Oh I don't know what the limit is. I think I'm actually getting it because my frequency is a tad higher in Cinebench then when I did 100W with -30. Or maybe I'm seeing what I want to see. Either way, who knows if it is stable yet.
After -30 on the voltage and 105W limit being stable on my 7700X (giving me the performance of stock at 135W+ based on reviews), I'm gonna get greedier and try -35 and 100W which also gives stock performance.
Cinebench and Furmark CPU tester have been stable so far. Anything else free and easy...
I wasn't super impressed with what we've seen, but just because they can't match the $1600 4090 doesn't mean ruination. It's likely that the $1200 4080 will be no match for the $1000 7900XTX in rasterization. As long as the RT performance isn't too far behind? Then it's up to the consumer if...
Disappointed in that the RT performance doesn't appear improved. Also the 7900XT makes no sense to buy unless there are stock shortages of the 7900XTX. But like Nvidia, AMD wants to continuing sell thru their old stock so they gotta price above the 6950XT at least, while in another other...
I took advantage of the Microcenter deal recently to upgrade from my aging i7 5820k. -$50 on Mobo ($150) and free 32 GB DDR5 6000 CL36. Man was my old CPU bottlenecking me bad. My frames are so much higher now. Also I'm undervolting and power limitting it without losing performance.
Free...
As expected, the "double 2080 performance" was utter nonsense. More power effecient than turing at 4k, but below that is comparable. Much better performance per dollar though. FE cooler seems pretty decent actually, but I probably will go for a Strix by Asus.
With lower clocks they can have a chip much bigger than 50CU.
Make the 5700 your comparison baseline, not the 5700 XT. 60 CUs (3840 ALUs) @ RX 5700 speeds with 96 ROPs and 384-bit will fit with 300W. With lower clocks than that they can go even bigger than 60 CUs. There's a reason the 2080...
Hmm, older article but:
http://monitorinsider.com/GDDR6.html
"Up to now, the storage capacity of all memory chips has been a nice, clean power fo two, if you exclude error detection or correction bits.
GDDR6 breaks with that tradition and offers in-between options. The standard allows a...
Oh if that 24 CU / 1536 shaders is true that's very nice. 1660 series competitor let's go.
I hope they have versions with more than 4GB. As I understand it, it's possible to get a 128-bit or 256-bit GDDR6 cards to have 6GB (or 12GB) of VRAM at full speed with no shenanigans, we just haven't...
It's anti-consumer.
The cards are priced to goddam close already. Why artificially lock?
7950 was 87.5% of the shaders of the 7970 for $100 less than the 7970.
290 was 91% of the shaders of the 290x, for $150 less than the 290X.
5700 is 90% of the shaders of the 5700 XT for $50 less.
Yet...
I was only watching on a 1440p display, but the RIS looked pretty good considering the ~30% performance boost it gave. I can accept minor artifacts for framerate - depending on the game. Some games artifact more than others.
Anything is possible for the smaller Navi. AMD does not have any established pattern at all.
Polaris: 36 / 16 / 10 CUs
Fiji / Tonga (both GCN 3): 64 / 32 CUs (though Hawaii stuck around between)
Hawaii / Bonaire (both GCN 2 kinda): 44 / 14 CUs (though Pitcairn the immortal was between so that...
Hmm, this got me thinking. Turing is... actually a dud in performance-per-mm2? Forget RTX, look at the chips without raytracing.
GTX 1650 and GTX 1060 are the same size, 200mm2 each. And 1650 is 4.7 bln transistors for 4.4 bln on 1060.
But the 1060 is 25-30% faster.
I know 12nm isn't a...
I'm not talking about "losing ALU performance at higher clocks"? Huh?
I'm not saying Navi loses performance as it overclocks, just that perhaps it doesn't get quite as much extra gain per clock. We know different GPUs gain more from overclocks than others (irrefutable), and perhaps Navi is...
That's exactly how it can work. GPU performance doesn't scale 1:1 with overclocking.
Are you really gonna make me show you overclocks between 2 different GPU uArchs with varying actual performance gains? Really? You're that much a defense mechanism?
Finally a source. Interesting. Now how things work in civil society is that this does not erase my two sources of TPU and AT, rather it compliments them and we pool the knowledge together.
Based on three different sources showing frequency, it seems to show that Navi is equal or a tad...
AT's numbers are much better, yeah. Navi ahead in power efficiency which is very encouraging. I also see they recorded their clock rates.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14586/geforce-rtx-2070-super-rtx-2060-super-review/15...
The RX 5700 is slower than the RTX 2060 S. I have already demonstated to you that in no way does the 5700 vs 2060 S comparison show that the 5700 has better performance per shader. Would you like me to quote myself incase you forgot?
You keep mentioning it, but are not showing the numbers...
I want to be clear.
You are personally bearing witness to a 2560:64:448 (shaders, ROPs, bandwidth) Navi running at HIGHER CLOCKs than a 2560:64:448 Turing and yet being slower, and are still denying that Turing has better performance per shader?
Waiting for a shred of evidence that Navi has higher performance per shader than Turing. I've posted 2 comparisons; one of which refuted what you posted.
Are you actually admitting you're a troll now?
Yes, how convenient that I compared 2 cards that both have 2560 shaders at virtually the same clocks, 64 ROPs, and 448 GB/s bandwidth. I am really twisting the facts here. ;)
Ok, let's take a look at your 2060 Super vs 5700.
Turing 2176 Shaders at 1839Mhz average...
2070 Super Clock Speed is 1879MHz Average:
https://tpucdn.com/review/nvida-geforce-rtx-2070-super/images/clock-vs-voltage.jpg
5700 XT Clock Speed is 1887 Average:
https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt/images/clock-vs-voltage.jpg
They both have 2560 shaders. They have the same...
Start with the post I was quoting, then read mine, then use the flow of logic. The original post was musing over whether a 300W 64 CU (4096) Navi could match a (2080 Ti) 4352 Turing.
We have a 2304 Navi at efficient clocks (matching Turing PPW) but it’s slower than a 2176 Turing. So a 4096...
BTW, Navi could definitely match or even beat GTX 2080 Ti for 300W – after all, 5700 proves Navi, when clocked right, can match Turing PPW. It certainly will need more shaders though. There’s absolutely no reason to believe otherwise. That’s all the discussion is; that Navi needs more than...
It is continuously disappointing when we get lousy reference blower exclusivity for a month+ again. Almost like 290x from nearly 6 years ago wasn't a lesson learned.
Eh? How are you the most combative reflexive poster on this forum, and still miss the obvious?
Look. At. The. Context. I. Talked. About. Clocks. Read. It. Again.
5700 clocks are efficient, 5700 XT are not. And regardless of efficiency at all, AMD cannot match Nvidia shader per...
Well, a 2304 shader 256-bit Navi at reasonable clocks for power efficiency beats a 1920 shader 192-bit Turing, and loses to a 2176 shader 256-bit Turing. So per shader, Turing is faster.
I don't think a 4096 shader Navi could possibly match a 4352 shader Turing unless AMD found a way to scale...
I'll post it here too. Good for quick at a glance comparison to contemporary cards. These are average performance indexes at TPU, Sweclockers (DX11 only), Computerbase at 1440p:
5700 really obsoletes the 2060. Better performance, more VRAM, barely more wattage, and let's be honest - raytracing is a very limited on that card.
Interesting that it looks like the clocks for the 5700XT really take it out of the sweet spot, to where 5700 matches Turing PPW, but 5700 XT only...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.