By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HollyGamer on 12 March 2019
Edit Thread
Pemalite said:

We do have an exact architectural layout of Navi. It's called Graphics Core Next. - That is the GPU architecture.
It's not next-gen, it's not a dramatic departure to what we have witnessed over the past 7 years it's an iterative update.

Next-gen graphics technology doesn't happen until AMD deviates from the 7+ year old GCN architecture.

You would hope that the Playstation 4 Pro can boost GPU capability by that much.

Considering that it is:
CPU Clock: 33.12%.
Theoretical GPU GFLOP performance: 127.7%
Pixel Fillrate: 127.7%
Texture Fillrate: 127.7%
Raw Bandwidth: 23.6%
 
The Pro also implements various features like Delta Colour compression as it inherits a few new tricks introduced into Tonga.
Which means Bandwidth could potentially be up by 73%.
And it's no wonder why most games are sitting around the 1440P mark with a good uptick in fidelity and framerates.

I never once claimed there was no performance gain.

HollyGamer said:

If you " theory " is true, PS5 performance will not have a generational leap, it will be even smaller leap compared to PS3 to PS4 gap, while PS3 to PS4 already considered small.

The Playstation 5's performance will be a significant one over the base Playstation 4.
It will be a much smaller step over the Playstation 4 Pro... Which is the downside of releasing a mid-generation console.

Because Sony isn't investing into the development of chips directly for it's consoles anymore (And nor should they, it's prohibitively expensive!), Sony is thus at the mercy of PC's microprocessor development cadence, that means... If AMD stagnates, then so do consoles... And AMD certainly has stagnated... Part of that is because AMD made Radeon into it's own separate entity again after they combined them with their CPU teams... Plus they had to cut a ton of costs due to profitability so they lost a ton of engineers over time.

They are slowly reversing all that, but we won't see the real fruits of that positive change until after the next-gen consoles launch.

Every iterative update Graphics Core Next generally gets an uptick in performance when compared to the previous generation.

As for Polaris vs Maxwell... Polaris still looses to Maxwell in terms of performance... Where a Geforce GTX 970 will more often than not, beat the RX 480.
But in doing so, the Geforce 970 consumes only marginally more power... This is despite the fact that Polaris is built at 14nm verses the Geforce 970 being built at 28nm. Ouch.
nVidia is simply far ahead of AMD in the GPU space.

SNIP

Things even start to look worst when you throw the Radeon RX 580 or RX 590 into the equation against the GTX 980... As AMD pretty much threw away the idea of releasing Polaris on it's optimal efficiency curve and just drove up clockrates instead.


Is 14 Teraflops achievable? Sure. Is it likely? Probably not for Navi as Navi is a Polaris replacement targeted for the mainstream and not high-end.

I don't think people fully comprehend how terrible AMD's GPU's are right now for gaming... For compute they are the ducks nuts.


Well, no. Everything is not possible, we are still bound by the laws of physics and common sense.
There comes a point where a chip simply becomes to large to financially be viable at 7nm, especially as the process is still fairly young.

That's because nVidia is far more efficient. It's chips are smaller, less power hungry and perform far better than the AMD equivalent.


Flops alone is irrelevant.
Back in 2010 we were playing around with Terascale 2 and Terascale 3 hardware for the AMD side... Which leveraged the VLIW approach... And that generally meant it had multiple caveats, some of which were performance-impacting in newer titles, but generally were extremely solid performers in titles that leveraged older techniques that were common in games during that era.

Ironically... I have such a GPU sitting on the shelf looking at me right now, that was back in the days before AMD threw out it's small-core philosophy and was on top of the game when it came to performance.

 

Yes GCN is similar to all across  AMD GPU from Pitcairn until Navi but They have a major improvement ( Pitcairn to Polaris ) the improvement is smaller chip node, faster clock speed 

The same with Nvidia with all of their CUDA cores, like Maxwell and Pascal are actually the same but it just has smaller node from 24  nm to 16 nm

So i bet PS5 with Navi will have the same thing, even if you said " it's the same GCN ", with smaller chip Sony just can add more shaders unit or CU , even if you said it's limited to 64 CU , they can increase the clock speed , with more efficiency to reach 12 ,5 teraflop (vega 64 target) 

Also yes everything is  possible in the realm of logic, reality  and "HUMAN KNOWLEDGE  LIMITATION " hell nobody can guess what i am wearing now, neither you nor you and know what will Navi performance be, yes many expert out there who said Navi is "just another GCN, and then 7nm  will not bring anything , AMD are not at the current situation to change."  Yes they speak based on history data of bad thing from AMD result on GPU performance , they forgot AMD has done decent maybe not as good as Nvidia. 

Also the benchmark you are using is an old game crysis 3 , also some games is just play better on AMD GPU also you forgot on reality benchmark is bond to be different form one PC to another especially when it's just small few number . So yes GTX 970 -980 are equal with RX 480.

Flops is not everything, agree on that is like you mentioned that a millions times, just look at how Vega 64 12,6 teraflops compared to GTX 1080 which just 9 teraflops but beat Vega 64, but at current states  you mentioned before what we have for now is just GCN architecture , that's how we measured AMD performance "until" we have a new 7+ nm architecture.