Currently Online 
shikamaru317 said:
Before the official announcement Polaris 10 was heavily rumored to use just 110-135w of power. I get the feeling that AMD got a bit generous with their official TDP rating, I doubt it actually uses close to 150w, but I guess we'll see when the reviews start coming in later this month. For what it's worth, the 7850 that PS4's GPU was based on was a 130w chip. 20w isn't that big of difference, MS would simply need a roomy case and a 120mm cooling fan, much like Xbox One's case and fan/heatsink. It's also worth noting that Xbox Scorpio may be using AMD's new 14nm Zen CPU architecture, so it's possible that MS could make up the difference with a lower thermal rating for the CPU part of the APU. At the very least I think MS will hit 5 tflops next year, maybe higher. |
It has a 6-Pin PCI-E.
So based on that, we are certain it uses more than 75w (Which is the max amount of power PCI-E can provide) and less than 225w. (150w 6-pin + PCI-E)
Plus, power consumption isn't a static thing with GPU's, one game might use 100w, then fire up a "Power Virus" like Furmark and it might exceed 150w.
Need more information to be sure, but one thing is for certain it's in the ballpark of 150w.
| JEMC said: The RX 480 is an "up to" 150W card, at least the 4GB card, with most leaks suggesting that it would use something more like 120-130W. But that's not that important, is it? What's really important is that Polaris is a huge improvement over previous GCN chips, and that now even the reference cooler might be a valid option. |
It is is extremely important, especially when it comes to extremely small form factors like ITX. - Which is a segment that is seeing substantual growth in the PC market, those same devices might only have a 250-300w PSU.
The 150w idea is based on the fact the card sources it's power from a 6-pin PCI-E, we will need Benchmarks first... As for all we know, the GPU is using 175w in some instances.
| JEMC said: It's 40% more than Bulldozer. By the way, the clock speed of the RX 480 has been confirmed at 1,266 MHz by a screenshot captured by TechPowerUp Notice how the reference board seems to be rather small. I'd say that some third party cards will come close to the size of the R9 Nano. |
Bulldozer was rubbish, heck it was even being beaten by the Phenom 2's at the same clock, which in turn was being beaten by Intel's Core 2.
I expect Zen to struggle against Skylake i5 if that's the case, AMD will just try to sell us on more CPU cores.
This will be a boon for small form factor devices, Nano was amazing for this, but Polaris should take it a step up.
shikamaru317 said:
Before the official announcement Polaris 10 was heavily rumored to use just 110-135w of power. I get the feeling that AMD got a bit generous with their official TDP rating, I doubt it actually uses close to 150w, but I guess we'll see when the reviews start coming in later this month. For what it's worth, the 7850 that PS4's GPU was based on was a 130w chip. 20w isn't that big of difference, MS would simply need a roomy case and a 120mm cooling fan, much like Xbox One's case and fan/heatsink. It's also worth noting that Xbox Scorpio may be using AMD's new 14nm Zen CPU architecture, so it's possible that MS could make up the difference with a lower thermal rating for the CPU part of the APU. At the very least I think MS will hit 5 tflops next year, maybe higher. |
AMD tends to use the maximum amount of electrical energy that the device can draw for it's TDP.
But if it's using it's ACP figures then it rounds it down.
It can be a confusing mess sometimes.
Also worthy of mention is that TDP cannot be compared between Intel, AMD and nVidia as they are all actually different.
JEMC said:
Does it really matter? All those TFlops or GFlops figures don't have a direct correlation into real world performance. That said, and just to satisfy your curiosity, these are the numbers you want:
So RX 480 is ˜3.15x PS4 and ˜4.4x XboxOne. |
For one, the PS4's GPU has a few enhancements, the Xbox One's GPU has a unique memory subsystem and the RX 480 is based on GCN Generation 4.0, which is a more efficient and robust architecture compared to GCN 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. It even has technology such as colour compression that the console GPU's do not feature giving it a massive advantage even if it had the same amount of bandwidth.
You really can't compare them unfortunately.
The best we can do is wait for the Radeon 480 to get released, grab a Radeon 7850 and normalize it's clocks to the PS4's level and benchmark it against the Radeon 480.
Even then it still won't be accurate, but close enough.
People need to remember that a Radeon 480 at 1 Teraflop is going to be faster than a Radeon 7850/Playstation 4 at 1 Teraflop, it's as simple as that.
shikamaru317 said:
Sony hasn't said anything about the Neo. But based on the leak, an October release seems likely since all games that release after September must have both PS4 and Neo versions. I'm sure MS can get around that issue by keeping the esRAM for backward compatibility purposes and combining it with much faster GDDR5 instead of XB1's slower DDR3, but I'm no expert. I'm sure that MS has a solution in mind to have both good specs and backwards compatibility, according to the sources that leaked Scorpio's existence, Microsoft's top goal for Scorpio is beating Sony in the specs department because they're sick of getting inferior 3rd party ports. |
The eSRAM doesn't have any specific functionality that needs to be targeted for by programmers, if Microsoft equips a console with GDDR5/GDDR5X memory then the eSRAM cache can essentially be emulated in the fast system memory, that would all be abstracted by a software layer anyway.
Or, Microsoft can retain the eSRAM and use at as an L4 cache for the CPU and to retain backwards compatability.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
Zero Intel and nVidia for the first time in my life.
