Vigilant Walrus
Member
How does Polaris stack up to Pascal?
I wonder if Sony and Microsoft made a mistake by going with AMD.
I wonder if Sony and Microsoft made a mistake by going with AMD.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AMD Confirms Sony PlayStation Neo Based on 14nm CPU and Polaris?
- Thread starter Cyriades
- Start date
Nostremitus
Member
Nah... They'd never turn a profit paying Nvidia licensing fees. AMD was the best choice.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Huh, so it's probably cheaper to go with newer more powerful hardware than try shrink what's already in the PS4 due to manufacturing limitations. I would not have thought of that. I guess Neo makes more sense then.
Considering how both Sony and MS seem to have deals with Nvidia in the past, they probably won't likely go back to them ever again, especially MS who got burned bad by Nvidia costs and not be able to bring costs down on the original Xbox. Think about how all 3 Nintendo, MS, Sony all went to AMD instead of Nvidia gives you kind of an idea.
Plus Nvidia can't offer the dual CPU/GPU APU tech with that level of performance/heat/watt, and while Intel with it's far more powerful CPUs...their integrated GPU tech doesn't come close. It's pretty easy how AMD won out in price/performance as a choice. They weren't really going to have Intel/Nvidia combo, that would have been costly.
Considering how both Sony and MS seem to have deals with Nvidia in the past, they probably won't likely go back to them ever again, especially MS who got burned bad by Nvidia costs and not be able to bring costs down on the original Xbox. Think about how all 3 Nintendo, MS, Sony all went to AMD instead of Nvidia gives you kind of an idea.
Plus Nvidia can't offer the dual CPU/GPU APU tech with that level of performance/heat/watt, and while Intel with it's far more powerful CPUs...their integrated GPU tech doesn't come close. It's pretty easy how AMD won out in price/performance as a choice. They weren't really going to have Intel/Nvidia combo, that would have been costly.
Sir Abacus
Member
Polaris 10 is a 390 replacement and Polaris 11 is some low end card. AMD haven't got dick. Fury was merely playing catchup to Maxwell and Pascal just leapfrogged their less than a year old flagship card.
hodayathink
Member
AMD was basically the only choice. Going nVidia would have meant having to use an ARM CPU, and going Intel wouldn't have had enough graphical horsepower. Not to mention that licensing from either wouldn't have been cheap/easy, and AMD was desperate enough that it would have under-bid them even if they had made offers. As long as AMD doesn't fold before the next set of consoles comes out, they made the right choice. And even if they did fold, it would just mean they'd have a tougher time with the PS5/Xbox Two.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Remember the PS4 + PSVR bundle at Amazon for $800 USD? I hope it's PS4K in the bundle. I'd change my order ASAP if that happens because these are two purchases Im definitely making.
Rushersauce
Banned
What kind of BS answer is this? We don't know anything about Polaris yet.
Schnozberry
Member
By the time the PS5 comes out, they may have enough power at their disposal to emulate the PS4 GPU at an acceptable speed.
Schnozberry
Member
We have estimates from Polaris 10 and 11, which are the two PC GPU's set to release in 2016. We know they are intended to be the mainstream products, with an enthusiast part scheduled for sometime in 2017.
How that relates to what Sony is doing is completely unknown. It's not one of the retail parts.
Rushersauce
Banned
It would be really STUPID from AMD to release a new 300USD card that performs like an old 300USD (390)
Polaris 10 is around 230mm^2 and 130+ Watts based on rumours. If that only performs at the 390 level then the claimed 2.5x perf/watt figure and the approximate 2.2x perf/mm figure are both bogus and AMD has utterly failed.
The last 200mm chip AMD released on a new node was around 20% faster than their previous ~390mm chip. There is no reason that trend won't be followed again and the other two metrics also indicate that level of performance.
So unless the die is smaller than the rumours and the power usage is lower than the rumours I don't think it is possible for the top card to only be as fast as the 390.
Schnozberry
Member
We don't know specific performance numbers or what the price is supposed to be. I'm sure Pascal may force their hand on price if the performance comparisons are unfavorable. Polaris 10 should significantly outperform the 390 at a greatly reduced wattage if AMD's marketing is to be believed. Polaris 11 was apparently performing admirably at 1080p while being passively cooled and with no additional PCI Express Power. That's an attractive console part.
GhostTrick
Banned
Polaris 10 is supposed to be around 36CU (2304 shader units) for 130W~. That's your 2.5x perf/watt. R7 370 is 110W for 16CU (1024 shader units). R9 390 is 40CU (2560 shader units) for 250W.
So at the same clock, let's say 1ghz, Polaris 10 is 4.6Tflops while R9 390 is 5.2Tflops. Although, with the smaller process node, people expect clock bumps. Let's say 1.3Ghz for Polaris 10. It would be 6Tflops, for a 130~150W GPU. So that would be a GPU 20% faster than R9 390 for nearly twice less power consumption. For a rumoured 299 dollars.
SneakyStephan
Banned
polaris 10 : 130w 230mm²
r9 390 : 275W, 438mm²
it really isn't far off.
Especially if amd is being cheeky with their marketing and using peak power draw for comparisons or something because then you're looking at 330+W power draw for an r9 390
That said : I still have some hope that they'll be able to approach fury x performance from pure clockspeed gains despite the tiny die size
Amey
Member
jfoul
Member
I totally forgot about the brief Polaris demo while back.
Current hardware results for Hitman @ 1440 under DX12. This game is definitely pro AMD hardware, but it'll be interesting to see how Polaris pans out. If it can get 980ti levels for a good price, AMD could have a real winner on their hands for the mass market.
Bitch Pudding
Member
I read somewhere that AMD are one of only 3 worldwide manufacturers that can get so many features onto a small APU chip, they have the capability to blow everything away at hardware level, especially for console, they just seem to lack that little something to get them there.
I guess they would go Arm.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Yeah hitman is heavily skewed towards amd performance wise, it's no wonder they chose that game to compare polaris (to a maxwell card)
And as the graph shows a 290x just about get your to 60 fps.
Nvidia could have demod pascal with project cars and compared it to fiji and it would have been about as meaningful as this.
The 390X also has the same die size as the 390 and performs better. I tend to think using a similar size chip is better so something like R9 270.
The 2.5x perf/watt was not from a marketing slide iirc.
ARM, Qualcomm, Samsung or Imagination Technologies most likely. Mobile tech can be scaled up.
No one. Console gaming will be done.
Intel and Nvidia either won't play ball or will be prohibitively expensive, PowerVR currently into mobile or HPC.
Nvidia in particular will sue anyone else that tries to do performance GPUs.
ecosse_011172
Junior Member
What would be wrong with an ARM CPU?
Couldn't Nintendo or Microsoft just use their Billions of dollars in cash and Buy AMD out and make their own Hardware in house?
jfoul
Member
It would cause Sony/MS/Nintendo huge problems with BC & Forward Compatibility after finally gaining this luxury by going x86/64.
SneakyStephan
Banned
true but the 390x also has even higher power consumption.
AMD has high debt load, no one will buy into getting brutally sandwiched by Intel and Nvidia (two legendarily competitive companies), console business is not worth this type of capex
StrongBlackVine
Banned
Why not switch now if it upsets you so much? You just gonna ride out the next 2-3 years of inferior ports(this is pessimists view not mine)? Funny how no seems to have problem with Nintendo basically ending the Wii U after 3 years even it was because of shitty sales.
Nintendo may do the same thing. If consoles are pushing for 3-year upgrades, PC will also get a kick in the butt too just to maintain superiority (which is needed). PC have been stagnant (in graphic fidelity) for this past decade due to the past console longevity and lackluster current gen.
No way. I actually managed to understand 15% of it.
dragonelite
Member
A 2x gpu upgrade is not something i would call a new gen.
hooijdonk17
Member
LOL at die shrinking to 14nm Finfet being pricier than buying a better GPU. It was almost like both companies were forced into upgrading their consoles because they cheaped out on hardware at launch. I feel for early console adopters..
No, I don't.
AMD wouldn't go to waste, someone would buy them (or the rests of them), their IP is way too interesting to disappear.
About that cheaping out, I'm not sure how much performance bump that, say, a $100 BOM extra will buy with the available tech and TDP circa 2013.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
Early adopters will still get all the games for the rest of the generation. No reason to feel sorry for any one.
Point is to choose a card where perf/watt and perf/mm2 scaling gives a similar answer as it is more likely to be correct. R9 270 does this and seems to indicate somewhere around Fury X, might be a bit lower but it is probably ahead of the 390X.
I can imagine a cut version of P10 at 390 perf levels though.
It definitely isn't... Don't know why some people are even suggesting it is a PS"5".
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Clearly not.
Bananajama
Banned
I'm still hovering over the cancel Sony VR option
I can't imagine the impact of this will be in my favour.
And I don't wish to upgrade consoles so soon
I can't imagine the impact of this will be in my favour.
And I don't wish to upgrade consoles so soon
I bought the Wii U at launch, and have bought a few games every year of its lifecycle. Most of which I have loved. So for me 5 years and a total of 10-20+ great exclusive titles has really renewed my faith in Nintendo after the Wii. I think the Wii U taught Nintendo a lot and I'm completely confident that whatever comes next will be something that gives me personally good value for money.
In comparison I've had a PS4 for close to 2 years and it's spent most of that time in its box. I own a couple of games, mostly found in the bargain bin, and nothing that has made owning a PS4 worth owning compared to any other machine that plays 3rd party games. For the most part the PS4s lineup has felt redundant, even including 3rd party games and poor value for money. Especially if you owned a PS3. Which had a really great run late in its lifespan. Why buy a Neo when first gen VR will suck and the lineup of games is mostly empty promises, that will just be ported to the PSNext and will be cheaply and easily accessible to a late adopter.
Why not just sell up and buy a new PC now?
Money. Building a good PC can be expensive and with Polaris, Zen and Vulcan all about to launch I'd rather wait until next year and optimize a build that takes advantage of what the new tech does, and at the very least it should reduce costs of parts that can current games at 1080p/Ultra or Even Downsampled 4K
StrongBlackVine
Banned
The Wii U released November 2012 so it has not been out 5 years and this year it has almost nothing. So pretty much 3 years of support. PS4 will be supported for another 2-3 years worst, but I guess you are of the mindset that your PS4 is obsolete the moment PS4.5 drops?
Yep. Taken at face value it sounds like a lot, but taking into consideration that in the past the hardware has been like 5-10x more powerful than the last, it definitely doesn't qualify for a new gen.
SneakyStephan
Banned
edit for slightly underestimated r9 270 performance thanks to amd's insanely convoluted, everchanging naming schemes
2.2x r9 270 performance barely gets you r9 390 performance , let alone fury x
If you add an additional 10 percent to the r9 270 (to account for 212mm² die vs 230mm² for polaris 10) then you still don't get near r9 fury x performance, maybe about r9 390x.