MMM
Results 1 to 25 of 3724

Thread: AMD Cayman info (or rumor)

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,125
    I dunno, fake slides or not, Cayman is only ~15% bigger than Cypress. Expecting 50% more SIMD's, even if they're 10% smaller, just doesn't quite fit in 15% more - esp. when you consider you have to include TMU's for each SIMD, and that the graphics engine and ROPS all got overhauled

    Granted, 15% seems too big for just 20% more SIMD's as well

    Quote Originally Posted by Chrono Detector View Post
    Very disappointed with the specs, and WTF did ATI decrease the shader count from 1600 to 1536? WTF that doesn't make any sense.... I would have been happy if it was at 1920 like earlier rumours said, the only good thing that it comes with 2GB of VRAM.
    How many times does this need to be said

    1536 / 4 = 384 > 1600 / 5 = 320

    So in truth, 1536 SP's will perform better than the old 1600 SP's, in everything but synthetics.. but then again, unless you're doing hardcore benching, you probably won't notice that

  2. #2
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,264
    It would be ignorante to think Caymen shaders don't perform better than Cypress shaders. Shader counts alone don't tell the whole story. That said, 30-40% more performance than a 5870 with a lower shader count and similar power evelope is quite impressive if the case, those are some respectable optimizations no matter how you look at it.
    Feedanator 7.0
    CASE:R5|PSU:850G2|CPU:i7 6850K|MB:x99 Ultra|RAM:8x4 2666|GPU:980TI|SSD:BPX256/Evo500|SOUND:2i4/HS8
    LCD:XB271HU|OS:Win10|INPUT:G900/K70 |HS/F:H115i

  3. #3
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Chickenfeed View Post
    It would be ignorante to think Caymen shaders don't perform better than Cypress shaders. Shader counts alone don't tell the whole story. That said, 30-40% more performance than a 5870 with a lower shader count and similar power evelope is quite impressive if the case, those are some respectable optimizations no matter how you look at it.
    Doubt it's the same power envelope - getting that much performance in the same node is next to impossible.

    But yeah, a 30-40% jump within the same process on a die supposedly only 15% larger is a pretty impressive feat of engineering, especially if its being compared to a die 25% larger than itself

  4. #4
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    3,437
    Cayman will bring big improvement in front-end and that cost silicon. Shaders are just maintained at a level allowing AMD to be no slower than Cypress, but gaming performance gains will come from other major changes.

    You can draw analogy between Core2Duo and i7. The execution units are just slightly modified but all the performance gains are coming from impressive front-end and un-core of CPU.

    I'm expecting quite a big advantage for Cayman over Cypress in some tests. Of course this will not translate to every possible scenario, but I'm happy with that
    RiG1: Ryzen 7 1700 @4.0GHz 1.39V, Asus X370 Prime, G.Skill RipJaws 2x8GB 3200MHz CL14 Samsung B-die, TuL Vega 56 Stock, Samsung SS805 100GB SLC SDD (OS Drive) + 512GB Evo 850 SSD (2nd OS Drive) + 3TB Seagate + 1TB Seagate, BeQuiet PowerZone 1000W

    RiG2: HTPC AMD A10-7850K APU, 2x8GB Kingstone HyperX 2400C12, AsRock FM2A88M Extreme4+, 128GB SSD + 640GB Samsung 7200, LG Blu-ray Recorder, Thermaltake BACH, Hiper 4M880 880W PSU

    SmartPhone Samsung Galaxy S7 EDGE
    XBONE paired with 55'' Samsung LED 3D TV

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •