Something like a 20 percent increase in die size isn't going to be a magic bullet for 40 percent more performance, particularly at the clocks 7970 ghz is currently set at and how much performance it has.
I remember you were particularly optimistic with the performance difference between 5870 and 6970. That had a 16.4% difference in die size and we got something along that line for the performance difference(you expected much greater).We probably get less than that 16.4% Probably a bit below it if we take an average across the board.
With this 430ish die size coming from a particularly reliable source, Tahiti isn't going to get the massive spec jump like between gk110 and gk104. So it can't afford the low clocks like gk110. However I am guessing it can't particular afford to keep clocks high considering the relatively high power consumption of a 7970 ghz and the increased die size over 7970, increasing the complexity of the gcn cores. The better front end might increase utilization and efficiency of resources, but powers going to go up quite a bit like the 5870 to 6970(this went up more than the performance in some reviews).
I still stick by my 18% performance increase over a ghz edition(it might be greater if Battlefield 4 is mega optimize benchmark). But for the most part in GPU design history, the larger the size of a chips predecessor, the less each companies has been able to wring out for its next gen, particularly on the same process.
Somehow getting 40% more performance from only a 20 percent increase in die size on the same process is unprecedented. And with GCN not having a lead for performance per die size this generation and this relatively modest increase in die size, even with increased efficiency, its going to be hard for AMD to make the Iceberg you so desire.
Bookmarks