AMD's Next GPU architecture will be called Polaris

WYP

News Guru
AMD's Next GPU architecture will be called Polaris and promises to be AMD's most efficient GPU architecture yet.

30144132666l.jpg


You can read more on AMD's Polaris Architecture.
 
I liked the name Arctic Islands, but Polaris is really cool. I'm super pumped to see what AMD come up with in 2016. I truly hope their new GPU's are not late 2016/early 2017 and more Q3. I doubt it somehow, but a man can dream.
 
I use to manage an off license and we use to sell a lot of Polaris cider, Hope it doesn't have the same effect ^_^
 
Be quick AMD, please.

I hope Samsung/GloFo 14nm which they are going to use will be better than TSMC 16nm
 
I would prefer a strong recovery in market share for AMD, in order to bring balance to the force.
:D

I have to say, as much as that made me smile, I do agree. We know nVidia is not going to fail. We know by now that they are going to keep pushing and won't release an average performing card like AMD did with the Fiji core. In my opinion, the Fury X was average. The 290X was better in many, many ways. And the 7970 was better too.
 
So this means no more GCN? Just an all new "Polaris" architecture? Or is it that codename for GCN 1.4/2.0/etc? This just makes it all more exciting though. Gonna sell my Fury X and without a doubt get a next gen GPU:)
 
I'm really crossing my fingers for this to be as good in reality as they claim, if they perform on par with current Maxwell cards I'm calling it a win. All we need then is Zen to be just as good as Haswell, core for core, tdp for tdp and it's going to be a whole new future for us.

So this means no more GCN? Just an all new "Polaris" architecture? Or is it that codename for GCN 1.4/2.0/etc? This just makes it all more exciting though. Gonna sell my Fury X and without a doubt get a next gen GPU:)
I would have thought it would probably migrate to Polaris but technically still remain as GCN.
 
I'm really crossing my fingers for this to be as good in reality as they claim, if they perform on par with current Maxwell cards I'm calling it a win. All we need then is Zen to be just as good as Haswell, core for core, tdp for tdp and it's going to be a whole new future for us.


I would have thought it would probably migrate to Polaris but technically still remain as GCN.

Why would you want them to perform like an older gen card? That basically means no improvement:p Only thing AMD lacks at now is tdp compared to Nvidia which imo isn't a big deal but meh some people it is.

Ya kinda like Fiji cores for GCN 1.3 and now Polaris cores for GCN 1.4/2.0.
 
I am very excited to see what will happen this year, seems like a lot of hyping is going on, we shall see if they live up to them; personally I hope it will be a major leap in tech like the the 2600k was and just as reasonably priced.
 
I hope that the top-end AMD card will far surpass a 980ti. I don't expect it will absolutely rip it a new one as the 980ti was OP in the first place especially when you factor in the efficiency and the overclocking headroom, but something in the vein of 980-SLI or slightly below it would make me happy. The model below it should be around top 10% 980ti at 1550/8200Mhz, or SLI-970/Xfire 390. I'd like to see that card at around $500, with the top-end model being $600. This $650 nonsense is not what makes AMD so interesting, in my opinion. Let nVidia release their $700 780ti's and let AMD release their $550 290X's that easily competes—but more efficient than a 290X, obviously.

I'd also like to see a definite top-tier card from AMD. I know they're not known for that necessarily what with the 290 being so close to the 290X and the Fury being so close to the Fury X, but it really paid off for nVidia with how far ahead the 980ti was from the 980. So many people bought the 980ti. Almost all high-end rigs nowadays are built with the 980ti.
 
Why would you want them to perform like an older gen card? That basically means no improvement:p Only thing AMD lacks at now is tdp compared to Nvidia which imo isn't a big deal but meh some people it is.

Ya kinda like Fiji cores for GCN 1.3 and now Polaris cores for GCN 1.4/2.0.
It's not about beating nvidia or Intel at this stage it's about being on the right track and getting back into the race, that's all AMD have to do at this stage.
 
It's not about beating nvidia or Intel at this stage it's about being on the right track and getting back into the race, that's all AMD have to do at this stage.
Yeah, good point. AMD doesn't have to be better than nVidia or Intel. All it has to do is be 'good enough' and be affordable. The lower-end cards are good enough for 1080p, but they're not efficient enough. The high-ends cards are not quite good enough for 1440p, and neither are they particularly efficient. All they have to do to get me to buy a new GPU is to be good enough for 1440p. For others, they have different requirements, and that's cool. For me, I want 980 SLI performance at 1440p with 8GB of HBM2 for $600 with air cooling. That's 'good enough' for me and then some. I'd also really like a more affordable version of the 6700K from Zen, because that CPU is just too much money right now.
 
It's not about beating nvidia or Intel at this stage it's about being on the right track and getting back into the race, that's all AMD have to do at this stage.

Yeah, good point. AMD doesn't have to be better than nVidia or Intel. All it has to do is be 'good enough' and be affordable.

You both act like AMD isn't competitive at all? They are easily competitive at every level excluding the TX and 980ti is generally slightly faster than a fury x. At every other level they are either in the lead or tied. That is the start of being on track, the only area where they lose terribley is in TDP.

And I disagree with both of you. AMD MUST be better than Nvidia next gen. Otherwise if it stays like it is now nothing will change. It can't just be good enough anymore for them. They simply can't afford to be that way. Public opinion for them(even if it's wrong) is "just good enough" and look at there market share and financial position. It's terrible. For AMD to outright be on track they will need to significantly cut down TDP and at the same time increase performance dramatically. AMD and Nvidia will do both next gen, however Nvidia will be using 16nm whereas AMD will be using 14nm(more than likely) which should give them that small edge they need to surpass them and give off enough hype to move more units to stay in business.They can't fail. 2016 for AMD is a must win at every product level, otherwise there stocks will fall further and have them be worth nothing. It's basically every single stock analysis I see. And I agree with them.

And no this isn't my "biased" opinion that a certain person will call me out on. It's a do or die situation here for AMD. I'd rather not get screwed over by 2 monopolies in Nvidia and Intel. Gonna hurt consumers
 
You both act like AMD isn't competitive at all? They are easily competitive at every level excluding the TX and 980ti is generally slightly faster than a fury x. At every other level they are either in the lead or tied. That is the start of being on track, the only area where they lose terribley is in TDP.

And I disagree with both of you. AMD MUST be better than Nvidia next gen. Otherwise if it stays like it is now nothing will change. It can't just be good enough anymore for them. They simply can't afford to be that way. Public opinion for them(even if it's wrong) is "just good enough" and look at there market share and financial position. It's terrible. For AMD to outright be on track they will need to significantly cut down TDP and at the same time increase performance dramatically. AMD and Nvidia will do both next gen, however Nvidia will be using 16nm whereas AMD will be using 14nm(more than likely) which should give them that small edge they need to surpass them and give off enough hype to move more units to stay in business.They can't fail. 2016 for AMD is a must win at every product level, otherwise there stocks will fall further and have them be worth nothing. It's basically every single stock analysis I see. And I agree with them.

And no this isn't my "biased" opinion that a certain person will call me out on. It's a do or die situation here for AMD. I'd rather not get screwed over by 2 monopolies in Nvidia and Intel. Gonna hurt consumers
My Fury performs only slightly better at 1440p than my previous overclocked 970 in GTA V, which was almost at 980 levels. While the Fury X performs incredibly well against the 980ti in Mad Max, Far Cry 4, Battlefront, SoM, there are too many games—Assassin's Creed Unity/Syndicate, The Witcher 3, GTA V, Just Cause 3, Wolfenstein—that all perform worse than they should, especially Wolfenstein. The Fury X has lots of power, but for whatever reason in those games (even with Gameworks off), they aren't performing as well as they should.

And I personally wouldn't call what you're saying biased. Your points are all true and I can't argue them. My comment, however, was biased. That's why I said "For others, they have different requirements, and that's cool." At first I said to myself that AMD had to surpass nVidia for them to regain control of their fair share of the market, and that's true. But then I added in my own personal perspective, which is that I as a gamer don't need AMD to outshine nVidia; I need them to make a card I want to buy.
 
Back
Top