05-24-2016, 07:20 AM
Just that 3dmark?
Honestly, I do not think it would be incredibly hard to edit the reported system info. It seems very unlikely that someone has an actual Polaris card at home and then goes on to run 3dmark and sys mark while online. Much less, multiple Polaris cards...like not only a pair but then a whole variety of Polaris gpus. So they they have cut down versions and crossfire, at their house plug them in and run benchmark apps on their pc that is online...
Yeah
Not even AMD partners have Polaris chips yet. They are still in the dark. So who the hell has a box full of full gpus at their house?
It seems much more reasonable that the
Is is someone who hacked/edited the reported system info.
It is not that I think the numbers are to unrealistic. They are actually right where many people say Polaris should be. 390x ish. And that is based on and saying than Polaris will be mainstream. Of course, AMD fans would take that to the best case scenario which is 390x to below furyx. There are some who tout much higher but we will see how that goes.
I see Polaris and think it's more like tonga, perhaps at a higher clock. But, I don't think that expectations of much higher clocks are a good thing. I think clock speed has been the issue and it is why AMD has went mum. See, they were all kinds bragging and showing off Polaris way a long time ago. Before the new year, before there was any chance at all for products....we saw and rush to show off a single sample...an engineering sample fresh from the fab. They rushed it out and showed it off to the press, look we can beat Nvidia maxwell- see here. Look don't touch.
But afterwards, they went very quite. Performance per watt claims have quietly been shifted as well. From 2.5x to 2.0x when compared to their last mainstream gpus. Which I know will be a figure used against Hawaii. Polaris vs Hawaii, 2.0x the performance per watt.
I still am expecting Hawaii like performance. I have a low bar. Less than the 390x, but we will see
Honestly, I do not think it would be incredibly hard to edit the reported system info. It seems very unlikely that someone has an actual Polaris card at home and then goes on to run 3dmark and sys mark while online. Much less, multiple Polaris cards...like not only a pair but then a whole variety of Polaris gpus. So they they have cut down versions and crossfire, at their house plug them in and run benchmark apps on their pc that is online...
Yeah
Not even AMD partners have Polaris chips yet. They are still in the dark. So who the hell has a box full of full gpus at their house?
It seems much more reasonable that the
Is is someone who hacked/edited the reported system info.
It is not that I think the numbers are to unrealistic. They are actually right where many people say Polaris should be. 390x ish. And that is based on and saying than Polaris will be mainstream. Of course, AMD fans would take that to the best case scenario which is 390x to below furyx. There are some who tout much higher but we will see how that goes.
I see Polaris and think it's more like tonga, perhaps at a higher clock. But, I don't think that expectations of much higher clocks are a good thing. I think clock speed has been the issue and it is why AMD has went mum. See, they were all kinds bragging and showing off Polaris way a long time ago. Before the new year, before there was any chance at all for products....we saw and rush to show off a single sample...an engineering sample fresh from the fab. They rushed it out and showed it off to the press, look we can beat Nvidia maxwell- see here. Look don't touch.
But afterwards, they went very quite. Performance per watt claims have quietly been shifted as well. From 2.5x to 2.0x when compared to their last mainstream gpus. Which I know will be a figure used against Hawaii. Polaris vs Hawaii, 2.0x the performance per watt.
I still am expecting Hawaii like performance. I have a low bar. Less than the 390x, but we will see