Gddr5x confirmed.
>1060
>192-bit
Polaris is looking pretty good right now.
>>54682951
Isn't polaris 128?
>>54682951
and only 6GB
DOA
O
AOD
>>54682988
6GB is plenty, I had hoped for 4GB 256-bit, a la GTX 980.
>>54682967
Polaris 10 is 256 bit. (480x) ~110 w
Polaris 11 is 128-bit (470/460) ~ 60w
I love how all of you assumed that source of these informations is legit and did not question its origin.
>>54683012
3.5GB is also plenty :^)
>>54683023
>>54682900
I couldn't care less about specs, show me the performance benchmarks. 128 bit was enough for the 960.
>>54683023
So polaris 10 is competing with a gtx1060? Doubt it. 1060vs11.
>1060 using GP104
Lel. those yields are fucking awful
>>54683054
It will probably sit between 1060/1070.
My money is on it being closer to 1070 than 1060.
>>54683023
Benchmarks when?
>>54683046
Why would you seriously want 8GB on a mid tier card, though? A fucking 980 Ti had 6, and that was a fucking beast back then. It would be fucking ridiculous to have more than that on a slower card.
>>54683128
Because bigger number = better and who cares that it can not be utilised.
>>54683214
Leakage is a meme only relevant for phone chips
>>54682900
>those titan specs
mother of god.
What's generally better, a gimped high end chip (102) or a fully featured mid-tier chip (104)? Why does it work this way?
>>54683023
Man these power rating rumours just keep getting lower and lower.
>>54685340
Its been like that since the demo. I actually made a bit of mistake, the Polaris 11 will not be 70w but rather under 50w and the Polaris 10 will be slightly above 100w (110-130w) is the current estimate/calculation. They showed off the polaris 11 demo a while ago and talked about its power usage. The whole system was running 140w. If there slideshows and demos are correct, then Polaris 11 is roughly twice as more efficient than the 950 card from nvidia.
So, will 1070 be better than 980 (non-ti)?
