Support NeoGAF

[Valued Gamer]

I have been wondering what the efficiency gains have been from RDNA 1 to RDNA 2, not just in a power per watt sense, but comparing an RDNA 1 tflop to an RDNA 2 tflop.

AMD have said that RDNA 1 gave a 50% improvement in performance per watt over GCN.
Digital Foundry did some benchmarking of GCN cards vs RDNA 1 cards and found a 27% performance improvement in a RDNA 1 flop over a Polaris GCN flop.

Now looking to this generation, AMD have again said that RDNA 2 gives over 50% performance per watt improvement over RDNA. That's very impressive considering the jump in performance per watt from GCN to RDNA 1 included a node shrink, whereas the jump from RDNA 1 to RDNA 2 doesn't have that same node change.

So are we able to work out what the performance improvement per flop will be with RDNA 2 over 1?

Can we say that because there was a similar performance per watt again, that we can expect a similar performance per flop as well?

If so that gives us a 50% improvement over GCN

So if we look at the PS5, it would be like a 15tflop GCN GPU.

So are we right to assume that?
Is there any other way we can work out a performance per flop increase using the information AMD has released?

 

[ZywyPL]

Hard to tell, someone would have to make a similar comparison to DF's GCN vs RDNA1, the clock vs clock and core vs core ones, or at least TF vs TF, then we could tell. But I have to say, RDNA2 is the very first AMD GPU where the on-paper specs are actually reflected in the actual games performance, it's a very solid fundation for future products.