I'd expect the oppositeFrom what I've seen, AMD hardware is better at utilising its resources. Where AMD lacks is drivers — and thats IMO why we are seeing large improvements when Vulcan or DX12 is being used on AMD. The simpler, closer to the hardware model API partially removes the advantage Nvidia has with its driver optimisations.
I think the finer grained level of hardware asynchronous compute in AMD will prove an advantage as DX12 and Vulkan come along, but I'm talking more generally than that, AMD has been using smaller cores in higher numbers, Nvidia fewer in larger cores, which leads to higher Gflops numbers on AMD for generally equivalent cards, discounting big future advantages like Async.
I.e by the first guys example, Fury X had 4096 shaders, GM200 having 3072.
If Fury X bridges the gap in DX12, that's still in line with what I'm saying
33% more shaders = roughly 33% more paper Gflops with whatever clock differences, and lets be charitable to the Fury X and assume it's 100% equivalent performance in DX12. Presto, higher Gflops per unit performance for AMD, aka higher performance per Gflop for Nvidia.
It's not at all about which one is better at using resources, just how they set up their cores = what Gflops will look like on paper, regardless if I use a billion cores to achieve performance of 10, or 1 core to achieve performance of 10.
Last edited: