AMD Polaris architecture – GCN 4.0

Gregster · 31 May 2016 at 20:32

D.P. said:
The latest I read was was the monitor could run 144hz 1440p and AMD did their Hitamn 60FPS cap to mask performance, which makes sense because demo staring 1440p performance on a 1080p monitor through VSR is just plain retard.

That's what I see. Not sure why you would do that in truth and I am sure they could afford a 1440P monitor to use for the test but hey ho, AMD doing what AMD do best :rolleyes:

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 31 May 2016 at 20:36

Gregster said:
AMD doing what AMD do best

Good thing you never read the Carrizo article they did with Anandtech....!

AlamoX · 31 May 2016 at 21:14

Gregster said:
Does VSR drop frames to 60 fps on a higher refresh monitor? I recall seeing a Polaris thing running VSR at 60 fps but the monitor was capable of 120Hz iirc.

no msi afterburners still shows over 60fps.
i just took screenshots of payday2, then turned out useless, print gives me black screen, and steam screenshot doesnt shows afterburner OSD, anyway had 1080p at 117fps and 1440p vsr at 90fps

kieran_read · 31 May 2016 at 21:31

This is better than i was expecting if that price point is true, I only play at 1080p so this looks like a better choice over a 1070.

I refuse to buy a 4k monitor until a card can actually play it smoothly, even the 1080 can't play at a comfortable 60fps.

Even then i want a card that can run 4k at 80-90fps so that in 2 - 3 years time when the more advanced games come out they will run at 60. Nothing worse than spending £600+ on a card that scrapes by to then have a new game out in 1 years time that wont run at 60fps.

AlamoX · 31 May 2016 at 21:42

D.P. said:
The latest I read was was the monitor could run 144hz 1440p and AMD did their Hitamn 60FPS cap to mask performance, which makes sense because demo staring 1440p performance on a 1080p monitor through VSR is just plain retard.

my guess it's just marketing, your think that screen was leaked by accident

, yet we all know more about the monitor (oled curved 1080p 144hz 1ms lenovo) than the GPU the leak is supposed to be about.
and again can afterburner show more fps than what the card actualy delivers ? because you got me all confused with this 60fps cap with VSR, it isn't the case for me i still get over 60.

kylew_is_back · 31 May 2016 at 21:44

what happened to high-end Polaris?

Mauller · 31 May 2016 at 21:51

http://www.wsj.com/articles/amd-prices-3-d-cards-to-spur-virtual-reality-market-1464725394

Apparently the article describes a part at $199 as having the performance of current $500 part.

Sacrifice · 31 May 2016 at 21:54

Mauller said:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/amd-prices-3-d-cards-to-spur-virtual-reality-market-1464725394

Apparently the article describes a part at $199 as having the performance of current $500 part.

Full article here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4lxfra/199/

Beren · 31 May 2016 at 21:56

I find it interesting that the card leaked only has 1 * 6 pin power connector and is reportedly doing 5.5 Flops. I can hope that it is a great clocking chip and that once we get third party cards with MOAR POWA ® We could see something very cool.

However for my next build which is going to be a living room gaming rig outputting to a 1080p screen quiet and cool with 970 level performance would be perfect - especially if it comes in at a decent price.

Roughneck · 31 May 2016 at 21:56

kieran_read said:
This is better than i was expecting if that price point is true, I only play at 1080p so this looks like a better choice over a 1070.

I refuse to buy a 4k monitor until a card can actually play it smoothly, even the 1080 can't play at a comfortable 60fps.

Even then i want a card that can run 4k at 80-90fps so that in 2 - 3 years time when the more advanced games come out they will run at 60. Nothing worse than spending £600+ on a card that scrapes by to then have a new game out in 1 years time that wont run at 60fps.

Man never a truer statement ive read

Jono8 · 31 May 2016 at 21:58

Mauller said:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/amd-prices-3-d-cards-to-spur-virtual-reality-market-1464725394

Apparently the article describes a part at $199 as having the performance of current $500 part.

Isnt the 980 a $500 part? That was on the slides too...

Mauller · 31 May 2016 at 21:59

Well the fury is a $500 card and beats the 980, although they compare it in terms of features to the competition it could be fury levels of performance at 1.2ghz for the reference model and cheapest parts.

it also seems to add some truth to the videocardz 3Dmark chart, but it depends on which part they are talking about for $199. it could possibly be just the lowest part.

Jono8 · 31 May 2016 at 22:04

Mauller said:
Well the fury is a $500 card and beats the 980, although they compare it in terms of features to the competition it could be fury levels of performance at 1.2ghz for the reference model and cheapest parts.

it also seems to add some truth to the videocardz 3Dmark chart, but it depends on which part they are talking about for $199. it could possibly be just the lowest part.

But the article does draw comparison to amd's own range saying $399 for an equivalent AMD current card.

"Patrick Moorhead, an analyst with Moor Insights & Strategy briefed on AMD’s strategy, estimated that the current minimum price on cards comparable to AMD’s new models is $399. He said the $199 pricing comes as a surprise."

Sacrifice · 31 May 2016 at 22:04

Mauller said:
Well the fury is a $500 card and beats the 980, although they compare it in terms of features to the competition it could be fury levels of performance at 1.2ghz for the reference model and cheapest parts.

it also seems to add some truth to the videocardz 3Dmark chart, but it depends on which part they are talking about for $199. it could possibly be just the lowest part.

If you read the article, it says the $199 will offer the $500 competing performance.

Jono8 said:
But the article does draw comparison to amd's own range saying $399 for an equivalent AMD current card.

"Patrick Moorhead, an analyst with Moor Insights & Strategy briefed on AMD’s strategy, estimated that the current minimum price on cards comparable to AMD’s new models is $399. He said the $199 pricing comes as a surprise."

Looking on a US website, seems that this would be the 390x (~$410)

Jono8 · 31 May 2016 at 22:06

Sacrifice said:
If you read the article, it says the $199 will offer the $500 competing performance.

$399 for the equivalent AMD current range though...if you read the article.

AlamoX · 31 May 2016 at 22:06

Mauller said:
Well the fury is a $500 card and beats the 980, although they compare it in terms of features to the competition it could be fury levels of performance at 1.2ghz for the reference model and cheapest parts.

it also seems to add some truth to the videocardz 3Dmark chart, but it depends on which part they are talking about for $199. it could possibly be just the lowest part.

the sneaky part is :

Radeon RX cards, certified for use in VR by HTC and Oculus VR, deliver performance equivalent to that of $500 graphics cards used for VR.

again VR specific situation, maybe they have a feature like simultaneous projection and compare it to maxwell that doesnt have said feature.

Mauller · 31 May 2016 at 22:07

Jono8 said:
But the article does draw comparison to amd's own range saying $399 for an equivalent AMD current card.

"Patrick Moorhead, an analyst with Moor Insights & Strategy briefed on AMD’s strategy, estimated that the current minimum price on cards comparable to AMD’s new models is $399. He said the $199 pricing comes as a surprise."

Patrick Moorhead, an analyst with Moor Insights & Strategy briefed on AMD’s strategy, estimated that the current minimum price on cards comparable to AMD’s new models is $399. He said the $199 pricing comes as a surprise.

He is more than likely talking about the performance of the lowest priced part. But overall we have no idea what this $199 part is, it could be bottom or top of the polaris line, or even a part in the middle.

Mauller · 31 May 2016 at 22:09

Sacrifice said:
If you read the article, it says the $199 will offer the $500 competing performance.

It doesnt say anything to do with it being based on a competitor, this is the quote.

AMD said its new Radeon RX cards, certified for use in VR by HTC and Oculus VR, deliver performance equivalent to that of $500 graphics cards used for VR.

Killer7xx · 31 May 2016 at 22:14

$199 for 980/Fury/Nano performance would be great, especially if 2 of those cards can match up to GTX 1080 performance levels.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 31 May 2016 at 22:16

Wait if you add VAT to that it is £165. That means R9 390X or GTX980 level performance for £165??