-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Polaris architecture – GCN 4.0
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
With the furyx it was easy to guess, but i'd disagree with maybe your 470/x.
I think it will have less at between 1024 and 1280. But we'll see.
Read this... http://seekingalpha.com/article/397...al-technology-media-telecom-conference?page=1
It looks like AMD are still trying to keep their Polaris performance compared to Pascal under wraps, they are being a little evasive when asked directly about that, like many of our politicians they respond to the question without answering it. I hate that!
Its still an interesting read tho.
It looks like AMD are still trying to keep their Polaris performance compared to Pascal under wraps, they are being a little evasive when asked directly about that, like many of our politicians they respond to the question without answering it. I hate that!
Its still an interesting read tho.
If those figures in that benchmark are roughly correct, the 480X needs to be sub £250. Otherwise people will just whack another £40-50 quid and buy a 1070 which is faster than a 980Ti/TX.
If they want to get claw back market share from nvidia, they should price it £200. That would sell very well, I would even buy two if I did not hate multi gpu
If they want to get claw back market share from nvidia, they should price it £200. That would sell very well, I would even buy two if I did not hate multi gpu
Still doesn't alter the fact that it was DM own link and he said the lowest price was $329.
Grrr lets move on.
The important point being lost here, is that the slide is referring to their existing range, and accomplishments /to date/.
The Polaris box is the only one looking forwards.
It's a terrible slide, confusing for sure.
Let's remember back to Capsaicin for more evidence that this "VR from $329" refers to the outgoing gen cards (before Pascal/Polaris).
They talked about making VR affordable. Does anyone think that means taking an existing price point of $349, and knocking $20 off? Of course not.
The Polaris box is the only one looking forwards.
It's a terrible slide, confusing for sure.
Let's remember back to Capsaicin for more evidence that this "VR from $329" refers to the outgoing gen cards (before Pascal/Polaris).
They talked about making VR affordable. Does anyone think that means taking an existing price point of $349, and knocking $20 off? Of course not.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Still doesn't alter the fact that it was DM own link and he said the lowest price was $329.
Grrr lets move on.
I've been away revising for an exam and missed all this ridiculous drama.
But lets be exact, I posted a link to the first 390 I saw, if you read the words they were
I didn't say $329 was their lowest price... I said THE 390 is their lowest priced current VR ready card. The hilarious thing is one, you can't read, two, I didn't care about the specific cost because rrp is usually used and rrp a few weeks before launch of new cards isn't going to be particularly accurate and three, the prices you're quoting aren't the actual prices on those sites if you followed them but the dumb post rebate prices that the USA has. So those cards are from what I can see $310-340 anyway.
Again the point was just posting a link to a card showing that if you could get a card at that price point used in the slide TODAY from the current/last gen, then it wouldn't be the same price for the next rung down of cards in the next/new gen coming shortly.
Also as some others managed to point out, it's a slide for an event, not a marketing slide. IE the slide is shown on stage or during a web investor thing and someone is talking and going through them point by point. It's not an advert, it has no need to separate information because some idiot posts it out of context. If every slide in existence had to separate all information then every single 'event' would consist of eleventy billion slides.
Last edited:
Yes you did, funnily though it was in the same post that you also said.
According to them the 290 is the lowest VR ready card and they are listed at $224.99.
So if your defence is that you said the 390 is the lowest priced VR card, then sorry but according to your own links your still wrong.
It was a simple mistake, we all make them.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
That is the second time you tried that argument and the second time it had to be explained to you. You wanted to win, you misread what I said, you misread the intention of adding the price and a link and you misread why I went specifically with the 390 and not the 290. The 290 is not a current card, the 390 is, get over it.
RRP cards for the 390 are going to be 'off' a few weeks before Polaris, rrp of the 290/x.... 18 months after AMD replaced it and stopped selling it, yeah, that is going to be even less representative. Retailers/distributors can't buy a 290 off AMD and haven't been able to for 18 months(for the record before you find out the actual release date of the 390 and show 18 months is wrong... its' not crucial to the argument, as 329 wasn't, it's a ballpark number to show it's been a long time, not intended to be super accurate because I cba'd to look it up nor is accuracy there really relevant). In exactly the same way it would be ridiculous for those prices to represent Polaris pricing, it would be equally ridiculous to have them represent older generation not sold by AMD for so long.
RRP cards for the 390 are going to be 'off' a few weeks before Polaris, rrp of the 290/x.... 18 months after AMD replaced it and stopped selling it, yeah, that is going to be even less representative. Retailers/distributors can't buy a 290 off AMD and haven't been able to for 18 months(for the record before you find out the actual release date of the 390 and show 18 months is wrong... its' not crucial to the argument, as 329 wasn't, it's a ballpark number to show it's been a long time, not intended to be super accurate because I cba'd to look it up nor is accuracy there really relevant). In exactly the same way it would be ridiculous for those prices to represent Polaris pricing, it would be equally ridiculous to have them represent older generation not sold by AMD for so long.
Last edited:
Clever word play.
You say I wanted to win, well your no different, you will not admit that what you typed was very misleading and inferred that the $329 390 was the cheapest, which it isn't.
But ok you win, I was wrong, you can sit and gloat to your hearts content now.
You say I wanted to win, well your no different, you will not admit that what you typed was very misleading and inferred that the $329 390 was the cheapest, which it isn't.
But ok you win, I was wrong, you can sit and gloat to your hearts content now.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Yup, the 390 is the lowest priced current vr card sold is sooooo incredibly misleading.... oh wait, it's actually as clear as can be made. Throw in a link to show which cards are deemed VR ready, throw in a link to show the prices are around that shown as the floor in the slide as an example to show that price range reflected the current cards.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
This thread
