-
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
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,458
- Location
- Planet Earth
Pretty good mainstream launch from AMD.
Also this seems like believable now.
The 480 is between the 970-980.
Actually the C7 model was the one AMD tested as confirmed by my previous link. That chart puts it above an R9 390X and a GTX980.
it could be like this C4 is the 4GB, C7 is the 8GB 480 parts, Still the full 480X to be revealed which was more than likely shown at macau.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,458
- Location
- Planet Earth
We don't know if Polaris 10 is a 2516 shader GPU,but it will be interesting if AMD is holding back on it. We still don't know if Polaris 10 can use GDDR5X or even if the chip has a bigger memory controller like Tonga had.
Just have to wait and see, although i can see it still having a 256bit bus and doing fine with GDDR5.
Just considering the price of the part, i think it was more a showing to 'steal the thunder' from the pascal high end band wagon. It has a very decent price/perf for what this part is.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 10,756
- Location
- West End, Southampton
Again, why are AMD misleading with Crossfire though? CF is shocking at the moment and has been for the last year or so.
Difference in VRAM will not affect 3Dmark scores. The videocardz benchmarks may be reasonably accurate for the single card but crossfire is incorrect unless they mistakenly labeled is as C7 when they are actually C4 crossfire. The AoTS demo showed it to be faster than 1080 or around similar performance with only 50% scaling due to early drivers.
8GB 290X get better 3Dmark scores compared to the 4GB models.
Vram would only result in a small difference of about 100 points, not nearly 2000 like in the videocardz chart. And also 4gb seems to be a bit faster here but maybe due to some small vram speed difference.
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/5913/5/sapphire-radeon-r9-290x-vapor-x-8gb-and-4gb-review-is-8gb-useful-benchmarks-3dmark--battlefield-4
Last edited:
Likely be other versions for now a single 480 199$ replaced every other card up to 500$ which is an amazing feat from amd.
Don't know if you can say CF is shocking. It is what it is, just like SLI. When it works it's great, when it doesn't it's useless.
To be honest, it works fantastically on paper. It's up to devs to put the support in game engines for it. Not Nvidias/AMDs fault if they don't bother.
It would be nice for AMD to put up some sample code for AFR Explicit mGPU on GPUOpen, would go a long way to getting it supported in more titles.
As I said in the other thread... I don't see what the fuss is about. It seems I predicted it (yeah the post was a few hours befoe, but this is what I've been on for the past month or so):
So... we're quite possibly done here with Polaris, they've confirmed what the sensible among us expected it to be. It's a good card for folks looking to buy below £200, but for the rest of us, there's still quite a wait yet for the big hitters (1070/1080 is not impressive in my eyes).
Now where was that Vega thread? For a couple hundred more pages of no actual news, speculation, discussion about GPUs that aren't the thread title, arguments and all the other banter that comes with discussing GPUs lol.
So... we're quite possibly done here with Polaris, they've confirmed what the sensible among us expected it to be. It's a good card for folks looking to buy below £200, but for the rest of us, there's still quite a wait yet for the big hitters (1070/1080 is not impressive in my eyes).
Now where was that Vega thread? For a couple hundred more pages of no actual news, speculation, discussion about GPUs that aren't the thread title, arguments and all the other banter that comes with discussing GPUs lol.
So 2x 480's = 62 fps.. How much fps do we get from 1x 480?LoL
AMD Themselves said that in their Ashes test they only had about 51% scaling, and the leaked graph up top also shows very bad scaling. Most likely due to very immature drivers; as CF usually scales very well( when it's working in a new title ).
Last edited:
So 2x 480's = 62 fps.. How much fps do we get from 1x 480?
I'm not sure of the res/settigns the results are from but at 1440p by comparison Fury X in Crosffire gets ~72 FPS and ~45 FPs in single GPU. If we assume same scaling and settings then the P10 Xfire in the test is ~14% slower than a Fury X Xfire. So extrapolating to single GPU mode that would be.
Fury X ~45 FPS
P10 ~38-39 FPS (~14% slower)
That would put the DX12 performance of P10 at roughly 1070 levels. At least in that particular game.
At a guess this would put it around OC 980 - R9 Nano - R9 Fury speeds in most games. Which is brilliant for $199. My Fury is going to be worth almost nothing so I may as well keep it as a backup card down the line.
Last edited:
Unless Nvidia just cut their prices.
But how many of those 337 million are going to be used for gaming? AMD is just banking on the idea that VR will become a mainstream app, and everyone and his grandma will want to buy a cheap, powerful Polaris to drive it - along with the hundreds they will have to spend on the VR goggles. That seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
It's a nice excuse as to why AMD have no high end competitive products, but really it's because of Vega not being ready due to HBM and wanting to get a smaller die up and selling on 14nm as a pipe-cleaner.
As I predicted, there's nothing in there for me as a 290 owner, and I'm waiting on Vega as a true step forward in performance. I am happy about the price point and the positioning of Polaris as the 480, as that means a 490/490X looks like it will be sensibly priced as well as an increase in performance.