AMD Polaris architecture – GCN 4.0

tavtavtav · 2 Jun 2016 at 19:46

Surely the Maths is as simple as 62.5/1.83 = 34.153...

Lokken86 · 2 Jun 2016 at 19:54

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I might actually wait and see what the GTX1060/GTX1060TI brings to the table first. But I do feel tempted.

One of my mates has an ancient HD7870XT and he probably is going to buy one at launch as long as performance is around what we expect.

Could be a while for those cards though.

ICDP · 2 Jun 2016 at 19:57

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
We already know the basic specs - 2304 shaders at 1266MHZ. That should plonk it close to an R9 390X.

I don't expect any higher.

If it ends up less than Nano performance I would consider it a failure.

Jono8 · 2 Jun 2016 at 20:01

ICDP said:
If it ends up less than Nano performance I would consider it a failure.

Hardly. £170 for 390/390x performance is very good and pushing things in the right direction.

It isnt exciting for me as i want something faster than my 980 but for those with a 380/960 or below it will be a great card.

greatash · 2 Jun 2016 at 20:10

Jono8 said:
Hardly. £170 for 390/390x performance is very good and pushing things in the right direction.

It isnt exciting for me as i want something faster than my 980 but for those with a 380/960 or below it will be a great card.

Yeah its a bargain, they could have priced it a bit higher since nvidia has been pushing prices up.

1060 wont sell for £250 now

AllBodies · 2 Jun 2016 at 20:26

tavtavtav said:
Surely the Maths is as simple as 62.5/1.83 = 34.153...

It is. That is the correct result.

That result however can't be right because that would be more like R9 380X performance.

That test is certainly janky, and we can't really draw any conclusions from it annoyingly.

Bring on the independent reviews!

ICDP · 2 Jun 2016 at 20:33

Jono8 said:
Hardly. £170 for 390/390x performance is very good and pushing things in the right direction.

It isnt exciting for me as i want something faster than my 980 but for those with a 380/960 or below it will be a great card.

Remember that £170 is for the 4GB version, the 8GB versions will be up to $300 (or ~£250). We need to consider 8GB 390 performance can already be had for ~£240, hardly a massive saving is it? Basically paying the same money for the same performance but with lower power draw.

The $300 versions of Polaris will definitely need to be measurably faster than ~390/390X performance considering 390 is currently a ~$320 MSRP.

ICDP · 2 Jun 2016 at 20:40

AllBodies said:
It is. That is the correct result.

That result however can't be right because that would be more like R9 380X performance.

That test is certainly janky, and we can't really draw any conclusions from it annoyingly.

Bring on the independent reviews!

Yeah, AMD truly ****ed up by showing 2x Polaris compared to 1x 1080. If we assume 34.5 FPS compared to 58 then that makes it ~60% slower than 1080 which makes it ~380X speeds. Even one of those daft slides showing up to 1.2x R9 390 or something would have been better.

If it is really 390 type performance at similar VRAM, price and performance then it will be a monumental failure with AMD as a laughing stock (again).

Gregster · 2 Jun 2016 at 20:48

I am starting to worry and not even sure if it will be even close to the 390. Take into account that Nvidia doesn't do well in AoTS as well. Sorry to be a damp squid but I can see a few disappointed people when this launches and me being one of them.

Ferrari100 · 2 Jun 2016 at 20:50

ICDP said:
Yeah, AMD truly ****ed up by showing 2x Polaris compared to 1x 1080. If we assume 34.5 FPS compared to 58 then that makes it ~60% slower than 1080 which makes it ~380X speeds. Even one of those daft slides showing up to 1.2x R9 390 or something would have been better.

If it is really 390 type performance at similar VRAM, price and performance then it will be a monumental failure with AMD as a laughing stock (again).

I think you are the only person out of everybody who thinks that.

brawl3r · 2 Jun 2016 at 20:50

ICDP said:
Remember that £170 is for the 4GB version, the 8GB versions will be up to $300 (or ~£250). We need to consider 8GB 390 performance can already be had for ~£240, hardly a massive saving is it? Basically paying the same money for the same performance but with lower power draw.

The $300 versions of Polaris will definitely need to be measurably faster than ~390/390X performance considering 390 is currently a ~$320 MSRP.

It should be between the 390 and the X. why would the 8gb version be £250 from the 4gb at £170 (Not my assumption) So they are going to charge a extra £80 for 4 extra GB lol. the $300 card will prob be the 8gb 480x
Also you get dp 1.3/4 new architecture, not just lower power consumption.
Plus £240 for a soon to be EOL product.

andybird123 · 2 Jun 2016 at 20:56

Gregster said:
damp squid

Not sure if thats a deliberate typo, but made me laugh either way

AlamoX · 2 Jun 2016 at 20:56

ICDP said:
Remember that £170 is for the 4GB version, the 8GB versions will be up to $300 (or ~£250). We need to consider 8GB 390 performance can already be had for ~£240, hardly a massive saving is it? Basically paying the same money for the same performance but with lower power draw.

The $300 versions of Polaris will definitely need to be measurably faster than ~390/390X performance considering 390 is currently a ~$320 MSRP.

they already said the 8Go will be 229$, which makes it 192£ VAT included, still good 50£ cheaper than 390 for better perf and half tdp, there wont be any 300$ version, lisa su said that the segment from 100 to 300$ is where volume sale is, that doesnt mean they need to put a card at 100$ and a card a 300$, just that inbetween this range most ppl can afford it.
personally i think the RX 480 is the full chip, there wont be anything higher, and the cutdown version will be called RX470.

ICDP · 2 Jun 2016 at 20:57

Gregster said:
I am starting to worry and not even sure if it will be even close to the 390. Take into account that Nvidia doesn't do well in AoTS as well. Sorry to be a damp squid but I can see a few disappointed people when this launches and me being one of them.

Yep, starting to see this being a big worry. People are forgetting the $200 price is for a reference 4GB version with the cheap blower type cooler. The $300 price might be for AIB custom cooled 8GB versions (hopefully with some sort of factory OC).

I do hold out some hope the $300 price is for a 480X with ~ Fury performance. After all history shows AMD never have just one card form a single architecture, always 290 and 290X, or 390 and 390X for example. So if this is 480 then there must be a 480X, unless Apple took all those.

Jono8 · 2 Jun 2016 at 20:58

Gregster said:
I am starting to worry and not even sure if it will be even close to the 390. Take into account that Nvidia doesn't do well in AoTS as well. Sorry to be a damp squid but I can see a few disappointed people when this launches and me being one of them.

Nothing worse than being a damp squid. You should get that checked out.

Gregster · 2 Jun 2016 at 20:58

andybird123 said:
Not sure if thats a deliberate typo, but made me laugh either way

Embarrassingly it wasn't

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-The-top-10-misquoted-phrases-in-Britain.html

AlamoX · 2 Jun 2016 at 21:02

Gregster said:
I am starting to worry and not even sure if it will be even close to the 390. Take into account that Nvidia doesn't do well in AoTS as well. Sorry to be a damp squid but I can see a few disappointed people when this launches and me being one of them.

i know the feeling, hardly ever happens, for a gpu price seem too good to be true, you feel like it's a scam, can really a 165£ gpu beat a 980/matchs nano.
just doesnt sound right 970/390 perf seem more believable, thats why i keep managing my expectations about polaris.

shankly1985 · 2 Jun 2016 at 21:06

Gregster said:
I am starting to worry and not even sure if it will be even close to the 390. Take into account that Nvidia doesn't do well in AoTS as well. Sorry to be a damp squid but I can see a few disappointed people when this launches and me being one of them.

Am also not getting carried away. If it match 980 or 980ti I will definitely buy one to tide me over till big GPU is released.

But am not to fussed either way tbh my 290 is still going strong.

Ferrari100 · 2 Jun 2016 at 21:09

shankly1985 said:
Am also not getting carried away. If it match 980 or 980ti I will definitely buy one to tide me over till big GPU is released.

But am not to fussed either way tbh my 290 is still going strong.

I don't think anybody is getting carried away. I'm not sure why he even said that.

390/980 performance is expected. At $200 that's a stonking deal.

fs123 · 2 Jun 2016 at 21:11

ICDP said:
Yeah, AMD truly ****ed up by showing 2x Polaris compared to 1x 1080. If we assume 34.5 FPS compared to 58 then that makes it ~60% slower than 1080 which makes it ~380X speeds. Even one of those daft slides showing up to 1.2x R9 390 or something would have been better.

If it is really 390 type performance at similar VRAM, price and performance then it will be a monumental failure with AMD as a laughing stock (again).

Ignore the AoTS benchmark and focus on Doom for a moment. It has an fps counter when the devs are talking and you can clearly see it averages about 70fps. Robert Hallock has confirmed it was running at 1440P VSR. If settings were ultra then the card is about Fury Nano level.

If settings were lower then it's probably 390/X level but hopefully its more than that.