• 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

TheRealDeal said:
Yea am sure. The ones you are seeing were done at crazy settings. I posted the links a few pages back and they are 1440p extreme settings hence the higher scores. There is around 30 different runs done by him. Most are Gtx1080 though :D:D.
Click to expand...

The bench thread on here uses max settings, so in terms of comparing to the scores on here that is probably the better one to yse anyway
 
andybird123 said:
Are you sure about it being 1440p? looking on the aots bench site the 1440p dual card result was 51fps
The 62.5fps figure they used in the presentation was 1080p
Click to expand...

dont spread crap.
Google, do some research instead of doing things like D.P does.

"Moving up to 1440p at the same settings maintains the same performance delta within +/-1%."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4m692q/concerning_the_aots_image_quality_controversy/

The 480 totally blows everything nvidia has away.
great year ahead with Zen and 480 and Vega

The issue for Nvidia is this and for D.P
"At present the GTX 1080 is incorrectly executing the terrain shaders responsible for populating the environment with the appropriate amount of snow. The GTX 1080 is doing less work to render AOTS than it otherwise would if the shader were being run properly. "

Nvidia caught cheating with a 800 euro card again or is it that Pascal lacks true async shaders ACE engines? ;)
 
Last edited:
flopper said:
dont spread crap.
Google, do some research instead of doing things like D.P does.

"Moving up to 1440p at the same settings maintains the same performance delta within +/-1%."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4m692q/concerning_the_aots_image_quality_controversy/
Click to expand...

Its not the same settings, the bench thread on here uses maximum settings, the 51fps result i posted was at crazy which is the closest comparison.

62.5fps is the AMD posted fps, Robert says this was at 1.83 scaling, at 1080 extreme settings, well below the crazy+ used on here, works out to 34fps for single card, which is around the same fps figure for a 980, except the 980 was running much higher settings
 
Last edited:
flopper said:
dont spread crap.
Google, do some research instead of doing things like D.P does.

"Moving up to 1440p at the same settings maintains the same performance delta within +/-1%."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4m692q/concerning_the_aots_image_quality_controversy/

The 480 totally blows everything nvidia has away.
great year ahead with Zen and 480 and Vega

The issue for Nvidia is this and for D.P
"At present the GTX 1080 is incorrectly executing the terrain shaders responsible for populating the environment with the appropriate amount of snow. The GTX 1080 is doing less work to render AOTS than it otherwise would if the shader were being run properly. "

Nvidia caught cheating with a 800 euro card again or is it that Pascal lacks true async shaders ACE engines? ;)
Click to expand...

I am picturing you having AMD branded bed sheets and a bed shaped like an AMD cooler right now.
 
Last edited:
ICDP said:
The numbers you show are for a 2GB 380 which is ~10% + slower at 1440p.

Here is a nine game average with R9 380 4GB coming around 40%-45% slower than R9 390 at 1440p.

http://www.pcgamer.com/sapphire-radeon-r9-380-4gb-review/

Most games in this review show ~40% or less improvement from R9 380 4GB to R9 390 8GB.
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/1984-amd-r9-390-380-benchmark-review/Page-2

Don't get me wrong, RX 480/X could still be higher performance than R9 390 and if they are then great because given the specs that's right where they should be IMHO.
Click to expand...
I actually have a GTX960 4GB myself - in games like ARK my mates R9 390 is more than double the speed.

It does not change the fact the GTX1070 is massively more expensive than a GTX970 and Nvidia have ***** up by your standards by offering a GTX1070 which is 50% faster than a GTX970 for a 30% cost increase.

You also seem to forget the GTX970 is slower than a R9 390 so you are probably looking closer to a 40% increase over a R9 390 at least a 30% price increase maybe more.

Due to the awful price performance increase of the GTX1070, AMD could have R9 390 level performance at
£210 and still be better value for money than a GTX1070.

Don't try on purpose to understate the performance of the RX480 and overstate the performance of the GTX1070 to make it look better.

The biggest fail here is the GTX1080 and GTX1070 pricing which makes the RX480 look even better value.

It is totally disgenuous to talk about the RX480 when it is replacing the cards like the R9 380,R8 380X and GTX960 at the same price. The GTX1070 replaces the GTX970 at a higher price.

At the last node transition the GTX670 was 20% faster than a GTX580 and was £320 to £330. That equivalent performance boost is now at £525+,as the GTX1070 cannot beat a Titan X.

The RX480 at R9 390 to R9 390X level performance would be 40% to 50% faster than an R9 380X 4GB at £200. That is TPU figures.

The GTX1070 is 50% faster than a GTX970 at £320,and the GTX970 launched at £250. TPU puts a Titan X at around 50% faster than a GTX970 and Hexus puts the GTX1070 as being slightly slower than a Titan X.

The biggest fail here is the GTX1070 level and GTX1080 pricing - for the same improvements as the last transition it now costs far more a similar performance bump.
 
Last edited:
andybird123 said:
The bench thread on here uses max settings, so in terms of comparing to the scores on here that is probably the better one to yse anyway
Click to expand...

Yea I agree. It was easy to work out crossfire scaling though as he done the single 40 fps and dual 60fps runs within 10 minutes of each other. The 66fps run was the next day so not sure what had changed to gain 10%.
 
Toss3 said:
It isn't that simple as the GPU Uilization was 51% for the single batch, 71.9% for the medium batch, and 92.3% for the heavy batch. Source

This is closer to the truth, but that was run on an older version so performance could have been improved in the newest version. This would put it between a Titan X and Fury X.
Click to expand...


The AotS benchmark doesn't report GPU utilization, it reports % time the benchmark was GPU limited or CPU limited. Even when 49% of the time benchmark was CPU bound that might still mean 99% GPU utilisation
 
I feel if we are all going to be honest, that was probably the worst decision ever to use a pair of 480s running AoTS and showing it marginally faster than a 1080. If the card was fast enough, why not put it against a 980 in Aots in a card V card situation. That would have made whole lot more sense to me, or even run it against a 390.

I don't buy the "we don't want to take site traffic away from reviewers" either. I am going to put my head on the chopping block and say it is about 10% slower than a 390 at 1440P.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I actually have a GTX960 4GB myself - in games like ARK my mates R9 390 is more than double the speed.

It does not change the fact the GTX1070 is massively more expensive than a GTX970 and Nvidia have ***** up by your standards by offering a GTX1070 which is 50% faster than a GTX970 for a 30% cost increase.

You also seem to forget the GTX970 is slower than a R9 390 so you are probably looking closer to a 40% increase over a R9 390 at least a 30% price increase maybe more.

Due to the awful price performance increase of the GTX1070, AMD could have R9 390 level performance at
£210 and still be better value for money than a GTX1070.

Don't try on purpose to understate the performance of the RX480 and overstate the performance of the GTX1070 to make it look better.

The biggest fail here is the GTX1080 and GTX1070 pricing which makes the RX480 look even better value.

It is totally disgenuous to talk about the RX480 when it is replacing the cards like the R9 380,R8 380X and GTX960 at the same price. The GTX1070 replaces the GTX970 at a higher price.

At the last node transition the GTX670 was 20% faster than a GTX580 and was £320 to £330. That equivalent performance boost is now at £525+,as the GTX1070 cannot beat a Titan X.
Click to expand...

The 1070 is $50 more expensive than the 970
 
Gregster said:
I feel if we are all going to be honest, that was probably the worst decision ever to use a pair of 480s running AoTS and showing it marginally faster than a 1080. If the card was fast enough, why not put it against a 980 in Aots in a card V card situation. That would have made whole lot more sense to me, or even run it against a 390.

I don't buy the "we don't want to take site traffic away from reviewers" either. I am going to put my head on the chopping block and say it is about 10% slower than a 390 at 1440P.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with this. The test they decided to show has turned out very odd, and difficult to draw conclusions from.

At best it was pointless, and at worst it can make the card look worse than it is (depending on what the mGPU scaling actually was. I.e. if scaling was 1.9x the card is trash, but at 1.4x or less it becomes the best value card ever).
 
TheRealDeal said:
Yea I agree. It was easy to work out crossfire scaling though as he done the single 40 fps and dual 60fps runs within 10 minutes of each other. The 66fps run was the next day so not sure what had changed to gain 10%.
Click to expand...

Did the game version or cpu speed change? I would also compare drivers.
 
Gregster said:
I feel if we are all going to be honest, that was probably the worst decision ever to use a pair of 480s running AoTS and showing it marginally faster than a 1080. If the card was fast enough, why not put it against a 980 in Aots in a card V card situation. That would have made whole lot more sense to me, or even run it against a 390.

I don't buy the "we don't want to take site traffic away from reviewers" either. I am going to put my head on the chopping block and say it is about 10% slower than a 390 at 1440P.
Click to expand...


This thread already had a conversation about both Nvidia and AMD using smoke and mirrors and being as bad as each other.

I'm sure AMD they have their reasons for doing what they did, the same way as Nvidia did when showing the 1080 using AOTS and a 1080p monitor to show off a 4K GPU.

The fact everybody wants to talk about it is a clear indication, in part at least, AMD got what they wanted out of it - Planted a seed that has led to mass discussion.
 
D.P. said:
The 1070 is $50 more expensive than the 970
Click to expand...

Does not change the fact it costs more,and in the UK it is still £70 more - some here on purpose are trying to pump up the performance of the GTX1070 and downgrade the performance of the RX480 to make the former look better.

No amount of deflection is going to change that even at R9 390 to R9 390X level performance the RX480 is 40% to 50% faster than a R9 380X and will start at a lower price point in dollars.

When compared to the R9 380 and GTX960 it is even more.

The GTX1070 is closer to 50% faster than a GTX970 and that similar improvement is coming at a cost increase.

AMD does not need to do much to make the RX480 better price/performance than a GTX1070 but all the GTX1070 pumpers are not questioning the price of the GTX1070.

Out of false concern they make more and more unrealistic demands of the RX480,ie,it should be like a Fury or Fury X otherwise the GTX is the bestest.

It is getting tiresome that whatever AMD does,Nvidia pricing does not get questioned. Maybe if Nvidia dropped the RRP of the GTX1070,the RX480 would be cheaper??

I blame Nvidia for the RX480 not being £150 and Fury level! :rolleyes:

Go and buy the GTX1070,the rest of us who don't buy £300+ cards don't care.

This is like going into a spec thread with somebody wanting to buy a £175 R9 380X/GTX960 and people saying a £330 R9 Nano is better,since it is faster. You don't say?? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom