• 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

Ferrari100 said:
I'm not looking behind to FX CPU'S, even though it's true they have great DX12 performance.
I'm looking forward to Zen. That conversation is for another thread so I am not sure why you brought it up here.

I don't remember the hyping on that however.??
Click to expand...

He is talking about the Fury X.
 
fs123 said:
You are just relieved or hoping that the 480 is not Fury level performance. I think it will come close though when overclocked.
In any case lets see what the 480X brings shall we.
Click to expand...

No, DP just likes to constantly talk AMD down and promote Nvidia wherever possible, and often thinly veils his posts with a light dashing of AMD to keep it roughly on topic.

Quite frankly he is boring and borderline annoying and extremely predictable, you can guarantee any AMD thread will sooner or later have his presence nay saying and preaching his infinite wisdom (drivel) over and over.

I don't think the 480 is going to be Fury level, I expect it to be around 980 level and that's fine I think.
 
Gregster said:
I put it into the same bracket as Firestrike and Heaven benches. Ideal for gauging performance but ultimately, we all want to see how the cards fair in the actual games we play. In time, there will be several DX12 games to test but for now, Tomb Raider is a great choice to use as it is an excellent game with sweet visuals and owned by many.
Click to expand...


But it doesn't get to use the full benefit of DX12. There isn't really a hefty demand on the cpu in that game.

It can be demanding on the GPU though!
 
Gregster said:
He is talking about the Fury X.
Click to expand...
Arggh. Fair.
Well, there was clearly a mole leaking info on that one.
That was a foul swoop by Nvidia to get in they way they did.

That must have been the case as I am sure that price difference between the Titan X and 980Ti was not meant to be so great and the timing was impeccable. A smash and grab. No wonder AMD are much more secure with their info this time round.
:-/
 
Last edited:
LoadsaMoney said:
How the hell would a quick single card bench of AOTS, hurt their reviews and traffic, pmsl! :D:D:D
Click to expand...

Had an interesting comment from the editor of Hardware Canucks on Overclock.net today saying how traditional review sites were suffering from less and less traffic and it was moving towards social media reviewers on YouTube,etc and people on rumours sites(probably WCCFTech) and the like who he said made up stuff and still got invites to the events,and he said many of the traditional reviewers are bitter about it,since this new breed don't have as much integrity as some of the older generation review sites,and are much easier to be swayed(or something to that level).
 
Last edited:
SiDeards73 said:
No, DP just likes to constantly talk AMD down and promote Nvidia wherever possible, and often thinly veils his posts with a light dashing of AMD to keep it roughly on topic.

Quite frankly he is boring and borderline annoying and extremely predictable, you can guarantee any AMD thread will sooner or later have his presence nay saying and preaching his infinite wisdom (drivel) over and over.

I don't think the 480 is going to be Fury level, I expect it to be around 980 level and that's fine I think.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear!

Couldn't of put it better!
 
Gregster said:
In fairness, there has been a few guys getting a bit overzealous with performance expectations. We all do it at times and I have done it myself with many differing launches. A couple of guys here were saying Fury X or even 980 Ti performance.
Click to expand...

Plenty of rumours suggested 2560+ shaders clocked at much higher core clocks, GDDR5X, along with anticipated architectural improvements. This would have put 480X easily at Fury X performance, or even slightly higher. Even without GDDR5X such a GPU should be better than R9 390 performance.

Think R9 390 at 1400+ core clock with GDDR5X and the extra architectural improvements to improve efficiency etc. The difference at most resolutions between R9 390 and Fury X is on average ~35%.

Hell even a R9 390 (2560 shaders) direct die shrink at 1400+ core clock would come close to Fury X. It really wasn't within the realms of fantasy to assume such a card was (or even is) possible.

If P10 with 2306 shaders, 1266 core clock only manages to match R9 390, which has 2560 shaders and 1000MHz core clock then AMD have ****ed up. Even with 256 instead of 512 bit memory bus such a card should be a distinct improvement on R9 390.

So please don't try the "maybe you all got over hyped for Polaris".
 
Last edited:
Gregster said:
He is talking about the Fury X.
Click to expand...

Yep :)

SiDeards73 said:
Yeah sounded an excuse tbh, how comes you haven't flogged your Fury's Loadsa? I would have offloaded those by now and bought a 980ti or a 390 and banked the cash while waiting on something else
Click to expand...

I can't be bothered with the hassle off getting them out tbh, until ive got my new card, as be a major ball-ache getting my top card out, as my NH-D15 is sitting right on top of it, got to work out how i can get in there to pop the release tab :p

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Had an interesting comment from the editor of Hardware Canucks on Overclock.net today saying how traditional review sites were suffering from less and less traffic and it was moving towards social media reviewers on YouTube,etc and people on rumours sites(probably WCCFTech) and the like who he said made up stuff and still got invites to the events,and he said many of the traditional reviewers are bitter about it,since this new breed don't have as much integrity as some of the older generation review sites,and are much easier to be swayed(or something to that level).
Click to expand...

Must admit, i do like watching the reviews of cards on YT. :)
 
Last edited:
r7slayer said:
But it doesn't get to use the full benefit of DX12. There isn't really a hefty demand on the cpu in that game.

It can be demanding on the GPU though!
Click to expand...

Do you play AoTS? I have it but not my kind of game. I am more interested in what is what with the games I play. I want the big picture as well and DX11 games as well as DX12. I don't look at a game and say, well that isn't using ACE or CR or ROVs, so best to discard that, I look at what frames the game gets. You do have a valid point though and over the next couple of years, I am sure there will be more and more AAA games coming that use a lot of the DX12 feature sets, so probably good to keep an eye on things like AoTS for reference.
 
ICDP said:
Plenty of rumours suggested 2560+ shaders clocked at much higher core clocks, GDDR5X, along with anticipated architectural improvements. This would have put 480X easily at Fury X performance, or even slightly higher. Even without GDDR5X such a GPU should be better than R9 390 performance.

Think R9 390 at 1400+ core clock with GDDR5X and the extra architectural improvements to improve efficiency etc. The difference at most resolutions between R9 390 and Fury X is on average ~35%.

Hell even a R9 390 (2560 shaders) direct die shrink at 1400+ core clock would come close to Fury X. It really wasn't within the realms of fantasy to assume such a card was (or even is) possible.

If P10 with 2306 shaders, 1266 core clock only manages to match R9 390, which has 2560 shaders and 1000MHz core clock then AMD have ****ed up. Even with 256 instead of 512 bit memory bus such a card should be a distinct improvement on R9 390.

So please don't try the "maybe you all got over hyped for Polaris".
Click to expand...

I don't think it's right to say they ****** up if they don't reach a certain performance. That's quite a negative statement tbf.

For all we know these might be cut down chips while Apple and / OR Sony get the best binned chips. Who knows? There are plenty of potential variables.

We are expecting 390/980 at a great price. Anything more is pure speculation so let's wait to find out.
:-)
 
ICDP said:
Plenty of rumours suggested 2560+ shaders clocked at much higher core clocks, GDDR5X, along with anticipated architectural improvements. This would have put 480X easily at Fury X performance, or even slightly higher. Even without GDDR5X such a GPU should be better than R9 390 performance.

Think R9 390 at 1400+ core clock with GDDR5X and the extra architectural improvements to improve efficiency etc. The difference at most resolutions between R9 390 and Fury X is on average ~35%.

Hell even a R9 390 (2560 shaders) direct die shrink at 1400+ core clock would come close to Fury X. It really wasn't within the realms of fantasy to assume such a card was (or even is) possible.

If P10 with 2306 shaders, 1266 core clock only manages to match R9 390, which has 2560 shaders and 1000MHz core clock then AMD have ****ed up. Even with 256 instead of 512 bit memory bus such a card should be a distinct improvement on R9 390.

So please don't try the "maybe you all got over hyped for Polaris".
Click to expand...

Easy tiger, I never said "maybe you all got over hyped for Polaris" and merely pointed out that some, including me can put expectations too high at times and some have done so when talking about the 480. Just look back through the Polaris threads to see for yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom