Radeon RX 480 "Polaris" Launched at $199

[SiDeards73]

So even though the 480 and 1070 customers should be 'different', and the end of the day the point is the 480 may well end up cannibalising sales from those that just think 'well the price gap is too large to justify the small increase in performance'.

I guess benchmarks will tell us more.

You have a valid point, but do not forget the Nvidia market share is already strong, you have to convince people to change brands, many people are brand loyal, many people perceive AMD as inferior products, and many people go off the recommendation of family / friends, or from websites. Also a lot of people do not research their purchases before they buy them.

Hopefully the tide is turning in AMDs favour, but i still think as soon as AMD can present something of real high end performance its not going to be cheap, and why should it be? sure they might offer us low tier pricing and high performace for the 480, but they may well do the opposite with Vega as we say with the FuryX

 

[Mauller]

In the past, how has Nvidia responded if they feel their cards are priced too high compared to AMDs offering?

Does it take months for the price change to occur for example? I'm just wondering if this will affect the 1070 at all. As others have pointed out, over clocking the 480 will probably get you at least close-ish to 980Ti levels, which is around where the 1070 is at stock...

1070 is clocked far higher at stock in comparison, so there could be a reasonable boost in performance if the higher clocks hold and it clocks well.

I think these parts on reference boards should manage 10-20% overclock at least.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I don't understand why AMD haven't prioritised the enthusiast card first.

What we're left with is nVidia charging whatever they want for their cards and laughing all the way to the bank because there is 0 competition. Oh, and also take the **** out of their customer base with the FE cards.

"Oh it has better thermals" - Yet there are thermal throttling issues on the default fan profile. Are you serious?

I want to stick with AMD, I really cannot be bothered paying an extra £150 on a monitor just to support some proprietary sync technology, or wait 6 months for AMD to play catch up.

Firstly, as others have pointed out, the mid-section market is many times larger than the enthusiast market. AMD want this market. Secondly, it's uncontested - the mid-range market is determined by price-performance and Nvidia have nothing that competes with AMD on that right now. AMD can, in short, clean up right now. Thirdly, it is easier to launch mid-range and work your way up when you're starting on a new node because you're still working on improving your yields with the new design and silicon. Fourthly, AMD really want the mobile market. Discrete GPUs for home-builders are a far smaller market than mobile devices. AMD want their Polaris chips in every laptop they can. That means focusing on mid-range and low-power. Fifth, they want as many systems out there using this as possible because it encourages developers to make use of new technologies that give them an edge over Nvidia - DX12 / Async Compute. Finally, it gives them time to mature the technology and gauge the market against their competition before rolling out Vega at the end of this year / early next.

So given all that, you might ask why Nvidia haven't done this. Well two reasons as I see it. Firstly, I don't think they can. Pascal is just the same as their last architecture but shrunk. The 1080 is the top card through sheer brute force. With their new architecture, I think AMD have the technical advantage. You can compensate for that by throwing GDDR5X and Moar GHz! at it if your goal is higher graphical power. But you can't compensate if your goal is price/performance. Secondly, there's a brand boost by having the flagship card in your team. All of Nvidia gets a boost in sales because they're known for making the most powerful card. It's a valid strategy.

But most importantly of all, it's a chess game. AMD are doing this because Nvidia pursued a different strategy and left themselves vulnerable.

 

[TheRealDeal]

+1, someone actually seeing through the marketing BS.

To play VR properly, you will need 2 of these cards and deal with the crossfire issues that incur.

You don't. I was playing on the Vive last night on a mates 290x. Playing mostly Assetto Corsa and War thunder, i can tell you the experience was good. Remember these cards will most likely have some software like NV cards that boost's VR performance. Remember these cards are aimed at VR entry this Gen and are not the top of the pile. From using a 290x in VR these cards should do a decent job and give a decent experience. Sure there will be cards that give a better experience later on from AMD.

 

[chef-borjan]

1070 is clocked far higher at stock in comparison, so there could be a reasonable boost in performance if the higher clocks hold and it clocks well.

I think these parts on reference boards should manage 10-20% overclock at least.

I'm not entirely sure how relevant it is to compare clock speeds given that they are different architectures. And overclocking as a percentage is also not the thing we really care about, its the FPS.

We need to wait and see what FPS an overclocked 480 can do, and compare it to a 1070. The 1070 no doubt will win, but by how much? I could be wrong but it seems like pascal isn't great at overclocking...

 

[chef-borjan]

You don't. I was playing on the Vive last night on a mates 290x. Playing mostly Assetto Corsa and War thunder, i can tell you the experience was good. Remember these cards will most likely have some software like NV cards that boost's VR performance. Remember these cards are aimed at VR entry this Gen and are not the top of the pile. From using a 290x in VR these cards should do a decent job and give a decent experience. Sure there will be cards that give a better experience later on from AMD.

You don't NEED more power.

But I have a 970 and I get dropped frames on some games even with regular image quality. If I want to up the graphical settings (IMHO it makes things look a lot better of course) then I need more GPU power for sure.

 

[WYNIR0]

Excellent move by AMD. Bulk of the market is @1080p gaming and sub £200, why would they not target that? As enthusiasts we can be disappointed that it's not a 1080 beater, we'll have to wait and see what Vega offers.

BTW the amount of FUD in the thread is frankly pathetic. What is it with the tribal B/S chaps? How does one get to be a rabid fanboy of one GPU brand over another? Time to take a long look at your life if you've got to that stage. Me, I'll buy the best value option for my needs at the time I need it.

 

[RavenXXX2]

I can see a lot of 750ti/950/960 users going for a 480 at £160, huge upgrade. You're getting 980+ performance, 4GB ram, superior DX12 performance for £160. This is what AMD needs to do to claw back market share.

 

[flopper]

As others have pointed out, over clocking the 480 will probably get you at least close-ish to 980Ti levels, which is around where the 1070 is at stock...

Different markets though really, the 480 will sell in droves to people who game at 1080p and just want something that "Works" with minimal fuss, arent too bothered about OC'ing etc and is cheap, this card will probably tick all of those boxes.

Most people buying a £165 or so card probably dont even try to overclock their card, i expect a lot of these to be sold to dads buying their kids a cheap first PC or something to get into PC gaming with.

There is a lot of value to OC to have if one look at fps and gaming experience as I tend to do. 480 be overkill for 1080p, it be perfect for 1440p.
no card can do 4k decently anyhow and you still need dual cards or more for 4k.

If I can OC and have a few fps less that allows me the same gaming experience at some way more expensive cards. Thats huge value for gaming for me. since the Vega and Big vega is coming that huge expensive 1080 might be not so good in a few months so better enjoy it while it lasts....

 

[TheRealDeal]

You don't NEED more power.

But I have a 970 and I get dropped frames on some games even with regular image quality. If I want to up the graphical settings (IMHO it makes things look a lot better of course) then I need more GPU power for sure.

My point is for a decent experience you don't need more power. Can you get a better experience, the answer is off course yes. If these have similar tech to what the 1080 has, in some games they will give out double the fps of your 970.

 

[Flying_Hellfish]

Nice price, a decent upgrade for those still on 1080p. Agree it will sell very well.

 

[RavenXXX2]

No card is overkill for 1080p, the 480 will do 1440p fine as well.

 

[Final8y]

+1, someone actually seeing through the marketing BS.

To play VR properly, you will need 2 of these cards and deal with the crossfire issues that incur.

2 GPUs powering one eye each does not use crossfire

 

[tommybhoy]

VR install base isn't the 'I have the fastest mid range chip on the planet an it kicks ass in 2 VR titles out of 50' crowd.

 

[Akagi]

They start at £525 on ocuk..and thats with some release price gouging.

So £75.

Huh... When I last looked they were over £600... Interesting.

 

[tommybhoy]

Massive release from AMD, going after Nv's mainstream user base instead of going after 'da fastest no matter the cost' few.

 

[varkanoid]

Excellent price point if the performance is true. Something needs to happen to curb Nvidia's prices and give them a worry.
Looks like they have beat Nvidia at their own game and come up with a GTX 460 type of card. Hope it sells well.

 

[Orcvader]

I can see a lot of 750ti/950/960 users going for a 480 at £160, huge upgrade. You're getting 980+ performance, 4GB ram, superior DX12 performance for £160. This is what AMD needs to do to claw back market share.

They just need to market it right. Which I hope they will... I remember the cringe videos AMD did a few years ago about green cards overheating... no more of that please .

 

[Jono8]

Huh... When I last looked they were over £600... Interesting.

From launch the cheapest ones have been £525

 

[Catanonia]

2 GPUs powering one eye each does not use crossfire

And nowhere has this been said. It has all been rumours so far.

I think it is a cracking card and a brilliant price, just highly dubious on the VR marketing angle AMD are using as this card is roughly around the 970 which is the bare minimum VR spec.

To get good VR experience in CV1 or Vive I personally don't think a single card will cut it and hence you will need 2 of them and all the problems in the past this has caused with game not supporting dual cards.

I do hope I am wrong, it would be nice to see AMD / nVidia battle properly again.