• 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.

Radeon RX 480 "Polaris" Launched at $199

Lokken86 said:
How much must you guys be gaming for 50w to make a difference. My tortoise Arnold has a 100w light bulb on 10 hours a day and I don't even notice it on the bill. In other words I just want maximum performance.
Click to expand...

I thought this was the start of a joke when I heard you had a tortoise :D Love the name! I don't worry about the power my card uses but I also don't want a hot card either unless it is powerful.
 
bru said:
When NVidia are ahead, the AMD crew will tell us that power doesn't matter and when AMD are ahead the NVidia crew will tell you it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Actually, I thought we were mostly just telling D.P. that power draw and TDP are not the same thing.

Power is important in laptops and tablets, it's irrelevant (to the degree it differs with these cards) in desktop systems. That was my position a year ago, it's my position today. You can check old posts.
 
Doogles said:
I thought this was the start of a joke when I heard you had a tortoise :D Love the name! I don't worry about the power my card uses but I also don't want a hot card either unless it is powerful.
Click to expand...

Nope I was just looking for an example of extra power usage and that was perfect. Haha thanks.
 
humbug said:
I can't see 4GB vs 8GB cost an extra ~£100.
Or just having a single card from one SKU.

I think Tweak Town let slip there...

If RX 480 benchmarks hit before Jun 29 the NDA is protecting a 490, the $300 card
Click to expand...

I would like to see a 490 but I think the price variation can be explained in other ways. Pay £100 extra for a fancy cooler with l.e.d lights (thinking of the msi 1080 for example) or a hybrid.

Variation and differing features between vendors may be all that is being referenced.

I hope I am wrong.
 
If AMD create something that can match a Fury X in DX12 for about £230-£250 and around 130-150W then I am sold. That relies on the rumours of something above the card they have announced though so I won't hold my breath until something is announced.
 
h4rm0ny said:
Actually, I thought we were mostly just telling D.P. that power draw and TDP are not the same thing.

Power is important in laptops and tablets, it's irrelevant (to the degree it differs with these cards) in desktop systems. That was my position a year ago, it's my position today. You can check old posts.
Click to expand...

See,that your problem. You are telling me peer draw and TDP are different, which it know and I don't care about.

I'm only discussing power draw, only using AMD's figures from AMD's website and financial reports. You are the only one that is ranting on and on about the differences between TDP and power draw.
 
D.P. said:
See,that your problem. You are telling me peer draw and TDP are different, which it know and I don't care about.

I'm only discussing power draw, only using AMD's figures from AMD's website and financial reports. You are the only one that is ranting on and on about the differences between TDP and power draw.
Click to expand...

Okay. Let's do this again. :) Could you link me to the official "power draw" for an AMD card. Any current card of theirs will do, but 390 might be a good starting point as you keep using that one in your examples. Link and official power draw required.
 
h4rm0ny said:
Okay. Let's do this again. :) Could you link me to the official "power draw" for an AMD card. Any current card of theirs will do, but 390 might be a good starting point as you keep using that one in your examples. Link and official power draw required.
Click to expand...

I did previously, you complete ignored the links to AMD's own product specification and you went off on a pointless rant about the differences between TDP and power draw which was irrelevant to the discussion.

Look, I'm not having a go at AMD's power draw or efficiency at all, I don't care. I'm just pointing out a few simple facts. For starters, at computex AMD said < 150w. They didn't say < 100 w. So why are some people trying to claim the latter when it goes against what AMD have announced.

Personally I think AMD have closed the gap somewhat, and moreover the difference between 1010w [edit 110w] and 140w is meaningless for this part.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Not sure what to make of this thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/commen...une_29th_nda_is_for_the_480x490_and/?sort=old

If you look down the page,a chap who is an editor of an Italian techsite says the full Polaris 10 chip has 3072 shaders??
Click to expand...

whoa, if it did that would be immense. that makes it out to be 48CU's. maybe this is the aformentioned $300 dollar part, would make sense if it is and would have it fighting with the 1070 for a part in a range bellow it. this could be the 'Shots fired' commented part and the one we won't hear anything about until the 29th.
 
Last edited:
3072 shaders would be 48CUs, that's be hard to fit in the space quoted for Polaris 10. Not impossible, but on the upper end of 'unlikely'.
 
D.P. said:
I did previously, you complete ignored the links to AMD's own product specification and you went off on a pointless rant about the differences between TDP and power draw which was irrelevant to the discussion.

Look, I'm not having a go at AMD's power draw or efficiency at all, I don't care. I'm just pointing out a few simple facts. For starters, at computex AMD said < 150w. They didn't say < 100 w. So why are some people trying to claim the latter when it goes against what AMD have announced.

Personally I think AMD have closed the gap somewhat, and moreover the difference between 1010w [edit 110w] and 140w is meaningless for this part.
Click to expand...

Humour me. Link me to the post where you linked it if you must. Because I don't recall you ever linking to what I asked for: AMD's officially published figures for "power draw" for one of their current GPUs. You keep referring to it over and over again, it's fairly reasonable of me to ask for the actual citation.

Link please. AMD's officially published power draw figures for one of their current GPUs.
 
HeX said:
3072 shaders would be 48CUs, that's be hard to fit in the space quoted for Polaris 10. Not impossible, but on the upper end of 'unlikely'.
Click to expand...

Unless AMD has made some more changes to the shaders to make them more compact?? We kind of saw the same going from the RV670 to the RV770 on the same node. Die size went up from 192MM2 to 260MM2 but the shader count went up from 320 shaders to 800 shaders.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Unless AMD has made some more changes to the shaders to make them more compact?? We kind of saw the same going from the RV670 to the RV770 on the same node. Die size went up from 192MM2 to 260MM2 but the shader count went up from 320 shaders to 800 shaders.
Click to expand...

could be that they removed some transistors when optimising the shader architecture. But they guy earlier on mentioned taht RX480 is just the mid P10 part and the full possibility of a 40 - 48 cu full part.

it could even be like mentioned before, the p10 has same number of shaders as Hawaii while the P11 has same number of shaders as Pitcairn. Although it will be a big surprise if the full parts in fact have more shaders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom