• 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

A while ago it was discussed 3072 cores may be technically possible (unless GCN4 took up significantly more space).

Remember the 390X core is 2816 cores, and 44 CUs, and is 438mm2.

Even if 14nm is only double the density, you could fit the same core in 219mm2. So Polaris 10 is 6% larger than the 390X (or more than 6% if 14nm is denser than 2x).

I just hope AMD can match the 1070 (or get very close) for £270-300.


Overlag said:
How so?
Click to expand...

I guess they're just saying the price/performance would be disappointing at £230 and 390X performance, since that's a very minor change from what you can buy right now.
 
Last edited:
efish said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your talking about AIB's added value, even the fancy MSI cooler your talking about doesn't add anything like an extra £100 on top of the base price where the base price is more than the 480's £200.
-----

tommybhoy said:
Pay £100 extra for a fancy cooler
Click to expand...
Wrong thread.:p
Click to expand...

I see what you did there :D

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...

why not just copy in what you are talking about instead of making people trawl through 28 meters worth of posts on reddit's idiotic 'all merge into one post' forum layout.
 
Last edited:
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...

same here with my tortoise, and with my 6000 gallon koi pond running 24/7 another 50-100 watts gaming is not going to make much difference to me
 
karik666 said:
I have looked through the reddit post and cant see anything about 3072 shaders,it must have been deleted,unless im going blind.
Click to expand...

What he actually says is his inside sources have confirmed that there will be 3 Polaris 10 cards 470/480/490. He thinks 40 cu's is not enough and speculating that 1/3 increase in price may add up to 1/3 more Shaders. He thinks 44 cu's is more likely though.

So all he really claims to know is that there will be a 490. All the rest is guess work.
 
Last edited:
 
h4rm0ny said:
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.
Click to expand...

He didn't link to anything, He just stated the same figures as previously.
 
h4rm0ny said:
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.
Click to expand...

http://products.amd.com/en-us/searc...deon™-R9-Fury-Series/AMD-Radeon™-R9-Fury-X/67

You can then look at any number of reviews and find tested average power draw in the 250-300w range.
 
also have to consider that it could very well have more CU's than 44 since they have cut out half of the memory controllers compared to Hawaii/grenada since it only supports 8 GDDR5 packages over a 256bit bus and each AMD memory controller often talks to two packages.

But it was also theorised before that Hawaii had 48 CU's compared to the final 44 for the 290X/390X
 
Last edited:
melmac said:
He didn't link to anything, He just stated the same figures as previously.
Click to expand...

That's what I figured, but I was allowing the benefit of the doubt.

D.P. said:
http://products.amd.com/en-us/searc...deon™-R9-Fury-Series/AMD-Radeon™-R9-Fury-X/67

You can then look at any number of reviews and find tested average power draw in the 250-300w range.
Click to expand...

What I see here is it giving a power requirement of 275 watts. And there are reviews that say power draw is within the 250-300 watts range. Okay.
 
Mauller said:
But it was also theorised before that Hawaii had 48 CU's compared to the final 44 for the 290X/390X
Click to expand...

If that was the case then fitting 48 onto P10 is much more likely. Though like Hawaii we might find that the 490 only has 44 enabled to increase yields and keep the price down.

I do love a good spot of speculation :D
 
HeX said:
If that was the case then fitting 48 onto P10 is much more likely. Though like Hawaii we might find that the 490 only has 44 enabled to increase yields and keep the price down.

I do love a good spot of speculation :D
Click to expand...

re Speculation

Would it be safe to say that nvidia have rushed out the pascal's maybe knowing that AMD have something up there sleeve like the unknown bigger p10 ...

Surly there is corporate spying between the two so if Nvidia have indeed rushed the pascals then this maybe is a sign of what AMD have incoming..

I hope so to mix things up ....


oh its rather exciting
 
Overlag said:
How so?
Click to expand...

These are assumptions based on worst case scenario rumours that RX 480 = to performance of R9 390 or around 390X performance.

Because we have already had an 8GB GPU with slightly less (avg ~6% slower) than 390X performance for best part of a year. It's called the R9 390.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/30.html

http://pricespy.co.uk/product.php?pu=3196888

Look at the price history going back to Jul 2015 (when it was £232). The average price of R9 390 has been ~£240 for a year.

h4rm0ny keeps saying top end prices prices drop when GPUs EOL so new GPUs look less like an upgrade but he ignores the following info.

  1. As linked above 8GB R9 390 has been ~£240 for a year now.
  2. If RX 480 8GB gives same performance at the expected price of ~£230 then how is it an upgrade other than in power consumption and newer ports?

This is why RX 480 needs to be faster than R9 390 8GB, because if it isn't it offers zero improvement in the performance we would get at ~£240 for a year now.
 
ICDP said:
h4rm0ny keeps saying top end prices prices drop when GPUs EOL so new GPUs look less like an upgrade but he ignores the following info.

  1. As linked above 8GB R9 390 has been ~£240 for a year now.
  2. If RX 480 8GB gives same performance at the expected price of ~£230 then how is it an upgrade other than in power consumption and newer ports?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call a 390 the top end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom