Dude.. you sound like a clickbait facebook post.
-
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
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
Dude.. you sound like a clickbait facebook post.
oh 
"AMD also published results of SteamVR performance test where they compared the Radeon RX 480 against the Radeon R9 380 graphics card. The Radeon RX 480 scores 6.3 points compared to 3.6 points on the Radeon R9 380 which more than 2x increase in VR performance. However, the card doesn’t seem to be as fast as the 980 in VR gaming as AMD’s own chart from a previous presentation shows the GTX 980 scoring more than 8 points in the same benchmark. The GeForce GTX 970 scores 6.5 points according to AMD’s own in-house benchmarking numbers."
Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-polaris-10-polaris-11-specs-performance/#ixzz4BagB0kBX
"AMD also published results of SteamVR performance test where they compared the Radeon RX 480 against the Radeon R9 380 graphics card. The Radeon RX 480 scores 6.3 points compared to 3.6 points on the Radeon R9 380 which more than 2x increase in VR performance. However, the card doesn’t seem to be as fast as the 980 in VR gaming as AMD’s own chart from a previous presentation shows the GTX 980 scoring more than 8 points in the same benchmark. The GeForce GTX 970 scores 6.5 points according to AMD’s own in-house benchmarking numbers."
Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-polaris-10-polaris-11-specs-performance/#ixzz4BagB0kBX
oh
"AMD also published results of SteamVR performance test where they compared the Radeon RX 480 against the Radeon R9 380 graphics card. The Radeon RX 480 scores 6.3 points compared to 3.6 points on the Radeon R9 380 which more than 2x increase in VR performance. However, the card doesn’t seem to be as fast as the 980 in VR gaming as AMD’s own chart from a previous presentation shows the GTX 980 scoring more than 8 points in the same benchmark. The GeForce GTX 970 scores 6.5 points according to AMD’s own in-house benchmarking numbers."
Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-polaris-10-polaris-11-specs-performance/#ixzz4BagB0kBX
so the RX 480 is slower than 390 which is at 7.1, even slower than 970
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,539
What a let down... Was looking forward to the shear value of this card but think I'll pass having seen its performance.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,211
Was it not the WCCF guy that said people better start selling off there Gtx980's and 390x's. What does he know that we don't as from this i will definitely be keeping my 290.
so the RX 480 is slower than 390 which is at 7.1, even slower than 970
Why on earth would you smile?
It's always rather bizzare when people celebrate the possibility of AMD slipping up, just results in higher costs because the market has little competition.
I get the whole fanboy "thing" (to some extent, it gets a little silly sometimes) but even so, surely people don't want a continual dominate player who can leverage that position and increase pricing.
Everyone, whether you prefer Nvidia or AMD should want AMD to smash Nvidia to pieces this generation... Then next generation you want Nvidia to respond and come back, then let the cycle continue to repeat. That leads to innovation and fair pricing... Or you end up with the CPU market, where Intel release a new CPU with minimal performance increase every year. Just because they can.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2013
- Posts
- 9,929
- Location
- M28
oh
"AMD also published results of SteamVR performance test where they compared the Radeon RX 480 against the Radeon R9 380 graphics card. The Radeon RX 480 scores 6.3 points compared to 3.6 points on the Radeon R9 380 which more than 2x increase in VR performance. However, the card doesn’t seem to be as fast as the 980 in VR gaming as AMD’s own chart from a previous presentation shows the GTX 980 scoring more than 8 points in the same benchmark. The GeForce GTX 970 scores 6.5 points according to AMD’s own in-house benchmarking numbers."
Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-polaris-10-polaris-11-specs-performance/#ixzz4BagB0kBX
3.6 * 2 = 7.2
so 6.3 > 7.2, go figure
Agree with all this, except that Intel's CPU gains are not being held back by lack of competition.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,951
290X -> 390X -> 480 - progress.
im smiling because that was sarcastic, the RX 480 cannot be slower than 970, i was smiling at ppl who believe so, because there is no point arguing on this anymore, the card is 980 performance in dx11, 20% faster than 980 in dx12, priced 170£ and 210£ at retailers pages, the only thing ppl with my opinion or the under 970 perf opinion is to smile sacrasticaly untill this is settled with benchs at the release.
Lack of competition almost always leads to a reduction in the pace of innovationn, mainly as it doesn't make commercial sense. If you're already leaps ahead from your nearest competitor, why would you invest huge sums to leap frog even further. Youd simply maintain the margin to reduce costs and stagger your product line.
If I started a company, came up with amazing technology and could make a GPU 100x faster than anything else out for a reasonable cost, I'd amend it so it was 10x faster and sell it for the same price. As against the competition it would still look like out right the best buy. Then have 10+ years maintaining the gap with loss costs.
Last edited:
Puts things in perspective when Nvidia can do an 150 watt TitanX busting 1070 on 16nm and AMD give us 150 watt 970/390 performance at 150 watt. AMD are done. We're at 390 performance at £200+ for 8GB, we have had that performance at similar pricing for the past few years.
That VR test must be a load of BS. I just tested my 7950 @ 1165MHz and got a score of 2.7 which is about 1/3 of a 390.
I know for a fact that when I had crossfire 7950's the gaming performance was higher than an OC 290X and close to a 980.
I know for a fact that when I had crossfire 7950's the gaming performance was higher than an OC 290X and close to a 980.
Last edited:
Have you not learned to stop being so sure of yourself when you lack any substantiated facts to support your beliefs? Come on man.
I think there's a very good chance it'll be around 980/390X myself, but I'm not going to go acting like it's a confirmed fact just yet.
This is the common argument, but then if it were true, Intel would have pushed Skylake back instead of putting it out months after Broadwell. Intel are pushing on, there's just not any major areas of innovation possible right now with x86. I have no doubt they are pouring untold millions into research, though.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 May 2012
- Posts
- 1,785