• 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

D.P. said:
I expect AMD ave been jumping on the VR bandwagon for investor purposes, telling invesotrs how AMD are going to revolutionize the industry with affordable VR hardware that will generation X billion dollars of]ver the next y years. VR is a popular fad right now, at CES every man and his dog had a VR head set, even if they had nothign to do with VR. Seriously. even some of the Auto companies had a booth set up with VR headsets playing project cars or whatever. Investor think VR is the hottest thing since sliced bread, whether it is or inst is largely irrelevant if AMD can convince investors that AMD will be a big player and generate significant revenue.
Part of the investor spiel will include marketing VR to consumers at low costs, completely ignoring the had set costs a fortune in the first place.
Click to expand...

No doubt that is the reason! I too have noticed everything is VR at the moment.
 
TheRealDeal said:
You might be right but it's hard to see how this can be true. The card is supposed to have 5.8 gflops and the 390x has 5.9 Gflops. Add in all the improvements to the architecture and it's hard to see how it can be slower than a 390x. The 5.8 gflops is based on the 1266 core clock which could be wrong. This guy talks it through well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_Lt41pdGJk
Click to expand...
As I talked about last night, if the priority of the architectural improvements were reducing power efficiency, then it could *easily* mean performance that doesn't equate to what you'd expect if you just added 'x' amount of performance by optimistic architectural improvements.
 
Seanspeed said:
That is not what he said. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Thank you, seen at least 2 people do this now trying to make Gibbo look like part of some anti-AMD conspiracy. Seems they can't accept this card is not what they wanted it to be.

I warned that believing fakes and creating false hype would backfire, got a barrage of NV shill accusations for my trouble.
 
kylew_is_back said:
I strongly believe that RX480 will fall between Fury and Fury X performance, because AMD said that Polaris will have 2.8x stronger performance per watt than the 270X
Click to expand...



That is an incredibly risky assumption to make. Nvidia said Pascal is 3x the performance per watt of Maxwell, and it is under certain situations. AMD's released figures for the 470 used AMD's own typical board power (TBP). In earlier AMD cards the stated TBP was often higher than the average seen in games, the 270 uses less power than its 180w TBP). In newer AMD cards they use equal or more power than AMD's TBP, the 390x has a TBP of 250w but averages more like 275 or even higher). So using AMD's own TBP rating to make a comparison is futile.


AMD themselves claim 1.7X performance increase is due to the node change to 14nm. A new generation of hardware can make improvement from 15-30% typically, maybe 40% in exceptional circumstances. So you can maybe add 25% architecture improvements. You get roughly double the performance per watt.
 
Gregster said:
Bugged the crap out of me that slide they did with AoTS and I can understand them using it but at least do it in single card mode :mad:
Click to expand...

I could never understand it either. CF is enthusiast level. How many low spec / budget machines have CF compatible MB?

I'm guessing it's the marketing guys are to blame for it. It's flashy, headline grabbing.
 
kylew_is_back said:
I strongly believe that RX480 will fall between Fury and Fury X performance, because AMD said that Polaris will have 2.8x stronger performance per watt than the 270X


RX480 = 150W
270X = 180W

(150*2.8)/180 = 2.33x → 2.33x30 = 70!!!

and with a little OC(10%) the RX480 will surpass the Titan X (at stock) :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
Click to expand...

The RX480 is said to have a ~100w power consumption at stock (gaming)
The 270x about 135w (gaming)

so (100x2.8)/135 = 2.07, 2.07x30 = 62

62 = 390x
 
melmac said:
Your price/performance argument doesn't hold any water either. The 390 and 390x are heavily discounted prices as they weren't selling.
Click to expand...

So why would a card priced the same with the same perf sell any better?? The 390 wasn't selling probably because it offered the same perf and price as the 290. We've had this perf/£ for a couple years now, and people want more with a new gen and node shrink.

And you are completely underestimating what AMD has done with this card. Even if it only performs at 390 level it will still be an amazing achievement. It's going to get the same levels of performance using around 150w less power. That doesn't mean a lot to enthusiasts but this card isn't for them.
Click to expand...

If AMD had taken the 390, shrunk it to 14nm, and called it a day... you'd be calling that an "amazing achievement" as well? So more perf isn't necessary then, just power and size reduction. We should all be happy with that, it seems. And it's "amazing".

Some other things. The 390X wasn't £350 recently. It was £300 in loads of places. Let's not inflate last gen prices to make the 480 look better, it's silly.

People say the 480 is targeting 380 users and below. But it's not the same price bracket as the 380. 380 = £180 ish, 480 = £200 - £230. That's the 390 price bracket.

Honestly, the people hyping this card are just as guilty of inaccuracy.

The 480 if they are believed will be priced like a 380 (nope) and perform 10% better than a 390X - maybe even a Nano/Fury Pro (unlikely).

All the leaks so far have hinted, if not completely revealed, <390X perf. And the price will be £200 MINIMUM for various reasons and factors. Gibbo has already said they wouldn't honour the AMD MSRP if there isn't enough profit as they'd like.
 
FoxEye said:
So why would a card priced the same with the same perf sell any better?? The 390 wasn't selling probably because it offered the same perf and price as the 290. We've had this perf/£ for a couple years now, and people want more with a new gen and node shrink.
Click to expand...

Who said the 390 wasn't selling. Amd clawed back some market share recently and i doubt it was anything to do with the 390x up bracket. Amd's line up is pretty strong 390 downwards compared with Nvidia. Power consumption is the only thing that lets them down against Nvidia's lineup. That looks to be fixed with Polaris. People have been using power consumption/heat to beat Amd over the head since the 290x launch.
 
kylew_is_back said:
I strongly believe that RX480 will fall between Fury and Fury X performance, because AMD said that Polaris will have 2.8x stronger performance per watt than the 270X



Untitled.jpg


RX480 = 150W
270X = 180W

(150*2.8)/180 = 2.33x → 2.33x30 = 70!!!

and with a little OC(10%) the RX480 will surpass the Titan X (at stock) :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
Click to expand...

Gibbo himself has ruled this out, and if the live stream of the 480 benchmarking earlier is anything to go by then it is no where near 980Ti/Titan speed even OC'ed
 
Seanspeed said:
*is said to have*

By who?

I'm becoming increasingly sure that critical thinking is not taught hard enough in schools.
Click to expand...

Multiple outlets go google it. Do you really think there would be no headroom on the power draw ???? Don't you need headroom to OC, ohhhhh snap ! You can't have it both ways! Yep critical thinking is not taught hard enough in schools, I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom