Radeon RX 480 "Polaris" Launched at $199

humbug · 23 Jun 2016 at 17:58

David Bisset said:
It's unlikely it'll cost the full RRP for Gibbo to buy in, especially given he's suggested he's in-line with what AMD want in terms of pricing, but no way to know for sure as it was a very general number.

What i'm saying is the $200 to $300 touted by AMD was not retail, if Gibbo is already paying over $200 for them they are not going to be $230 to you and me. profits and VAT (Thank you Mr Osborn) on top of that.

Scramz · 23 Jun 2016 at 17:58

All of this unoptimised driver talk, How does anyone here actually know if they ain't? I am interested to know from cards are released to 2 months after how much performance cards really gain from driver tweaking. My guess is nothing significant.

mtdew332 · 23 Jun 2016 at 17:59

At 1080p that's pretty poor to be honest... You're right.

And we have no clue what the core/mem clocks were because he refused to add them to the onscreen display. (RTSS)

David Bisset · 23 Jun 2016 at 18:08

humbug said:
What i'm saying is the $200 to $300 touted by AMD was not retail, if Gibbo is already paying over $200 for them they are not going to be $230 to you and me. profits and VAT (Thank you Mr Osborn) on top of that.

It was retail.

It was RRP which is meant to be retail minus VAT (cause 'murica), already including retailers profit margin. $199 for 4GB, $229 for 8GB. There will be further costs for shipping that will be higher here than for many retailers and quite possibly there is not sufficient margin to hit the RRP and still hit reasonable profit levels - but it shouldn't be viewed as a base on which margin is added, some of that will already be profit.

Feoilban · 23 Jun 2016 at 18:08

humbug said:
What i'm saying is the $200 to $300 touted by AMD was not retail, if Gibbo is already paying over $200 for them they are not going to be $230 to you and me. profits and VAT (Thank you Mr Osborn) on top of that.

All sources saying $199 retail for the 4gb

so Gibbo is not paying over 200 dollar wholesale per card

Gerard · 23 Jun 2016 at 18:09

Seanspeed said:
y'all

/twangs Banjo to tune of Deliverance.... :confused:

Seanspeed · 23 Jun 2016 at 18:10

mtdew332 said:
And we have no clue what the core/mem clocks were because he refused to add them to the onscreen display. (RTSS)

I would assume that he's not underclocking for this, so whatever stock is.

I wouldn't get too worried because these results being shown are *way* below what would be remotely acceptable, so obviously there is some factor that is causing the card to not be represented properly.

Gerard said:
/twangs Banjo to tune of Deliverance....

Sorry man, grew up in Virginia. I say it a lot more in person than I do writing it out online. lol

fs123 · 23 Jun 2016 at 18:12

Seanspeed said:
I would assume that he's not underclocking for this, so whatever stock is.

I wouldn't get too worried because these results being shown are *way* below what would be remotely acceptable, so obviously there is some factor that is causing the card to not be represented properly.

According to someone on Reddit the Nightmare setting used in the test is higher than Ultra so maybe that's why some think it's poor performance. We need some nightmare mode benchs to compare.

sprite- · 23 Jun 2016 at 18:13

Seanspeed said:
Ok, this is the second time somebody said gameplay framerates looked good, but...........no, this doesn't at all. I dont think some of y'all are even checking here.

For one, this is not a CPU intensive game, so that is going to have fairly minimal impact especially with a non-high end GPU.

But for reference, at max settings at 1080p, a GTX970 does 104fps. So just like The Witcher 3 demonstration, this isn't even on-par with that.

I'm not saying this will be indicative of final performance, but going by this, it does NOT look at all.

https://youtu.be/XZ6VAbHxzxM?t=89

This shows a 980Ti reference averaging 89fps on an i5-6400

No idea how reliable that is.

DPB · 23 Jun 2016 at 18:13

Scramz said:
All of this unoptimised driver talk, How does anyone here actually know if they ain't? I am interested to know from cards are released to 2 months after how much performance cards really gain from driver tweaking. My guess is nothing significant.

Hawaii gained an awful lot from driver updates. Back when it was released, a 290 was about the same speed as a 780. Now it's about 22% faster at 1920x1080.

harney · 23 Jun 2016 at 18:14

Gerard said:
/twangs Banjo to tune of Deliverance....

drunkenmaster · 23 Jun 2016 at 18:14

humbug said:
What i'm saying is the $200 to $300 touted by AMD was not retail, if Gibbo is already paying over $200 for them they are not going to be $230 to you and me. profits and VAT (Thank you Mr Osborn) on top of that.

Once again, $200 to $300 AMD stated was retail, if you add VAT to this those prices go up... zomg, amazing.

No one said they would ever cost $229 to you or me, but it will cost that to Americans... we don't live in America and have to pay vat, we shouldn't be paying much over $229 + 20% for vat, that is the reality of prices in the UK. $229 + vat for English people and in pounds is still not £230 just because you insist it is.

You've stated multiple times that Gibbo bought his for £170inc vat (not sure if it's true as I missed him saying it but it seems about right). With shipping which can be expensive on cards shipped airfreight, that might be closer to £180 per card, more than £20 profit for a £200 card is to me a bit high so prices should be around £200-205.

Again look at the prices of other products in US dollars and see how much they cost in pounds, none translate 1:1, so why keep insisting this will.

Seanspeed · 23 Jun 2016 at 18:17

fs123 said:
According to someone on Reddit the Nightmare setting used in the test is higher than Ultra so maybe that's why some think it's poor performance. We need some nightmare mode benchs to compare.

I'd check but it's a game I dont have.

I did find this, though:

http://www.pcgamer.com/dooms-nightmare-graphics-image-quality-compared-and-benchmarked/

What's interesting is that the Nightmare settings seem to really only adversely affect the performance on the Fury X, not the 390X, the 980 or the 980Ti.

Scramz · 23 Jun 2016 at 18:17

DPB said:
Hawaii gained an awful lot from driver updates. Back when it was released, a 290 was about the same speed as a 780. Now it's about 22% faster at 1920x1080.

Maybe now, not within 2 months of being released.

humbug · 23 Jun 2016 at 18:17

Feoilban said:
All sources saying $199 retail for the 4gb

so Gibbo is not paying over 200 dollar wholesale per card

He said he is.

David Bisset said:
It was retail.

It was RRP which is meant to be retail minus VAT (cause 'murica), already including retailers profit margin. $199 for 4GB, $229 for 8GB. There will be further costs for shipping that will be higher here than for many retailers and quite possibly there is not sufficient margin to hit the RRP and still hit reasonable profit levels - but it shouldn't be viewed as a base on which margin is added, some of that will already be profit.

That would be £186 inc VAT but before profit.

I know OcUK like to give good deals so lets round the profit down to £14, a straight £200 for the 8GB reference, £220 for the AIB, its better but still the same price as AIB 390's and 970's.

fs123 · 23 Jun 2016 at 18:19

3Dmark comparison 480 vs 980, Nano. Seems to be on par with a 980.

David Bisset · 23 Jun 2016 at 18:20

humbug said:
He said he is.

Not for the $200 card he didn't. He said for the 8GB model.

That would be £186 inc VAT but before profit.

I know OcUK like to give good deals so lets round the profit down to £14, a straight £200 for the 8GB reference, £220 for the AIB, its better but still the same price as AIB 390's and 970's.

Again, RRP *includes* a profit margin. So it's not before profit. Yes, OCUK will want to take a little extra due to added shipping, but it's not before profit.

Seanspeed · 23 Jun 2016 at 18:22

fs123 said:
3Dmark comparison 480 vs 980, Nano. Seems to be on par with a 980.

Slightly behind the 980 in one, a reasonable amount behind the 980 in the other.

It looked more like on par with the 390X.

sprite- · 23 Jun 2016 at 18:23

fs123 said:
3Dmark comparison 480 vs 980, Nano. Seems to be on par with a 980.

Those are just the results Videocardz leaked weeks ago, exactly the same.

http://videocardz.com/61005/new-amd-radeon-rx-480-3dmark-benchmarks

humbug · 23 Jun 2016 at 18:23

@ fs123, the music in that vid.... listen to it, rulz.....