• 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

The real problem is even if AMD come up with a competing card for less the same people complaining about the lack of competition will still hand their money over to Nvidia.

Nvidia know you people exist, in droves, you have no one to blame but yourselves.
 
I just hope the new amd cards dont get price gouged as much as the nvidia cards have.

But I get the feeling they will cost £200,£230 and £300.
 
Last edited:
tavtavtav said:
:confused:
That doesn't really affect what I said though...
(Or was what I was trying to say not clear?).
Click to expand...

What? Ofc it does. That price range Amd qouted was not for thier AIB partners. It was for their reference cards. AMD dont really controll prices of aftermarket cards from AIB partners. You said you can see AIB bumping prices to the other end of the range which the price range was never initially intended for them, only AMD. Amd wont do that as it would be insane to do so now. They stated a price before even launching anything. So changing prices now would **** a lot of people off.
 
Last edited:
I particularly agree that AMD need to shout a bit about what's coming along with the 480 details. If for example they have a card coming out Q3 or Q4 that can compete at a good price, those tempted to throw money at the 1080 might just wait it out.

In any case, competition is good, and AMD (and consumers!) can't afford for AMD to lose touch on the high end market.

It'll be interesting however if the market gets fragmented, e.g. if AMD are top for VR or DX12, and Nvidia are top for general use. Not sure that's a good thing though, given that 'general use' tends to win out on these things.
 
karik666 said:
I just hope the new amd cards dont get price gouged as much as the nvidia cards have.

But I get the feeling they will cost £200,£230 and £300.
Click to expand...

TBH those prices are fine, I'd be perfectly happy with $ -> £ conversion, it's not that far off the actual conversion price+VAT+handling.

£300 for a Fury X/980Ti level card with a much better power profile would be well worth it.
 
Jono8 said:
They will have sold 1000's of Founders Editions already.
Click to expand...

And probably as many custom ones from their ABPs that are as vague and ethereal as the AMD proposal.

AMD should have just gone ahead and do a full launch at Computex and let the preorders flock in, worry about fulfilling the orders later. We don't seem to mind the business model.
 
humbug said:
The real problem is even if AMD come up with a competing card for less the same people complaining about the lack of competition will still hand their money over to Nvidia.

Nvidia know you people exist, in droves, you have no one to blame but yourselves.
Click to expand...

Huh??? I thought you got your money back for that 290 you had and bought a 970?
 
David Bisset said:
Seen this style of comment in a few places. It's basically getting things the wrong way round - multi-core in CPUs is effectively doing what has been in place for GPUs for ages. GPUs have been massively parallel for ages (thousands of cores! :D). However, multi-GPU doesn't refer to this (as it's the normal base-case) but rather to having separate physical GPUs served by separate resources etc. More akin to dual-socket server CPUs but where RAM is not a shared pool but rather a smaller pool for each.

Perhaps we could in future see a few chips on a board as a way of getting more transistors without yield issues, though if this were to happen in this way it'd be more akin to one large GPU anyway in terms of operation, and I suspect we're not near the point it makes sense yet as it adds a whole ton of complexity (thus cost) and will require different architectures to handle the varying latency. It may never happen.

Edit: I realise some people are saying this is what's coming in Navi - but even if it is, it's still not "like CPUs" nor will it effectively be multi-GPU from a developers standpoint.

DX12 is looking the other way - how to get lots of GPUs as they exist now to work together better. This involves much more difficult problem-solving on the software side and probably is unlikely to really be adopted heavily in most games any time soon, as significant extra complexity means significant extra cost which for a few users benefit is a poor trade off. Perhaps in future it'll become more standard and more games engines etc will make it easier for games devs. (Abstraction/tooling are very helpful in gaining mass adoption, despite what you may have read about low-level access being some kind of magic bullet)
Click to expand...

Yea i agree but i think you know what i meant. I was being as basic as possible. The suns been out up here for a change and my friends were up from down south so good times were had. This never adds up to to much detail.
 
r7slayer said:
What? Ofc it does. That price range Amd qouted was not for thier AIB partners. It was for their reference cards. AMD dont really controll prices of aftermarket cards from AIB partners. You said you can see AIB bumping prices to the other end of the range which the price range was never initially intended for them, only AMD. Amd wont do that as it would be insane to do so now. They stated a price before even launching anything. So changing prices now would **** a lot of people off.
Click to expand...

Yes that's fair enough.
But I was going off the assumption that since only one card had actually been announced at a price the rest aren't set in stone. (I.e.2 8gb cards less than $500 is vague) and then the board partners and retailers also separately adding a few quid here and there.

Also, I didn't know if cards fromm $200 to $300 meant there will be a card at exactly $300 amongst other or it meant "we're just masking our prices and expect cards in that range"
If it's the former then you're totally right amd can't change this, but there's still board partners and distributors to left to squeeze more out of me as well at whatever lurked in the middle of that range!
 
Last edited:
tavtavtav said:
But I was going off the assumption that since only one card had actually been announced at a price the rest aren't set in stone. (I.e.2 8gb cards less than $500 is vague) and then the board partners and retailers also separately adding a few quid here and there.
Click to expand...

Two cards were announced - 4GB and 8GB. Any others seem to be pure speculation.
 
I noticed the following comment in the TPU GTX1070 review:

AMD's upcoming Polaris cards will be nowhere near the GTX 1070 in terms of performance. Rather, expect RX 480 to perform about 20-30% slower. But AMD's $199 pricing for the 480 could stir things up, so if you don't need a new card immediately, maybe wait a few weeks and see how things pan out, which would also allow you to see how the custom GTX 1070 designs by board partners turn out.
Click to expand...

Going by the TPU charts,that would place performance between an R9 390X/GTX980 and a Fury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom