qa_engineer
Member
You're exactly the type of PC gamer this card is targeted to.
AMD Polaris architecture to succeed Graphics Core Next
- Thread starter wachie
- Start date
You're exactly the type of PC gamer this card is targeted to.
opticalmace
Member
A 4GB 480 at $199 and a 4GB 470 at $149 would do wonders for a significant portion (80%) of the market.
How do they define each category?
Sir Abacus
Member
As someone who ran SLI 770s for two years, synthetics don't matter one fucking iota when it comes to SLI/CF.
qa_engineer
Member
General statement met with a general statement as a counter argument. No one wins.
I guess what you're trying to say is there aren't any games that take advantage of crossfire/sli and therefore there would never be a real world advantage to crossfire or sli? if thats the case then I agree, but I think that trend may change.
opticalmace
Member
There are definitely some games that show huge gains in SLI or crossfire. However, they seem to be the exception.
Sir Abacus
Member
If someone doesn't buy into the "look how well two cheap cards work!" bullshit I'd say they do in fact win. But I guess if all someone plays is Ashes of the Singularity they'll be perfectly fine with twin 480s.
qa_engineer
Member
So I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make here.
Is it that synthetic benchmarks aren't a good way for consumers to gauge GPU performance or that the crossfire/sli benchmarks are bunk or both? What if the benchmarks showed similar gains for a more expensive GPU, would it still be bullshit?
Are you also implying that ashes of the singularity is the only game where crossfire cards will see any benefit.
Sir Abacus
Member
I'm being facetious and you're being obtuse. The point is that SLI/CF sucks and I say that as someone who was suckered into that hype with a side swipe of everything looks good when AMD only use Ashes of the Singularity to gauge some semblance of real world performance.
Yeah, micro-stuttering completely kills any reason I had to get cf.
Sir Abacus
Member
I do think the 480 is a fantastic card especially at $199. But everyone who thinks that it's going to give them a VR reacharound and two of them duct taped together will be a 1080 is going to be sorely disappointed.
Beautiful Ninja
Member
Yeah, it seems reasonable to believe at this point that the RX 480 will perform between a GTX 970 and 980 at stock. With a good OC, you can probably push towards a 980. It'll be the solid entry level VR card that AMD is promoting it to be. What it won't be is some overclocking wunderkind that chases a 50% OC and catches up to a stock GTX 1070 like some people who believed some garbage WCCFTech rumors believed.
And please, if you got the idea of CF'ing two mid-range GPU's like these, stop. There are enough games which have either 0 CF scaling or mediocre scaling where this setup will be inferior to buying a GTX 1070 for the same price, more than the games where CF scaling will be so good that you can catch up to a 1080. The highs don't make up for the lows, which include having a 200+ dollar brick in your PC because a game like DOOM doesn't support CF.
ethomaz
Banned
The power draw increase based in clock is really bad for Polaris.
About the benchs I don't know what AMD did but the GCN 1.4 looks to performs on pair or even below previous GCN... there is little to zero architecture performance increase.
Waiting 29th to shift this and show better result... for now disappointment.
About the benchs I don't know what AMD did but the GCN 1.4 looks to performs on pair or even below previous GCN... there is little to zero architecture performance increase.
Waiting 29th to shift this and show better result... for now disappointment.
D
Deleted member 465307
Unconfirmed Member
I keep seeing people mention the drivers. Could that be why it seems to be the same or worse?
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
Seems likely, updated drivers were only provided to reviewers, so anyone else who got cards early don't have drivers that support the new architecture. If the Polaris (and Vega) cards are literally only improvements in power consumption with no architectural improvements (or even regression), that would be pretty disappointing.
Supposedly some of the leaks have been from the new drivers, but at this point it's better to just not put much stock in anything until reviews hit.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Is that real?
30-40percent more power consumption with a 6 percent overclock?
Wtf
Beerman462
Member
ethomaz
Banned
If that turn true then AMD is having issues with this chip on 14nm.
shark sandwich
tenuously links anime, pedophile and incels
It's a good thing. Radeon owners who depend on their GPU as a space heater will only require a small overclock to obtain the same benefit from Polaris.
Sorry.
I am glad I don't care about OC one bit. Squeeze out 20% more performance? Unless in fringe cases that 20% is nothing. In return, you get much more power draw on any card and more heat, which means more noise. I want the best performance/watt. My HD-6850 is already loud enough, even in the silenced case.
Keeping my fingers crossed.
Keeping my fingers crossed.
Gaming chips are designed to work in certain performance/power range. Exceeding it can cause non-linear power draw increase. I don't think the issue here is this, but rare and quick power spikes that can cause instabilities.
This hasn't even been true on AMD as of late and I'm not even being nice.
Sure my 7950s took decent bit more power than the nvidia equivalent but the idea they are pumping out heat means you got case problems or improper cooling. None of them ever really push past 60-70C on most games and that's with a moderate fan profile. The same for performance concerns the card I mentioned in some games could beat a stock 7970 once you were at 1100mhz or more.
Chiggs
Gold Member
I've got two R9 390Xs in Crossfire and I've had a fantastic time with them. The brute force is incredible and THERE ARE PLENTY of games that support both Crossfire and SLI.
Your comment/opinon that the highs don't make up for the lows is entirely subjective, and one that many on this forum would challenge.
SneakyStephan
Banned
On most gpus these days a medium oc adds maybe 10-15 watts of power consumption, which is nothing
Unlike 20 percent performance, which is a LOT
that's enough to make framedrops to 50 fps (aka repeating frames with vsync-> microstutter) completely go away as they'll now be 60 fps
A different gpu model with 20 percent more performance can often cost 100 or 200 dollars more
It's literally free performance
the gtx 980 reference is about 20-25 percent faster than a gtx 970 reference, every gtx 970 can overclock to be about 20 percent faster than reference clocks
Person A is willing to overclock and gets near gtx 980 performance (obviously if he had a 980 and oced he get even more performance)
You're not willing to oc so you'd do what? pay 200 dollars more for a 980?
Currently the rx 480 seems to be less than 20 percent faster than the rx 470, but it costs 50 percent more. Since 20 percent is nothing why buy the 480 and not just get the 470 it's a lot cheaper?
Same with cpus btw, go from 3.9ghz boost clock to 4.4ghz oc, it's a free 10-15 percent performance you won't hear me complain about that.
Hell the old sandy bridge cpus had a very low stock clock and overclocking on those gave you over 30 percent performance extra
Having good overclock headroom on hardware is awesome and adds a ton of value to it
hooijdonk17
Member
Could we please stop ignoring the fact that the 20% faster GPU can also overclock around 20%?
D
Deleted member 59090
Unconfirmed Member
200 is not 50% more than 150.
Hmm, good point for the 470. Might get this one. I mean, I can run Overwatch pretty well with my old HD-6850, stable 50fps with the biggest caveats being 92% render scale and low textures. I could go to stable 70 but lighting set to Ultra makes too much of a difference for me in visual clarity. Still, good idea. Then again, I heard the new NVidia 1060 could also seriously deliver on price and performance/watt. Waiting a bit more.
Locuza
Member
It's very interesting to see Greeland and Vega10 separately.
There is Ellesmere (Polaris 10) but no Polaris 10 naming directly.
Greenland is a 4096-ALU GPU with 2048-Bit HBM2, DP:SP of 1:2 and 4 GMI-Links.
I thought that Vega10 is probably the new name for Greenland, like Polaris 10 was for Ellesmere or Polaris 11 for Baffin.
It would suprise me if AMD has the ressources to pull of two separate Chips, one for the HPC-Clients and one for the "normal" Consumers, like Nvidia will do this round with GP100 and GP102.
But GPUs aside, it seems like Raven1X is the integrated GPU for Raven-Ridge which would be really nice, especially if the Vega-IP finally hits DX12 FL12.1.
There is Ellesmere (Polaris 10) but no Polaris 10 naming directly.
Greenland is a 4096-ALU GPU with 2048-Bit HBM2, DP:SP of 1:2 and 4 GMI-Links.
I thought that Vega10 is probably the new name for Greenland, like Polaris 10 was for Ellesmere or Polaris 11 for Baffin.
It would suprise me if AMD has the ressources to pull of two separate Chips, one for the HPC-Clients and one for the "normal" Consumers, like Nvidia will do this round with GP100 and GP102.
But GPUs aside, it seems like Raven1X is the integrated GPU for Raven-Ridge which would be really nice, especially if the Vega-IP finally hits DX12 FL12.1.
Beautiful Ninja
Member
So according to an AMD rep at their RX 460/470 unveiling in Korea today, Vega will officially be coming out in 2017.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXVGUUV4wXc&feature=youtu.be&t=632 - Here is the rep talking about AMD's focus on mainstream gamers and specifically saying Vega is a 2017 product.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXVGUUV4wXc&feature=youtu.be&t=632 - Here is the rep talking about AMD's focus on mainstream gamers and specifically saying Vega is a 2017 product.
... fuck
D
Deleted member 465307
Unconfirmed Member
It's interesting that Polaris is listed as 81 compared to the previous generations being 7 and 8, while Vega is 9. That suggests to me that maybe Polaris is seen internally as much more iterative. But I know nothing.
Similar threads
- Poll