AMD Computex Live Stream

[selni]

If it was at 51% utilization, shouldn't they just have shown off a single Polaris numbers instead??

You'd think so, hence all the people pointing out it makes no sense.

 

[swilli89]

So you own stock and have no reason to come at me for being negative? Sure 🙄. Shall I count the other people with criticism you aren't telling to stop threadcrapping?

If you don't like my posts, ignore me. I'm not breaking rules and I discuss the topics. If you want to see me go lolly for AMD, rewind a year or older when I defended them indefinitely. I'm a bitter ex-support, sorry it shows.

So you admitted it openly. Then why even post in an AMD announcement thread? Why not let people be excited and enthusiastic? What kind of person is bitter towards an indifferent corporation and feels the need to stay up at night raining on peoples parades?

STOP IT NOW.

-Rvenger

 

[railven]

Why would anyone expect a $200 AMD card to be anywhere near a $700 Nvidia one? Seeing miracles don't happen that would mean Nvidia has a total failure on their hands. Which they don't.

Which would you rather see at a demo/presentation:
Slide with ~$500 2x RX 480 beating a GTX 1080 barely, with a tag "51 GPU utilization"
or
Slide with a single ~$250 RX 480 barely losing (hell even possibly beating) a GTX 1080 with a tag that says "only ~$250 vs $700!"

I think that's what some people are saying. Not that we expect the card to beat a GTX 1080 flat out, but what they showed leaves a lot to be question.

I own stock, what is said in this thread or any other makes zero difference to the share price.

Agendas are agendas. I was accused of having one. Why would I care if AMD fails or wins? I'm not financially tied to them. (I also feel the exact same way about Nvidia.)

 

[Rvenger]

So you own stock and have no reason to come at me for being negative? Sure 🙄. Shall I count the other people with criticism you aren't telling to stop threadcrapping?

If you don't like my posts, ignore me. I'm not breaking rules and I discuss the topics. If you want to see me go lolly for AMD, rewind a year or older when I defended them indefinitely. I'm a bitter ex-support, sorry it shows.

Leave it out of here. Better yet, if you can't stop attacking other members, I will certainly show you the door.

-Rvenger

 

[casiofx]

I think amd's mistake is never announce the polaris 11 in this press conference. $100 market is the one that had the performance stagnated for too long and had a very big market especially for online and moba players.

 

[railven]

EDIT: Mod post, screw it.

 

[Vesku]

AMD should be comparing to 1070. Wouldn't need to leverage CF potential to show the value proposition. Also would make for some great legitimately lopsided graphs when CF is mentioned, and $398 vs $379 justifies the comparison.

 

[Sonikku]

One thing I noticed was the distinct lack of paid shills in the crowd due to the fact that this was hosted in a neutral setting. Remember all the tacky phrases and cheering coming from the front row at the nVidia event? Made all the more obvious they literally paid people to sound excited at their event.

Maybe that's what it takes to get that coveted brand image nectar.

If 90% of gamers eat that crap up while 10% of them spot the shills as you have then that translates into a net gain for Nvidia. Though it might be repugnant, AMD should do the same.

 

[swilli89]

Disappointed we didnt see a top end 480 vs 1070.

Is it possible the 1070's nda lifted so recently that AMD simply didn't have time to put together a performance comparison?

 

[AnandThenMan]

Which would you rather see at a demo/presentation:
Slide with ~$500 2x RX 480 beating a GTX 1080 barely, with a tag "51 GPU utilization"
or
Slide with a single ~$250 RX 480 barely losing (hell even possibly beating) a GTX 1080 with a tag that says "only ~$250 vs $700!"

The former because the latter would be widely mocked since no one with any sense would think a $250 GPU is anywhere near a $700 one except in some corner case that won't reflect the overall gaming experience. And it would be a huge marketing failure because no way would the promise ever be reality.

 

[sm625]

I'm still trying to work out what's at the top of the $100-300 range.

RX 485? It shouldnt be RX 480X because that is just too many Xes. But then again they've done that before with the X1950XT or even the X1950XTX.At any rate, point being that they will release a full uncut die version once they have amassed enough highly clockable full dies?

 

[railven]

The former because the latter would be widely mocked since no one with any sense would think a $250 GPU is anywhere near a $700 one except in some corner case that won't reflect the overall gaming experience.

But the former has a similar flaw as the latter. There is a shortage of Multi_GPU enable DX12 titles. You run the gamble of looking worse if you ask me.

 

[littleg]

With the Ashes CF demo, we're generally expecting Polaris to come in at around 390/390X levels, right? That's around 35 fps? Half the Polaris CF score and knock a bit off for scaling and you're pretty much there.

God knows what the 51% is all about though.

 

[Stuka87]

Disappointed we didnt see a top end 480 vs 1070.

Is it possible the 1070's nda lifted so recently that AMD simply didn't have time to put together a performance comparison?

AMD can go out and buy a 1080, they cannot buy a 1070. Actually, some of their AIBs most likely gave them some 1080's once they were available for purchase. They can't do that for 1070's yet.

 

[exar333]

The former because the latter would be widely mocked since no one with any sense would think a $250 GPU is anywhere near a $700 one except in some corner case that won't reflect the overall gaming experience. And it would be a huge marketing failure because no way would the promise ever be reality.

Either scenario likely points to this conclusion though. The latter is clear, concise and more 'powerful' in that it compares $250 to $700. The former is ambiguous and less powerful comparing $500 to $700 (really $600, but hey....)

 

[railven]

With the Ashes CF demo, we're generally expecting Polaris to come in at around 390/390X levels, right? That's around 35 fps? Half the Polaris CF score and knock a bit off for scaling and you're pretty much there.

God knows what the 51% is all about though.

But there are GCN 4.0 improvements, they even showed it in the slide. There is a chance that it is even better, still not GTX 1080, but now you got people asking why show what they did?

(Or as someone else said, show the GTX 1070, probably more comparable and still delivers the point).

 

[fuccboi]

51% is about efficiency, hitting just behind that gtx 1080 60fps mark. More performance with a lower power consumption. I'd say. " Better performace + Efficiency "

 

[Head1985]

51% is about efficiency, hitting just behind that gtx 1080 60fps mark. More performance with a lower power consumption. I'd say. " Better performace + Efficiency "

With 50% GPU utilization it should have same TDP as single 1080 or less

 

[richaron]

RX 485? It shouldnt be RX 480X because that is just too many Xes. But then again they've done that before with the X1950XT or even the X1950XTX.At any rate, point being that they will release a full uncut die version once they have amassed enough highly clockable full dies?

I think marketing has gone nuts on "more X's = better" over the past few years 😱

AMD has obviously gone for the value play with this announcement, but we're back to not really knowing what "full" Polaris is.

 

[Azix]

Something was clearly missing because it was definitely not something to brag about. Now a single RX 480 hanging with a GTX 1080, that is something to shine a flash light on.

dual 480 vs 1080 is something to brag about. They aren't leaving multiGPU to suck forever. Even warhammer is getting explicit multiGPU. If they can make multiGPU good, then the comparison is solid. $400 vs $600-$700. Easy choice.

AMD should be comparing to 1070. Wouldn't need to leverage CF potential to show the value proposition. Also would make for some great legitimately lopsided graphs when CF is mentioned, and $398 vs $379 justifies the comparison.

Had to be 1080 and had to be CF. you can't show it being slower when doing PR. Even if you show it slower and put up the perf/$ metrics, it still looks slower to people and less impressive. Keep it simple. 2x480 = $400 > 1 1080 at $600-$700

I think amd's mistake is never announce the polaris 11 in this press conference. $100 market is the one that had the performance stagnated for too long and had a very big market especially for online and moba players.

Its computex. I think they should have given more information, but the time to grab the gamers is e3. that has to be the deadline to amaze the market segments. That or they are putting all their p11 in laptops for now.

 

[HurleyBird]

With 50% GPU utilization it should have same TDP as single 1080 or less

Depends on things like idle power consumption, voltage and clock scaling, etc.

But they failed to show any slides on power consumption... so we're all left scratching our heads. Good job AMD marketing department.

You can't show it being slower when doing PR. Even if you show it slower and put up the perf/$ metrics, it still looks slower to people and less impressive. Keep it simple. 2x480 = $400 > 1 1080 at $600-$700

I reject that assertion. However, you can show perf/Watt. Or you can downclock the 1080 to approximate a 1070 and call it that. Or you can compare it to a 980TI or FuryX. There's tons of things you could do to get your bar bigger without resorting to extremely convoluted, confusing, and ineffectual marketing.

That said, I'm not totally convinced that 51% isn't just a typo.

 

[topmounter]

So the leaked 3DMark DX11 benchmarks showed CF 480 🙂C7) at 90% of a single 1080 and a single 480 🙂C7) within 1% of Fury (presumably the <=$249 8GB model) and a third 480 🙂C4) (presumably the 4GB $199 version) nipping at the heels of the 390x.

480 CF DX12 performance is 6% better than a 1080 FE.

And then there is something between :c7 and $299... 480x?

I took the 51% to mean the second GPU rather than both GPUs, but who knows.

 

[fuccboi]

Depends on things like idle power consumption, voltage and clock scaling, etc.

But they failed to show any slides on power consumption... so we're all left scratching our heads. Good job AMD marketing department.

Raja was talking about how PC gamers like 'em specs etc. and there's still a month to go, maybe that's why they made the graph so intriguing. It's probably made by some engineer or Rajesh himself thinking he's giving his boiz a plaything to theorycraft with. Also RX 480 at 199$ with 150W and 2.8x perf/watt doesn't seem alright, the power consumption was probably weighting heavily on their minds so that's why i think this graph is more about efficiency than the performance.

 

[railven]

dual 480 vs 1080 is something to brag about.

Not when a graph shows half utilization. Stomp the 1080 into the ground!

They aren't leaving multiGPU to suck forever. Even warhammer is getting explicit multiGPU. If they can make multiGPU good, then the comparison is solid. $400 vs $600-$700. Easy choice.

When you look at the current batch of DX12 games, I can only think of one game with multi-GPU support, and one with it pending. Dues EX is a possible next, but we'll have to wait and see.

Either way, that graph was odd, lots of people here felt similar, so I won't beat that horse anymore.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

So the leaked 3DMark DX11 benchmarks showed CF 480 🙂C7) at 90% of a single 1080 and a single 480 🙂C7) within 1% of Fury (presumably the <=$249 8GB model) and a third 480 🙂C4) (presumably the 4GB $199 version) nipping at the heels of the 390x.

480 CF DX12 performance is 6% better than a 1080 FE.

And then there is something between :c7 and $299... 480x?

If that's really the performance of the RX 480 why didn't they show it though? Man 390x performance for $200 is an unreal value, I would have proudly shown that off in a ton of benchmarks if I was running the presentation for AMD. That would make RX 480 an unbelievable 1080p card. The fact they didn't show it off makes me think it's not going to be R9 390x level performance.