AMD Polaris 10 Samples work at 1.27 GHz

[gamervivek]

Huh? Looks like the 18k score was achieved with two cards, the 13k with one.

I was talking of the graphics score not the total score.

 

[MrTeal]

I guess it depends upon your perspective. My understanding has been that P10 is meant to be a replacement at the current 370/380 pricepoint (with x-models coming in the future as yields improve?), while delivering 390x (or better?) performance... basically what AMD has said all along, bringing VR-capability to more affordable price points... rather than a replacement for the already VR-capable 390/x and Fury/X cards. The direct competitor to the 1070 and 1080 cards, e.g. 490 and Fury-next, should come in the form of Vega (11?).

I assume this means that with the launch of P10, the 370 and 380 cards will drop in price or be EOL'd, the 390/x cards will be EOL'd and the Fury/X cards will have their price lowered and/or clock boosted so their price/performance better aligns with the P10 470/480 cards and the NV 10x0 cards until Vega can launch.

It's interesting that everyone seems to interpret bringing VR to much lower prices means that we will get 390/390X general gaming performance at much lower than the current $329 MSRP of the R9 390. People have rightly pointed out the big asterisk after the GTX1080's claim to be twice as fast as a Titan X just in VR when the card when the card itself is nowhere near that much faster in general gaming.

Polaris might also bring much better gains over Hawaii in VR than it does in standard DX11 gaming, which is great for VR going forward especially if P11 meets minimum recommended spec, but might not help it win benchmark battles on launch day.

 

[RussianSensation]

Polaris 10 doesn't need to win any benchmarks. Statistically speaking, forums such as ours are isolated from consumer reality. More than 85% of all dGPUs sold are in the $349 and below bracket. 80-85% of the high end is between $350-449. Less than 5% of the entire dGPU market buys above $449. Even if 1070 beats Polaris 10 by 25-30%, all that extra performance is a waste of $ for 1920x1080 60Hz. Why would gamers pay $150 more for performance they won't feel? It's not worth it. Looking at every review of 1080 and gauging stock Titan X performance, that's straight up 1440p or 1080 120-144Hz level tech.

For the vast majority of PC gamers using i3/i5/i7 stock, 1070 for 1080p 60Hz is not only CPU bottlenecked, but looking strictly at frames achieved, it will be overkill.

Of course if P10 costs $329 and 1070 costs $379, it's different. However, if the cheapest 1070 is $400+, and P10 offers near Fury Air performance for $299, that's $100 saved to get "identically" good 1080p 60Hz performance limited by the monitor.

I got an infraction for it but it's a point newcomers to PC gaming and upgraders will soon start to notice more and more. It's now possible to buy a $400 USD 27" 4K IPS panel with FreeSync:
http://slickdeals.net/f/8773167-27-lg-27ud68-p-3840x2160-uhd-ips-led-monitor-398-free-s-h

Polaris 10 will allow 1080p 60Hz gaming on such a monitor while giving headroom for GPU upgrades towards 4K on the same monitor. What does the NV Eco-system offer in the $400 range as far as 4K G-Sync IPS panels go?

It's also amazing seeing people attacking Polaris 10 for being slower than the surely more expensive 1070, but the same people not once advocated buying a 60-70% faster $50-90 more expensive after-market 290 4GB over the $200 960 2GB. Objective gamers on 1080p/60Hz panels will see a lot of value in $249-299 P10 cards. Save $$$, get more than necessary performance, upgrade again in 2-3 years.

1070 to me is a straight up killer 1440p card though. With overclocking, it will really open up huge performance gap over P10 at that resolution.

Here is another way to look at a new build. What's better over a 5 year horizon as far as PC upgrading goes?

1080p gaming:
Build 1: Core i7 6700K + $299 Polaris 10
Build 2: Core i5 6600K + $399 GTX1070

In 3 years, both of the GPUs are going to be outdated. The difference is an i5 6600K is a bottleneck in some games already NOW. Long-term, the Build 2 will require a CPU upgrade much faster.

Even with an i7 4790K, a GTX980Ti is CPU limited at 1080p.
http://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/te...pamieci_ram_wybrac_do_intel_skylake?page=0,11

Even max overclocked i7 4790K isn't fast enough to max out a Fury X at 1080p.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5lfMogcrPU

None of this is anything against Intel's amazing CPUs -- it's just the facts of life now that 1080p 60Hz gaming is CPU limited in many instances. I linked this review already. The slowest card, GTX980, manages an 84.7 fps average at 1080p gaming in modern PC titles:
https://www.overclockers.ru/lab/762...ie-videokarty-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080.html#27

Unfortunately for PC gaming, the current gen consoles are too weak and most games are made for them. As a result, as GPUs continue to advance, even a $250 2016 card will blast through 1080p 60Hz gaming. Looking at scores of 980Ti/Titan X/1080 for 1080p resolution, on a 60Hz monitor, it's literally a waste of $. Can't even make the argument for DSR/VSR either since most gamers using 1080p 60Hz are using garbage <= 24" size monitors that neuter the immersion factor that larger screens offer.

http://www.sweclockers.com/test/22087-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080/7#content

Even in a side-by-side comparison of a 24" 1080p 60Hz and a 27" 1440p 60Hz monitor, it's impossible to objectively want the 24" 1080p 60Hz monitor after. If space permits, larger screen + larger resolution is better than an expensive videocard on a garbage monitor.

27"-32" 1440p/4K have never been so affordable.

32" Acer B326HUL 2560x1440 WQHD VA Monitor w/ Built-In Speakers = $370

28" Monoprice UHD Series 4K 60Hz LED Monitor = $330

27" LG 27UD68-P 3840x2160 UHD IPS LED Monitor FreeSync = $398

Dell S2817Q 28" UHD LED 4K Monitor = $400

Even the the larger monitors/TVs are dropping like crazy.

34" 3440x1440 is now $500.

48" Samsung UN48JU6700 4K UHD Curved Smart LED HDTV for $629

1080p 60Hz is now peasant land and you don't need a $400-700 videocard for this anymore. The times have changed as GPU performance have increased at a much faster rate the horsepower of consoles. To get the full benefits of a $400+ card in 2016 will now require a 1080p 120-144Hz, or 1440p 60hz monitor at minimum. That's where Polaris 10 cards come in since most of the market is still stuck in the 90-00s using 24" (or lower) 1080p 60Hz (or lower rez) screens.

 

[Bacon1]

1080p gaming:
Build 1: Core i7 6700K + $299 Polaris 10
Build 2: Core i5 6600K + $399 GTX1070

In 3 years, both of the GPUs are going to be outdated. The difference is an i5 6600K is a bottleneck in some games already NOW. Long-term, the Build 2 will require a CPU upgrade much faster.

Also like you mentioned, throw in a GSync vs Freesync monitor into the mix and you save an extra $100-200.

Freesync monitor + Polaris > standard monitor + Pascal, and cheaper since freesync monitors aren't more expensive for equal quality monitors.

 

[RussianSensation]

It doesn't help that most people online keep ignoring Digital Foundry data and other websites data that prove stock i5/i7 CPUs aren't fast enough to push 980Ti level graphics card at 1080p without a CPU bottleneck. Instead gamers use flawed benchmarks on YouTube where the comparison is with a GTX970, a much slower GPU.

Here is 980Ti @ 1080p. Bottlenecking on stock i5/i7s of older generation is pronounced.

When Skylake came out, I defended Sandy and Ivy Bridge but specifically 4.6-4.8Ghz i7 2600K/i7 3770K. It was also a time when 980Ti and Fury X cost $650. Yet, now I see people wanting to buy a 1070/1080 for 1080p 60Hz on stock i5/i7 CPUs from that era, or even i5 6400/6500 is limiting cards this fast without enabling intense levels of AA to shift the bottleneck to the GPU.

This is why I keep reiterating that 1080p 60Hz resolution is now outdated tech and shouldn't even be used to judge $350-700 level graphics cards. We blindly start looking at a charge that shows Card B outperforming Card A by 30% but that obfuscates 2 major things:

1) In most cases even if Card A is slower, the FPS is way higher than 60 fps in the first place, making Card B's performance advantage irrelevant;

2) In almost all of these reviews, a 4.4-4.5Ghz i5 6600K/i7 6700K/i7 5960X is used. That's no way comparable to the level of real world performance a gamer with a stock i3/i5/i7 of Sandy/Ivy/Haswell generation will get. The benchmarks online show the best case scenario. The slower the CPU, the less of an advantage the faster card has over the slower card at 1080p 60Hz.

 

[Bacon1]

Yep agreed, why I'm looking forward to DX12 / Vulkan so much as they remove the overhead caused by DX11/OpenGL. That will make it so your cheap(er) CPU can handle that expensive card properly.

 

[Concillian]

1080p 60Hz is now peasant land and you don't need a $400-700 videocard for this anymore.

TIL I am a peasant. Well I guess mine's 1200p at least. Though I'm actually okay with my OC'ed GTX760 (comp 1) and 7850 (comp2) performance. No, they can't run MAX, but visuals are still quite good at the settings they run well. I'll get one of the new peasant cards though, just to keep up with the peasant Jones's.

I'll be quite happy with P10 being a "cheaper, lower power consumption 390x". This is exactly what the 7850 was after overclocking... a "cheaper, lower power consumption GTX580".

 

[amenx]

Better solution for bottlenecking is to upgrade to higher res. At 1440p you also end up with better image quality. Seeing 980ti owners still on cheap 1080p displays just rubs me the wrong way, but sadly there are still many of them.

RS, any 1440p benches from that site?

 

[flopper]

Polaris 10 doesn't need to win any benchmarks. Statistically speaking, forums such as ours are isolated from consumer reality. More than 85% of all dGPUs sold are in the $349 and below bracket. 80-85% of the high end is between $350-449. Less than 5% of the entire dGPU market buys above $449. Even if 1070 beats Polaris 10 by 25-30%, all that extra performance is a waste of $ for 1920x1080 60Hz. Why would gamers pay $150 more for performance they won't feel? It's not worth it. Looking at every review of 1080 and gauging stock Titan X performance, that's straight up 1440p or 1080 120-144Hz level tech.


1070 to me is a straight up killer 1440p card though. With overclocking, it will really open up huge performance gap over P10 at that resolution.

hard to say without a card tested wouldnt you agree?
for me it seems up to 1440p Polaris will be the choice if price/performance is what it seems to be.

 

[sirmo]

It doesn't help that most people online keep ignoring Digital Foundry data and other websites data that prove stock i5/i7 CPUs aren't fast enough to push 980Ti level graphics card at 1080p without a CPU bottleneck. Instead gamers use flawed benchmarks on YouTube where the comparison is with a GTX970, a much slower GPU.

This is precisely why Nvidia embraced Vulkan despite the fact that AMD stands to gain more from it. At least in the short term.

The old paradigm is CPU bottlenecked. Things like utilizing multithread friendly APIs and offloading compute to GPU via asynchronous compute is the only way forward. If we want to continue to see visual progress in gaming.

3 years down the road, the demanding games will have no choice but to be written in this paradigm, which is another point for Polaris as it's an architecture optimized for it.

 

[Qwertilot]

hard to say without a card tested wouldnt you agree?
for me it seems up to 1440p Polaris will be the choice if price/performance is what it seems to be.

Suspect maybe not at 1440. Polaris/the 1060 may well manage to just about cope OK there, but those monitors aren't that cheap and you'd imagine most people running one will push up a bit price wise to get a 1070 and some real performance bite.

If people are doing a clean upgrade from 1080p, I guess a fair few will go direct to 4k.

Agree that you'll probably have to really, really like turning utterly ever setting to max (or 120fps) to want anything above the 1060/Polaris at 1080p.

 

[Face2Face]

Here are some CPU benches with current popular games. Some of these games really don't care much about the CPU @ 1080p with 980Ti, while others do.

Arguably one of the better looking games today runs great on old stock 2500K. Sorry for the rows of graphs.

 

[David_k]

1080p 60Hz is now peasant land and you don't need a $400-700 videocard for this anymore.

This is stupid, not everyone needs the "highest resolution" display ever made.
Call me "peasant" I have a Very Nice looking, 1200p screen that costed close to 350$ just under a year, and still costs close to 300$, its a 99% sRGB IPS screen with a base that is fully adjustable, some 1080p panels are not so "cheap" like you say, sure people that use 100$ 1080p TN display should buy something better. but even with my "peasant cheap 1200p display" and a 970 I would still like to have more performance, I see nothing bad at running a 980Ti on 1080p, you can run almost all the time at max settings @everything Ultra and still have a decent performance once you can afford a *good* 1440p display. sure I could buy a 1440p 25" panel at the same price, but somebody like me, that doesn't want to "experience" the "amazing" windows scaling, when I don't game, would rather save up for a 27" 1440p panel instead.

Saying 1080@60Hz is peasant is like saying that everybody who doesn't own Fury X/980Ti isn't really a gamer because playing @ medium is "lame" and not how you are "supposed to play".

 

[RussianSensation]

Here are some CPU benches with current popular games. Some of these games really don't care much about the CPU @ 1080p with 980Ti, while others do.

Arguably one of the better looking games today runs great on old stock 2500K. Sorry for the rows of graphs.

Ya, it's true that some games do not. In those benchmarks you linked, 980Ti level of performance is overkill. They don't necessarily capture all the scenes of CPU bottle-necking in those games either.

Either way, what's going to happen is for most GPU-limited games 980Ti/1070 level of GPU performance is either overkill for 1080p 60Hz monitor OR if a game is CPU-demanding, you need a very powerful CPU to get full advantage of such fast cards at such a low resolution that hardly stresses this level of GPU. Either way, the conclusion is the same -- @ 1080p 60Hz you are either rendering way too many frames you cannot see OR you are CPU limited which is akin to wasting $ on a more powerful GPU. Most people who own gaming PCs do not have X99 series OC / i7 4770K / i7 6700K OC.

I know on AT people just LOVE to defend 1080p/60Hz gaming and they also love defending i3s and i5s. There is nothing wrong with gaming at 1080p 60Hz, but for modern $350+ 2016 GPUs, this resolution is just a walk in the park unless the game is an unoptimized turd. Let's also not forget that the strategy genre, unlike FPS games, can be very CPU intensive (and has been traditionally).

"AMD provided us with a preview build of the DX12 version of the game"

^ i7 5930K + R9 390 provides a better gaming experience than an i5 4690 + Fury X.

We cannot continue using outdated data of the past where an i3 was almost as good as an i5 or an i5 was almost as good as an i7. In modern games, there are plenty of examples where this is no longer the case. This is why I continue to recommend i7 6700/6700K and i7 5820K (and soon i7 6800K) over i5 6600K unless budget absolutely cannot allow for an i7.

 

[topmounter]

Point being, there are three key interdependent components of a gaming PC: CPU, GPU and display. A balance needs to be struck between the three to maximize the benefit of upgrading any given component.

Right now my system is very GPU-bound, upgrading my CPU won't improve performance in any meaningful way and upgrading to a QHD or UHD monitor will result in diminished performance at native resolutions.

A similar situation occurs if you are CPU-bound, focusing on upgrading your GPU isn't going to make much difference unless you upgrade your CPU and/or monitor to QHD or UHD. You might squirt out a few more frames per second by just upgrading the GPU when your CPU is bottlenecked, but the GPU will still be performing well below its true potential.

 

[kondziowy]

Best CPU for DX11: i3 2 cores
Best CPU for DX12: i7 8 cores

Finally. DX11 was a joke. And for owners of trusty i5-2500k there will be ZEN just in time when needed.

Let the CPU and GPU wars begin anew!

 

[RussianSensation]

Right now my system is very GPU-bound, upgrading my CPU won't improve performance in any meaningful way and upgrading to a QHD or UHD monitor will result in diminished performance at native resolutions.

Well said but there is a compromise. 1070/980Ti/1080 OC level GPUs are fast enough to run some games at 4K, almost all games at 1440p 50-60 fps. With a 1440p 144Hz monitor, you can dial the game down to 60Hz. With a 4K monitor, you can use 1080p if you want or 1080p + VSR/DSR if you have the extra power. In both of these cases, the screens have greater immersion factor due to most 1440p/4K monitors starting at 27" or higher. That's why 1080p/60Hz monitors are pointless now for $350+ GPUs. For anyone who still wants to keep 1080p/60Hz monitor for another 2-2.5 years, a GPU with GTX980/Fury Air/Polaris 10 performance is probably more than enough anyway.

Besides, until we see prices of 1070 vs. Polaris 10 in the real world, it's hard to gauge. As I stated before, if Polaris 10 costs $249-299 and GTX1070 is $380 but most cards are $400-450, they aren't even targeting the same buyers. PC gamers don't magically increase their budget from $250-$300 to $450 on a whim. The sales of GTX750/750Ti/GTX660/660Ti/GTX760/GTX950/960/970 are proof that the most popular cards are all in the <$350 space. AMD's goal is to increase market share. The biggest risk is that NV may respond with GTX1050/1050Ti/1060/1060Ti so fast that Polaris 10's market advantage will be evaporated.

Finally. DX11 was a joke.

For sure it was. Once Volta gains proper hardware async compute and we are on GCN 4.0/5.0 and there are 50+ AAA DX12 games, we'll look back at how outdated DX11 API really was.

 

[sxr7171]

Anyone who spent on a 980ti or Titan X is surely using DSR and maxed out AA where possible. At least that was my rationale for buying one of those cards. In terms of a monitor or TV resolution a lot depends on how far you sit from it.

 

[Lepton87]

Anyone who spent on a 980ti or Titan X is surely using DSR and maxed out AA where possible. At least that was my rationale for buying one of those cards. In terms of a monitor or TV resolution a lot depends on how far you sit from it.

No, I don't. I prefer 100FPS at 100Hz then some barely noticeable eye-candy. And keeping 100FPS at 3440x1440 is not really possible in most games with a 980Ti at 1450MHz/1950MHz. At those frequencies it should be at about 1080 level of performance or maybe even a tad bit faster if 1080 drops to base clocks. Max AA I use is 4X anything over that and I just don't care about the difference. I haven't played old games yet, that's where I would use Super Sample AA (now called DSR) because it looks better in motion.

 

[Silverforce11]

Back to Polaris 10, the leaked samples C7 not bad for a notebook variant, 36/40 CU @ 1.26ghz clear faster than 390X.

Now imagine what a C10 40 CU @ 1.5ghz will do on the PC.

 

[R0H1T]

Back to Polaris 10, the leaked samples C7 not bad for a notebook variant, 36/40 CU @ 1.26ghz clear faster than 390X.

Now imagine what a C10 40 CU @ 1.5ghz will do on the PC.

Where'd you get this?

 

[flopper]

^ i7 5930K + R9 390 provides a better gaming experience than an i5 4690 + Fury X.

We cannot continue using outdated data of the past where an i3 was almost as good as an i5 or an i5 was almost as good as an i7. In modern games, there are plenty of examples where this is no longer the case. This is why I continue to recommend i7 6700/6700K and i7 5820K (and soon i7 6800K) over i5 6600K unless budget absolutely cannot allow for an i7.

Zen, recomended.

 

[Krteq]

Some photos from Macau event - http://www.24liveblog.com/share/194237198?url=http://www.24liveblog.com/live/1331452

NDA will expire on 29th June

 

[sm625]

Some photos from Macau event - http://www.24liveblog.com/share/194237198?url=http://www.24liveblog.com/live/1331452

A bunch of empty halls, and what I first thought were trash bags but turned out to be backpacks.

 

[Krteq]

A bunch of empty halls, and what I first thought were trash bags but turned out to be backpacks.

They obviously can't show products photos due to NDA