AMD Polaris Thread: Radeon RX 480, RX 470 & RX 460 launching June 29th

[sze5003]

Since when was GPU releases about "Fighting" the other cards "top" card?

Nvidia has no RX 480 contender. AT $230, the RX480 is close to the GTX 1070 in performance....

For $350, I wonder what AMD will bring?

Considering how poorly the GTX 1080 and 1070 are OCing right now, this Pascal Launch doesn't look that exciting. But almost GTX 1070 performance for $230 and GTX 1080 performance for $460. That's exciting.....

Also, lets say AMD releases the fully enabled chip later down the line at $300.... or even $350.... still cheaper than a 1070, and definitely going to be faster with the fully enabled chip.

Looks like Polaris and Vega may be the better architectures out the gate this generation. Pascal's regressed IPC really hurts it. Especially with OCing.

Looks like it will be worth it to me waiting to see what they have going against the 1080 as a single card. I may end up with another amd card this time around too. This 480x at $199 and up leaves room for them to price their top end card well below nvidia 1080.

I was shooting for a 1070 gtx if amd didn't have anything but now why get a 1070 if I can spend close $100 more and have 1080 like performance.

 

[Sweepr]

RX 480 (67DF:C7): 18.060
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11263084

R9 390X: 18.865
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/10039529

 

[mkmitch]

Since when was GPU releases about "Fighting" the other cards "top" card?

Nvidia has no RX 480 contender. AT $230, the RX480 is close to the GTX 1070 in performance....

For $350, I wonder what AMD will bring?

Considering how poorly the GTX 1080 and 1070 are OCing right now, this Pascal Launch doesn't look that exciting. But almost GTX 1070 performance for $230 and GTX 1080 performance for $460. That's exciting.....

Also, lets say AMD releases the fully enabled chip later down the line at $300.... or even $350.... still cheaper than a 1070, and definitely going to be faster with the fully enabled chip.

Looks like Polaris and Vega may be the better architectures out the gate this generation. Pascal's regressed IPC really hurts it. Especially with OCing.

My suggestion to you would be to check out HardOCP review of the 1070 "The GPU reached a maximum of 2113MHz, but could not sustain that. However, it can sustain around a 2076MHz. The actual average over this time was 2052MHz for 15 minutes of gaming. At 2052MHz the clock frequency is higher than we were able to get out of the GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition by about 20MHz. This bodes very well! 1070 "

This is a direct quote from their review.

 

[tential]

RX 480 (67DF:C7): 18.060
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11263084

R9 390X: 18.865
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/10039529

If aMD is able to cut the price of their GPU in HALF from $400 to $200, why can't Nvidia cut the price of the GTX 980Ti from $650 to $325? Or wow, ok lets say even $350?

 

[LTC8K6]

We don't know which RX-480 that was in the 3DMark test, do we?

 

[tential]

Looks like it will be worth it to me waiting to see what they have going against the 1080 as a single card. I may end up with another amd card this time around too. This 480x at $199 and up leaves room for them to price their top end card well below nvidia 1080.

I was shooting for a 1070 gtx if amd didn't have anything but now why get a 1070 if I can spend close $100 more and have 1080 like performance.

You'd be pretty insane at this point to not wait to see what AMD has to offer in the fully enabled Polaris Chip and Vega. I mean there is a LOT of room price wise for AMD. What is Nvidia going to do? Deliver an RX 480 GP106 competitor for $200? Then people wouldn't buy the GTX 1070 if the GTX 1060 is $200....

 

[Qwertilot]

Well, they basically did with the 1070

 

[thilanliyan]

If aMD is able to cut the price of their GPU in HALF from $400 to $200, why can't Nvidia cut the price of the GTX 980Ti from $650 to $325? Or wow, ok lets say even $350?

Because people are willing to pay the $650.

 

[Rvenger]

If aMD is able to cut the price of their GPU in HALF from $400 to $200, why can't Nvidia cut the price of the GTX 980Ti from $650 to $325? Or wow, ok lets say even $350?

BOM on 980ti is higher than Polaris. They did cut it to $379

 

[TeknoBug]

If the pricetag will really be $199 USD MSRP, then I'm probably going to buy 2 of them for crossfire (my H110 mobo only supports CfX, no SLI).

 

[tential]

My suggestion to you would be to check out HardOCP review of the 1070 "The GPU reached a maximum of 2113MHz, but could not sustain that. However, it can sustain around a 2076MHz. The actual average over this time was 2052MHz for 15 minutes of gaming. At 2052MHz the clock frequency is higher than we were able to get out of the GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition by about 20MHz. This bodes very well! 1070 "

This is a direct quote from their review.

The GTX 1070's OC can not get it to a GTX 1080 performance level. The GTX 970's OC can get it to a GTX 980 level. The thing is, due to the reduce IPC of Pascal even when you get similar OCs to Maxwell generation in additional mhz added, you aren't getting much extra performance.

That's why the OC performance of the GTX 1070/1080 isn't as surprising as the OC performance of the GTX 970/980.

 

[Tumaras]

$229 is better than expected and good to see for the 8GB P10. I was guessing more $249-$279. Not sure who the 4GB model would appeal to, it would seem to be more just about getting to the $199 price point for marketing.

From news on Nvidia's 1060 today, that's probably the more realistic battleground for this chip. The 1060 8GB and RX 480 8GB look to go head-to-head with $229 for AMD and $225-$275 for Nvidia, with similar ~980 (not 980ti) performance. The RX 480 isn't anywhere in the same neighborhood as the $379 1070 on performance, it's a good 25% slower. So people thinking the 480 will be the same as a 1070 for $150 less aren't being realistic. But in the low-mid $200 range this pits the 1060 and 480 8GB flavors against each other quite nicely, which is excellent for us. Nvidia would be more than happy to gouge folks more than they already do if AMD weren't around.

 

[sze5003]

If aMD is able to cut the price of their GPU in HALF from $400 to $200, why can't Nvidia cut the price of the GTX 980Ti from $650 to $325? Or wow, ok lets say even $350?

That would be a competitive move but nvidia marketing is stronger and they know how to sell the people on the card. It's mostly a brand thing at this point.

Smart consumers don't care about brand names. If it does what you need and it fits your bill buy it. I've always been a price for performance type of buyer with generally anything.

But of course they will have those willing to pay the money for what they are asking so for now they don't need a price cut. Maybe in a couple of months.

 

[flopper]

$229 is better than expected and good to see for the 8GB P10. I was guessing more $249-$279. Not sure who the 4GB model would appeal to, it would seem to be more just about getting to the $199 price point for marketing.

From news on Nvidia's 1060 today, that's probably the more realistic battleground for this chip. The 1060 8GB and RX 480 8GB look to go head-to-head with $229 for AMD and $225-$275 for Nvidia, with similar ~980 (not 980ti) performance. The RX 480 isn't anywhere in the same neighborhood as the $379 1070 on performance, it's a good 25% slower. So people thinking the 480 will be the same as a 1070 for $150 less aren't being realistic. But in the low-mid $200 range this pits the 1060 and 480 8GB flavors against each other quite nicely, which is excellent for us. Nvidia would be more than happy to gouge folks more than they already do if AMD weren't around.

480 4gb/8gb
480x = 250/299$ or so.

Nvidia?
what!

 

[Flapdrol1337]

The GTX 1070's OC can not get it to a GTX 1080 performance level. The GTX 970's OC can get it to a GTX 980 level. The thing is, due to the reduce IPC of Pascal even when you get similar OCs to Maxwell generation in additional mhz added, you aren't getting much extra performance.

That's why the OC performance of the GTX 1070/1080 isn't as surprising as the OC performance of the GTX 970/980.

In some games the 1070 only matches the 980Ti reference, but in most games it's ahead.

Both aftermarket overclocked I think they will end up at pretty much the same point. I'd rather have the 1070 if I had to choose.

 

[antihelten]

The new RV770? I wouldn't say that. The RV770 went up agianst a massive compute oriented chip on an older nm process with a massive memorybus.

This time nvidia cards are small gaming focussed chips too.

True the competition isn't quite comparable to GT200 that RV770 went up against.

I was more thinking that it looks like AMD is giving us a $200 card and a $300 card (the fully unlocked Polaris 10), with the later possibly more or less matching Nvidia's second best card (the 1070), just like with RV770 where we got the $200 4850 and the $300 4870 with the later matching the GTX 260 (which coincidently launched at the same price as the 1070 FE, $450).

Too bad NVIDIA demoed Pascal concurrently running compute and graphics and getting 15-20% higher perf. This FUD is getting boring so I'll repost this video once again:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKkFqG77-x4

That video is demonstrating dynamic load balancing of graphics and compute tasks, which is not at all the same as concurrently running graphics and compute within a single SM. And showing a 15-20% performance improvement in a synthetic test is hardly impressive, wake me up when they can demonstrate that in an actual game (which is something AMD actually has).

Just because you don't like the facts as they are doesn't make them FUD.

 

[agfkfhahddhdn]

From news on Nvidia's 1060 today, that's probably the more realistic battleground for this chip. The 1060 8GB and RX 480 8GB look to go head-to-head with $229 for AMD and $225-$275 for Nvidia, with similar ~980 (not 980ti) performance. The RX 480 isn't anywhere in the same neighborhood as the $379 1070 on performance, it's a good 25% slower. So people thinking the 480 will be the same as a 1070 for $150 less aren't being realistic. But in the low-mid $200 range this pits the 1060 and 480 8GB flavors against each other quite nicely, which is excellent for us. Nvidia would be more than happy to gouge folks more than they already do if AMD weren't around.

The idea is not that the RX 480 will be competitive with the 1070 for $150 less, but rather that the 1070 might be better, but not $150 better. Regardless, we may have an OK idea of what performance will be like, but there are far too many variables to accurately predict cost. It would change everything if either company missed their price goals.

 

[ShintaiDK]

If aMD is able to cut the price of their GPU in HALF from $400 to $200, why can't Nvidia cut the price of the GTX 980Ti from $650 to $325? Or wow, ok lets say even $350?

A faster than a 980Ti is 379$

Also the Polaris card you refer to is 4GB.

 

[Vesku]

No. They're in different segments.

If AMD are feeling aggressive they might start a price war vs the 1050/60, but I can't truly see that working out too well for them. NV can happily respond and sit on the profits from elsewhere in the stack.

1070 pricing is quite likely to come down in ~1 years time when the stack realigns/the big cards appear etc.

With the efficiency, I wouldn't be remotely surprised if the process was such that the top clocked 480 SKUs were quite a bit less efficient than the lower clocked ones. You'd definitely hope so, or it doesn't look like they'll get much traction for notebooks etc.

By setting 4GB at $199 AMD is opening this gen with a mainstream price shot across Nvidia's bow.

 

[maddie]

Looks like it will be worth it to me waiting to see what they have going against the 1080 as a single card. I may end up with another amd card this time around too. This 480x at $199 and up leaves room for them to price their top end card well below nvidia 1080.

I was shooting for a 1070 gtx if amd didn't have anything but now why get a 1070 if I can spend close $100 more and have 1080 like performance.

I've been wondering if this might happen.

So many speak about the Halo effect and for sure, it exists. I have seen little mention of an "Ascension effect", where a high performance lower class product makes us anticipate higher end follow-ups.

Just imagine what is coming with Vega if we get this with Polaris.

 

[tential]

A faster than a 980Ti is 379$

Also the Polaris card you refer to is 4GB.

Yes $380 so not half. It's above 325 so more than half. Looks like amd brought performance to cheaper price brackets than Nvidia.

Whats going to compete with the rx 480? Gp106? Priced at what? 200? And leave a massive price gap between the 1070 and 1060? 250?

Looks pretty grim for gp106

Also the cheaper p10 part hasn't been talked about yet. It will consume even less power and. Be even cheaper than 200. $150 for the cheaper model is huge for most gamers.

What pricing and performance is reasonable for Gp106 given rx 480 and the GP104 prices to you?

 

[Azix]

During the livestream, the AMD card looked worse.

But the AOTS benchmark isn't an exact replicable benchmark, and we've seen links to the AOTS benchmarks with those values showing same settings, so I think this is debunked.

The effects etc looked the same. The map changed but I think the change was mostly cosmetic. 1080 map had less snow, 480 map had more. People think the less snow and darker look was better. maybe there is some variation between AMD and nvidia cards on the front. I think the units and effects look the same

Oh I see, the new magical marketing term is "true compute". I am eagerly awaiting for NVIDIA to coin new terms such as true tessellation, true geometry shaders, true color compression, true stereo rendering, etc. or perhaps you stop spreading their FUD and simply acknowledge the evidence.

there has to be a distinction. And it was a developer who partnered with nvidia that said it. Nvidia does not actually do the real async compute.

Too bad NVIDIA demoed Pascal concurrently running compute and graphics and getting 15-20% higher perf. This FUD is getting boring so I'll repost this video once again:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKkFqG77-x4

nvidia is just being nvidia. Its a confusing message to confuse people.

A faster than a 980Ti is 379$

Also the Polaris card you refer to is 4GB.

if crossfire is not a problem, the 1070 makes no sense. Not only can you get 2 x 480 for the price of a 1070, you can probably get the lower sku for less, which could end up faster. 2 x 480 will destroy a 1070. Not even close I think. that's over 10 tflops peak. When things get in full swing that 2 x 480 setup should shame even the 1080. So if AMD makes good on multiGPU, its a definite win. The only advantage would be power consumption, but if the crossfire setup is near 200W I think even OEMs looking to build high end systems would use it over a 1080. AMD is defeating those new cards from nvidia in a round about way. Good plan going this route. dx12 support is still superior and there are architectural improvements that should speed things up. That discard accelerator that was rumored.

Potentially very good situation for AMD. They are right to start investing on software heavily to make that a reality. The single 480 cards should sell well, people buying 2 can be happy if the software is solid.

 

[rainy]

A faster than a 980Ti is 379$

To be correct 450 dollars because only FE version would be available at launch.

Btw, I think it's a good deal to get circa 70 percent of 1070 performance for a bit over 50 percent of its price (if 229 dollars for 8GB version is correct).

 

[renderstate]

That video is demonstrating dynamic load balancing of graphics and compute tasks, which is not at all the same as concurrently running graphics and compute within a single SM. And showing a 15-20% performance improvement in a synthetic test is hardly impressive, wake me up when they can demonstrate that in an actual game (which is something AMD actually has).



Just because you don't like the facts as they are doesn't make them FUD.

The video shows concurrent & therefore asynchronous execution of compute and graphics tasks. How the HW decides to schedule tasks and where it's an implementation detail. The fact the AMD might be better than NVIDIA at this is irrelevant, both architectures support providing better utilization of the available computational resources by scheduling for executions independent compute and graphics tasks at the same time.

Last time I checked an HW vendor doesn't get to dictate how a feature is best implemented on their competitors ' architecture. By following the same reasoning then AMD doesn't support tessellation or color compression because they are not very good at it?

I like the facts very much, thank you. I am certainly not the one in denial that makes up definitions of what it means to concurrently run independent workloads on a massively parallel computer architecture. Give me a break, the case is closed. Stop propagating AMD FUD and move on.

 

[96Firebird]

I'm surprised more people aren't upset AMD aren't going for more performance. We've had this performance before, even close to the same TDP. It is nothing new. Sure, they are lowering prices, but that is happening across the board. Seems like this is an upgrade for those with 380X and below.