• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 170 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
amenx said:
By the time VR matters/matures, with enough supporting titles and improved, better priced VR hardware, we'll probably already be on Volta, Navi. I doubt many people will factor in VR performance when looking at lower-mid range Polaris.
Click to expand...
Why do you think VR is geared mainly towards gamers? If anything the applications in academia, medical & even general entertainment is an order of magnitude that of the gaming industry & they're the first ones on the VR bandwagon, scientists & researchers especially.
 
AIB partners are reporting to me this morning that with extremely good custom air coolers the 480 GPUs are seeing from 1480MHz to 1600MHz clocks, but tell me it is a "lottery draw" on GPUs.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. If someone put fan on RX 480 ref to 100% and still can't OC, it's not a thermal issue.

Esp if AIB cards can do up to 1.6Ghz. If that's true, it screams artificial gimping from AMD. Bios restrictions on clocks or a very low power/voltage limit on the ref card to artificially create more expensive AIB variants for a higher segment.
 
Silverforce11 said:
That makes no sense. If someone put fan on RX 480 ref to 100% and still can't OC, it's not a thermal issue.

Esp if AIB cards can do up to 1.6Ghz. If that's true, it screams artificial gimping from AMD. Bios restrictions on clocks or a very low power/voltage limit on the ref card to artificially create more expensive AIB variants for a higher segment.
Click to expand...

It may not be artificial as such, and possibly just a question of reviewers not adjusting the fan speed.

The youtube review tried overclocking and had the temperature shoot up to 91 degrees and any higher and it would crash. It is possible that increasing the fan speed could keep the temperature down and thus leave more headroom for overclocking (with AIB cards already running cool enough that this isn't necessary).

trane said:
Calm down, folks. He admitted to using old drivers.
Click to expand...

Not really, he just said that he didn't use 16.6.1 or 16.2.2, and that the drivers were press only. Whether or not they are old is up in the air.
 
Last edited:
Silverforce11 said:
That makes no sense. If someone put fan on RX 480 ref to 100% and still can't OC, it's not a thermal issue.

Esp if AIB cards can do up to 1.6Ghz. If that's true, it screams artificial gimping from AMD. Bios restrictions on clocks or a very low power/voltage limit on the ref card to artificially create more expensive AIB variants for a higher segment.
Click to expand...
Or it's artificially/intentionally being done to the reference versions simply to keep the temps in check for the reference versions at a quiet fan speed/curve.
They certainly cannot afford another 290(x) temp/throttling/loud reference cooler disaster in the press.
I know if I was AMD that would be the LAST thing I'd want.
 
MTDEW said:
Or it's artificially/intentionally being done to the reference versions simply to keep the temps in check for the reference versions at a quiet fan speed/curve.
They certainly cannot afford another 290(x) temp/throttling/loud reference cooler disaster in the press.
I know if I was AMD that would be the LAST thing I'd want.
Click to expand...

That's a good point.

Well, I already ordered 2x RX 480 8GB. I'll test the thermals myself on OC, and can always put water AIO on it for further experimentation. 🙂
 
Nice if real!

MSI-Radeon-RX-480-GAMING-X.jpg
 
antihelten said:
It may not be artificial as such, and possibly just a question of reviewers not adjusting the fan speed.

The youtube review tried overclocking and had the temperature shoot up to 91 degrees and any higher and it would crash. It is possible that increasing the fan speed could keep the temperature down and thus leave more headroom for overclocking (with AIB cards already running cool enough that this isn't necessary).
Click to expand...

Just read through some of the reviewers comments on youtube, and he mentions that he did in fact fiddle around with the fan, so cooling shouldn't be the issue here.
 
It's a $200 TO $240 CARD FOR GOODNESS SAKE! AMD packed a lot of performance in a card for that price range.

Let us all calm down and wait for all of the reviews to start rolling in.

I think AMD's real goal is to produce a large scale market share card that is affordable. So far it looks like AMD is in the ballpark with the RX480.
 
psolord said:
Hey Rus, isn't Vega 10 the big chip (meant for Fury) and Vega 11 the smaller one (meant for RX 490) ?
Click to expand...

Kaduri noted that the naming convention is related to the timeline, not size of the chip. If Vega 10 and 11 come true, the 10 version launches first. It should be a smaller and slower chip than the 11 version. The concerning part is if Vega 10 is meant to be a 1070/1080 competitor, then when is Vega 11 launching? If Vega 11 is also 6-9 months behind GP102, then that would be bad news. One can hope that if AMD is 6-9 months behind with high-end cards that they will either try to beat NV outright or at least shake up the price/performance in a way R9 290 did.

---

32 ROPs and lack of GDDD5X only reinforce the mainstream/performance targeting aspects of RX480. Since this is an R9 380/X replacement, I wouldn't start freaking out about a failed "Fiji" style chip. HardOCP has no clue what they are talking about. If AMD was designing an R9 390/390X replacement, it wouldn't be 232mm2 and have only 256-bit bus and 32 ROPs. It can't be more obvious that HardOCP is just wrong, and yet we see people repeating over and over how RX 480 is a failed 390/390X "successor".

Also, I remember so many people wishing for Polaris 10 to be as fast as a Fury/X/980Ti and I warned against setting unrealistic expectations. Low end/mainstream chip = low end/mainstream price. The hype got out of control.

The concern here is if NV matches or beats 480, AMD will most likely have a gap in the entire $300-700 range until Q1 2017. I expect to read A LOT of biased/NV PR posts about how Polaris for GPUs is AMD's Bulldozer for CPUs (i.e., AMD is officially out of high-end/performance space). AMD's desire to launch Bottom-Up this time seems to have confused most of the Internet and even some review sites...
 
3DVagabond said:
So, if it had 64 ROPs would it still be 232mm² and $200? Is there a better combination at that size/price?
Click to expand...

Probably not, and smaller die size = less materials = cheaper to produce. The idea behind Polaris seems to be to squeeze as much out of as little as possible so you can sell a normally low-margin, high-volume product for a much larger margin, but still at a high-volume price point. If they can do that, it appears they'll be able to, they'll both recapture market share and take a big step toward returning to profitability.
 
guskline said:
It's a $200 TO $240 CARD FOR GOODNESS SAKE! AMD packed a lot of performance in a card for that price range.

Let us all calm down and wait for all of the reviews to start rolling in.

I think AMD's real goal is to produce a large scale market share card that is affordable. So far it looks like AMD is in the ballpark with the RX480.
Click to expand...

The voice of reason! Too many believe AMD's Polaris 10 is a Hawaii successor. As a result of this flawed assumption, they believe that AMD is either entirely sacrificing performance gains for next gen in favor of perf/watt and/or they think AMD's engineers failed completely and Polaris 10 was "originally" intended to compete with 1070/1080.
 
3DVagabond said:
So, if it had 64 ROPs would it still be 232mm² and $200? Is there a better combination at that size/price?
Click to expand...

We still dont know transitor count.But 2048SP and 64Rops will be like 15-20% faster than 2304SP and 32Rops and probably more at 1440P(25% my guess).

That SKu will be like 250-260mm2 MAX.
Dont see why that SKU should not be priced at 250USD.
 
Last edited:
RussianSensation said:
I expect to read A LOT of biased/NV PR posts about how Polaris for GPUs is AMD's Bulldozer for CPUs (i.e., AMD is officially out of high-end/performance space). AMD's desire to launch Bottom-Up this time seems to have confused most of the Internet and even some review sites...
Click to expand...

What? What about the 750Ti, NV launched Maxwell bottom first... nobody made an issue out of it?

RX 490 is coming before the end of the year.

5vs8Clz.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top