- Nov 27, 2016
- 1,395
- 967
- 96
Sapphire & MSI RX 500s are also up.
These prices seem absurd for what is likely a 6% increase in clocks.
These prices seem absurd for what is likely a 6% increase in clocks.
If only those would turn out to be the legendary non existent 40CU /GDDR5X versions...
I know yields are a thing, but I think they would have had a much better showing if they had added the ~10-15% more space to add those extra CU's and more ROPs...
And just said F-efficiency marketing, full on 8-pin reference board.
Yeah, 'cause what AMD needs is to strengthen its position as the "hot-running and loud but cheap" brand. Sure.And just said F-efficiency marketing, full on 8-pin reference board.
I mean, you're being sarcastic but if you remember the RX480 launch they did nothing to help that anyway.Yeah, 'cause what AMD needs is to strengthen its position as the "hot-running and loud but cheap" brand. Sure.
I disagree. Getting R9 390X-level performance below 150W was a big win for AMD, even accounting for the move from 28nm to 14nm. While the RX 480 stock cooler isn't very good, it's still perfectly okay, and nowhere comparable to previous leaf blower reference coolers. While adding another 30W or so to push clocks and add 4 CUs would make it a better card overall, it's more impressive to say "we're matching our previous top-of-the-line card at 40% less power" than saying "we're beating our previous top-of-the-line card by 10% at 25% less power". And that would have increased not only chip costs, but board and cooler costs too. Not to mention the beating AMD would have taken if the 480 consumed as much power as the 1080 while delivering ~half the performance. Keeping it <150W made it clear that it was a mid-range card, which is important when the competition has confusingly similar naming for their top SKUs.I mean, you're being sarcastic but if you remember the RX480 launch they did nothing to help that anyway.
Pushing the efficiency message for the launch then failing to delivery was worse than never having built up expectations.
I disagree. Getting R9 390X-level performance below 150W was a big win for AMD, even accounting for the move from 28nm to 14nm. While the RX 480 stock cooler isn't very good, it's still perfectly okay, and nowhere comparable to previous leaf blower reference coolers. While adding another 30W or so to push clocks and add 4 CUs would make it a better card overall, it's more impressive to say "we're matching our previous top-of-the-line card at 40% less power" than saying "we're beating our previous top-of-the-line card by 10% at 25% less power". And that would have increased not only chip costs, but board and cooler costs too. Not to mention the beating AMD would have taken if the 480 consumed as much power as the 1080 while delivering ~half the performance. Keeping it <150W made it clear that it was a mid-range card, which is important when the competition has confusingly similar naming for their top SKUs.
Exactly. The RX 480 is a 150W card. Just as the GTX 980Ti often spiked up towards 350-400W, yet in no way was mislabeled as a 250W card. Now can we please let a dead discussion remain dead?Repeat after me power consumption is not tdp.
Power consumption over a long period of time should align or be within tdp.
Repeat after me power consumption is not tdp.
Power consumption over a long period of time should align or be within tdp.
OK I think im a little out of the loop. Are these cards the new VEGA cards that AMD was showing a few months back? I was expecting some real competition from AMD, and this sounds like just a minor increase in performance.
I didnt expect 1080ti performance, but maybe something that can compete with a 1080.