It seems Sapphire & MSI RX 500s are also up.

Bacon1

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2016
3,430
1,018
91
This should just be in the rumor thread as there aren't any details or real sales yet
 

Magic Hate Ball

Senior member
Feb 2, 2017
290
250
96
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.
 
May 11, 2008
22,218
1,410
126
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.

They do seem to have higher clocks because of a revision and 14nm process improvement, I read about above 1400MHz clocks. I do think that that is the maximum boostclock.
Would be fun if above 1400MHz would turn out to be the base clock.
 

Magic Hate Ball

Senior member
Feb 2, 2017
290
250
96
Yeah, 'cause what AMD needs is to strengthen its position as the "hot-running and loud but cheap" brand. Sure.
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.
 

Valantar

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2014
1,792
508
136
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.
 

Magic Hate Ball

Senior member
Feb 2, 2017
290
250
96
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.

Except it wasn't under 150 watts. It often spiked higher with default voltages on launch.
 

itsmydamnation

Diamond Member
Feb 6, 2011
3,044
3,831
136
Repeat after me power consumption is not tdp.

Power consumption over a long period of time should align or be within tdp.
 

Valantar

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2014
1,792
508
136
Repeat after me power consumption is not tdp.

Power consumption over a long period of time should align or be within tdp.
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?

Also, Magic Hate Ball: nice cop-out to pull out that silly flamebait card rather than argue against my actual points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kawi6rr

Magic Hate Ball

Senior member
Feb 2, 2017
290
250
96
Repeat after me power consumption is not tdp.

Power consumption over a long period of time should align or be within tdp.

I'm not talking TDP. I owned one, total board power draw could exceed 150watts for extended periods before driver changes. Period. That's the rating for the 6-pin + PCI-E connector. Period.

Yes it can go over without breaking anything. That's not what I'm saying. I thought it was no big deal myself.

I resold it since it was out of stock everywhere and I could make my money back. I then switched to a Fury I got at a steal, and I have a RX470 in my HTPC... I'm not an anti-AMD troll.

Did I mention I also am running a Ryzen 7?

_________________________________________________________

Back on subject. I hope the RX580 or whatever their refreshed version is has a good clock uplift, but if they're going to charge more I would hope they would combine it faster memory as that is a constraint on the RX480 as evidenced by increased FPS by only OCing the memory.

Secondly, I hope they have the process down to the point where they can use lesser default voltages than the RX480. That's what killed the power efficiency as evidenced by so many being able to undervolt significantly at stock clocks.
 

Valantar

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2014
1,792
508
136
If there's one thing we should never believe from inadvertently posted placeholder web pages, it's pricing. (Especially when the reported prices are in the range of 50% increases...) I don't believe for a second that the 5XX series will be more expensive than equivalent 4XX cards. Same prices or lower is the only acceptable route to go when refreshing the same chips. While AMD has made plenty of horrible PR moves, that would be a contender for some sort of award, I'm sure.

As for faster RAM (i.e. GDDR5X), that would unfortunately require a new memory controller, meaning it's not going to happen in a chip refresh. Pushing GDDR5 to its limit just increases power draw dramatically, which, again, you don't want...
 

Nvidiaguy07

Platinum Member
Feb 22, 2008
2,846
4
81
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.
 

Bacon1

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2016
3,430
1,018
91
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.

No these are not Vega. These are just refreshed Polaris (470/480)