videocardzAMD shows off Radeon RX 480 running Doom at 1440p/144Hz

[Kenmitch]

That's really disappointing.

Waiting for the official release and reviews is the wisest thing to do before passing judgement.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

That's really disappointing.

That's a nice improvement over its predecessor, so why is that disappointing?

 

[Dresdenboy]

That's really disappointing.

What are your expectations?

 

[railven]

What are your expectations?

I was told 90% of GTX 1080 @ DX12.

 

[exar333]

I was told 90% of GTX 1080 @ DX12.

Faster than the 1070 for 1/2 the price? Doubtful!!

Awesome though, if that actually happened.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I was told 90% of GTX 1080 @ DX12.

Source? And what is the price.

 

[railven]

Faster than the 1070 for 1/2 the price? Doubtful!!

Awesome though, if that actually happened.

Haha, poster made that claim and I'm just dragging it through the mud. Like someone once said 290X + Mantle will be faster than GTX 780 SLI or some equally absurd predictions.

Sometimes people's predictions seem so far out there it creates an illusion of where the products will end up.

EDIT:

Source? And what is the price.

Not my claim, but if the original poster wants to answer that for you, it's up to him.

 

[therealnickdanger]

Maybe this means that Polaris will end up being faster than we all thought.

Everyone loves an underdog/comeback kid story. All we really know is that AMD has been making a big fuss about bringing VR to the mainstream. You can't do that without a powerful yet inexpensive GPU. I'm saying sub-$200 for Hawaii-level performance. I'm not going to bet eating cat food though. LOL

 

[therealnickdanger]

Everyone loves an underdog/comeback kid story. All we really know is that AMD has been making a big fuss about bringing VR to the mainstream. You can't do that without a powerful yet inexpensive GPU. I'm saying sub-$200 for Hawaii-level performance. I'm not going to bet eating cat food though. LOL

Looks like I should have made that bet afterall.

 

[IEC]

I was told 90% of GTX 1080 @ DX12.

If that "DX12" is AOTS, then maybe :shiftyeyes;

Crazy settings: 1440p, GTX1080
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com...c-2ba0170ab699

Crazy settings 1440p, 67DF:C7
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com...4-f9e96febe303

 

[sirmo]

I was told 90% of GTX 1080 @ DX12.

I can understand hoping for something like that, but expecting something like that for less than 1/3 the price is just hilarious to me.

Remember you can buy 3 rx480s for the price of a GTX 1080 and also have a lunch with the left over money.

 

[USER8000]

People make outlandish claims so when the reviews are released they can have pretend disappointment and say a card is a failure when most people have a more realistic view of how it performs.

 

[Shmee]

I can understand hoping for something like that, but expecting something like that for less than 1/3 the price is just hilarious to me.

Remember you can buy 3 rx480s for the price of a GTX 1080 and also have a lunch with the left over money.

This is a good point. I wonder how tri CF will scale with these once mature drivers/game patches are out.

Or, just get 2 and buy a new SSD, or save enough money for many meals to come!

 

[flopper]

This is a good point. I wonder how tri CF will scale with these once mature drivers/game patches are out.

Or, just get 2 and buy a new SSD, or save enough money for many meals to come!

1440p = 480 X or whatever number comes out, OC a bit call it a day.
4k atm is a generation away for any reasonable single card to do it, Maybe Vega big boy.

 

[mkmitch]

Everyone loves an underdog/comeback kid story. All we really know is that AMD has been making a big fuss about bringing VR to the mainstream. You can't do that without a powerful yet inexpensive GPU. I'm saying sub-$200 for Hawaii-level performance. I'm not going to bet eating cat food though. LOL

People who can only afford a $200 GPU can't afford to shell out $600-$800 for a VR unit. Bringing VR to the masses is a myth, when the masses can't afford it and software companies aren't in a hurry to write games for it.

 

[Bacon1]

People who can only afford a $200 GPU can't afford to shell out $600-$800 for a VR unit. Bringing VR to the masses is a myth, when the masses can't afford it and software companies aren't in a hurry to write games for it.

They are still bringing VR capable performance there. And with more TAM, means more production of VR units which drives down cost. Its cheaper per part to make 1m of them vs 100,000 which means you can sell them for less.

 

[rgallant]

People who can only afford a $200 GPU can't afford to shell out $600-$800 for a VR unit. Bringing VR to the masses is a myth, when the masses can't afford it and software companies aren't in a hurry to write games for it.

what if in 6-12 months a vr system comes out at $300 and peeps with a vr ready card already in their systems pushes on the buy button.
so $200 now plus $300 in 6-12 months that could happen vs $500 for up front both . imo

 

[OatisCampbell]

I wish AMD would have "showed off" something with more than 390 level performance.

I've had an IceQ 290 for three years now, 390 level performance isn't exactly going to have me haunting nowinstock.

 

[Wall Street]

It looks like this card could be AMDs new HD 5770. It needs to be understood that the HD 5770 was a very successful card for AMD and a top seller, but similar to this RX 480, just isn't meant to be the top performer and appeal to the top enthusiasts. The HD 5770 sold very well below $200 despite not being faster than the HD 4870.

I think that their VR marketing is a little silly from their marketing department. VR is still niche, especially at this price point. I think that they should market this as a 1080p killer where you max out all the settings on all of your games (with super-res on older games) for less than $200 and 150 watts.

 

[Paul98]

It looks like this card could be AMDs new HD 5770. It needs to be understood that the HD 5770 was a very successful card for AMD and a top seller, but similar to this RX 480, just isn't meant to be the top performer and appeal to the top enthusiasts. The HD 5770 sold very well below $200 despite not being faster than the HD 4870.

I think that their VR marketing is a little silly from their marketing department. VR is still niche, especially at this price point. I think that they should market this as a 1080p killer where you max out all the settings on all of your games (with super-res on older games) for less than $200 and 150 watts.

Yeah I would agree with this, this is exactly where AMD would like to sell a lot cards. It's a great price point and I would recommend it to friends if it's performance is where it should be.

 

[Qwertilot]

One slight difficulty with that marketing angle will be persuading people that its worth an upgrade when a lot of the old stuff is still very happy at 1080p.

The mainstream market doesn't to upgrade for fun so much as when they 'have' to. So maybe they're trying to use to use VR a lever against that.

Have to agree that its rather odd at best

 

[sirmo]

Billing this card as "VR" ready doesn't cost them anything. It's good for investors and if VR takes off it will increase sales. It's not like the design had to go in a different direction for VR.

 

[renderstate]

Billing this card as "VR" ready doesn't cost them anything. It's good for investors and if VR takes off it will increase sales. It's not like the design had to go in a different direction for VR.

What do you mean? Pascal went in a different direction because of VR (e.g. stereo rendering, lens matched shading, super fast preemption, ...) clearly demonstrating investing in VR means more than paying lip service. We don't know yet if RX480 has VR related features/improvements but if doesn't AMD might rapidly fall behind in VR as well.

 

[Wall Street]

Billing this card as "VR" ready doesn't cost them anything. It's good for investors and if VR takes off it will increase sales. It's not like the design had to go in a different direction for VR.

The problem with the VR marketing is perception. VR is expensive and an early adopter niche. This card makes the most sense as a mass market mainstream offering. The GTX 1080 was marketed for its VR capabilities. The way that they marketed it suggests that you should compare their $199 VR card against NVidia's $379-$699 cards. They only get one chance for a first impression, and after seeing the VR tag a lot of people in forums like these are disappointed to see it much slower than a GTX 1070.

There are plenty of gamers who upgrade their GPUs without buying a new monitor who have 1080p displays. There are also plenty of budget gamers who see 1440p, 4K and VR as not being within budget and will go with 1080p. What they should have done is showed a list of the 30-40 most popular games right now and show that "Ultra" setting framerates are 60-100 FPS averages in all of those games. Then the sales pitch is: if you can get "maxed out" 60+ FPS 1080p for $199 why spend more?

A similar example was the nVidia GTX 960 MOBA marketing campaign. It was a good campaign that pointed out that the GTX 960 could max out the MOBAs - there is no reason to buy more card for those games. That card sold well because it was targeted at the League of Legends / DOTA 2 / Heroes of the Storm crowd that really would see little benefit stepping up to a GTX 970.

 

[Armsdealer]

The problem with the VR marketing is perception. VR is expensive and an early adopter niche. This card makes the most sense as a mass market mainstream offering. The GTX 1080 was marketed for its VR capabilities. The way that they marketed it suggests that you should compare their $199 VR card against NVidia's $379-$699 cards. They only get one chance for a first impression, and after seeing the VR tag a lot of people in forums like these are disappointed to see it much slower than a GTX 1070.

There are plenty of gamers who upgrade their GPUs without buying a new monitor who have 1080p displays. There are also plenty of budget gamers who see 1440p, 4K and VR as not being within budget and will go with 1080p. What they should have done is showed a list of the 30-40 most popular games right now and show that "Ultra" setting framerates are 60-100 FPS averages in all of those games. Then the sales pitch is: if you can get "maxed out" 60+ FPS 1080p for $199 why spend more?

A similar example was the nVidia GTX 960 MOBA marketing campaign. It was a good campaign that pointed out that the GTX 960 could max out the MOBAs - there is no reason to buy more card for those games. That card sold well because it was targeted at the League of Legends / DOTA 2 / Heroes of the Storm crowd that really would see little benefit stepping up to a GTX 970.

The vision for VR over ten years is that it will sell a similar number of units (within factor of three) as mobile phones or pc. Right now intel sells roughly half a billion cpus annually. Total dgpu sales are 50mm. The market appreciates that gpus over time will grow as a market which is why nvidia trades at nearly 3 times the multiple of intel, but if VR actually realizes the vision many have, VR alone makes RTG and nvidia still cheap before we consider driverless cars and AI.

Investors do care.