I don't have knowledge about SSD failure rate but I'm working in big repair center (about 100k phones and tablets per month) and I think NAND failures are most common fault on modern mainboards. If your phone have 'sudden death syndrome' or goes into bootloop and flashing software doesn't help...
It's true nearly for whole Europe. I'm from Poland and ordered today Gigabyte 1060 G1 gaming for about 15$ more than stock RX 480 8GB. You can find here other AIB 1060 for less than 480. Cheapest 1060 (Asus Turbo-blower) is about 25$ cheaper than 480. 480 4GB is more rare than AIB 1080 one day...
For any budget gamers - I found review showing scaling RX 480 with different processors compared to GTX 970. Not many people targeting $200 GPU have i7k so this type of results could be very interesting
This is only quick test, but this website promised much bigger test soon...
But AMD stated about 290, not 390 and score is matching perfectly to it. Compared to 970 is a little bit (3% ?) slower than 970 - it's not far behind. But what people were expecting from new process it's different story.
In April Rod Taylor from AMD (http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2016/04/amd-focusing-on-vr-mid-range-polaris/) stated that Polaris is aiming in 970/290 performance level. If you compare VR score it nearly exactly match it. There was so mych hype about Polaris 10 that now many people couldn't...
Cooler shroud was only example, but with RX 480 is absolutely nothing. I don't remember any electronic mass product launched without any leaks last years.
One thing makes me wonder - if AMD is planning to have sufficient volumen RX 480 on shelves at release day (29.06 - technically still Q2) now all AiB should producing cards with large quantities, but there are absolutely no leaks - photos, custom coolers, more and more footprints in benchmarks...
I'm on the same boat - not a big fan of this all DLCs. And also I was waiting for complete edition of Witcher 3 with decent offer. Now it comes, not on steam but on GOG - $38.09 for game and 2 expansions. I think that few next weeks I'll be very busy ;)...
As described on PurePC (portal quoted by you) about testing procedure for GTX 1080 Gaming X. As far as I know they are also using ot for all cards, including FE:
You can use google translator to check it, but I can quickly brief it: all test are done in closed case (with 3 fans) after 20...
So it looks that 8-pin connector isn't an issue with overclocking 1080...
http://videocardz.com/60923/galax-overclocks-gtx-1080-to-2-2-ghz-on-air-2-5-ghz-with-ln2
Question is if there will be available unofficial unlocked BIOS for reference cards :)
If somebody interested in Witcher 3 test in GPU demanding location from latest patch:
http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/test_wydajnosci_wiedzmin_3_krew_i_wino?page=0,16
Yes, 1070 results aren't impresive, but when you compare to AMD cards...
Much better car analogy is motorsport in Europe. Companies pumping A LOT of money into WRC series, where models have same name as retail model but they share maybe few body parts. Volkswagen Polo R WRC isn't really same product as VW Polo, but success in motorsport is huge advertisement.
379$ - 599$ means that 1080 is 60% more expensive for about 25%performace boost (need to be confirmed with more reviews). For many people 220$ means big difference.
I would like to wait for final patch before judging DX12 version. So far we have in game bechmark that couldn't be really compared to DX11 because we can't test DX11 in same conditions. It's really strange that in this DX12 demo there isn't also DX11 test for comparision, maybe real gains aren't...
Hmmm... I though that whole hype with DX12 is possibility to move some of the compute workload from bottlenecked processor to much faster in compute tasks GPU- basically changing GPU into co-processor. If I'm right - the slower your procesor is you should get bigger boost if you buy powerful...
I wouldn't be so optimistic. they have a lot of work with optimalization.
1080p, i7-4790K @4500 MHz, GTX 1080, 4x4 battle and drops to 20 fps in DX11 version...
http://www.purepc.pl/rozrywka/total_war_warhammer_garsc_informacji_i_wymagania_sprzetowe
(first comment under text)
Total War Warhammer so far looks like optimisation crap. I heard from person testing pre-sale version that in 1080p, i7-4790K @4500 MHz, GTX 1080, during 4x4 battle when fight beigns framerate drops to 20 FPS...
It looks that this game will be able to eat any CPU, I doubt that DX12 version will...
Problem is that giving that kind of performance doesn't increase much numer of VR capable computers. If this will be 400$ card with high power who will buy it? Probably people, which have slower card, but still 'strong enough for VR. To spread VR AMD need to deliver product that will be selling...
I will quote :
"If you look at the total install base of a Radeon 290, or a GTX 970 or above [the minimum specs required for VR], it's around 7.5 million units,"
So Polaris 10 need to have similar or slightly better performance and much smaller price to increase numer of VR capable computers...
AMD describing Polaris 10 as a mainstream chip. Why so many people expecting similar or better performance than previous generation enthusiast segment? Really powerful card we should get with Vega.
I wouldn't be very surpised if full Polaris 10 will be a little bit slower than 390 but much cheaper.
This is just a business calculation about margin to sells volume. Let's say that NV earning 80$ for each sold 1070 at 400$ . If they deicide to sell it for 500$ they will be earning 180$, even if they will sell 50% cards overal profit will be higher. You need only calculate where is best...
I can give you example: Apple. They could sell iPhones at 30% of current pricing (with same sales volume) and they still would be profitable. Margin on iPhones is really ridiculous but peple are buying their products anyway.
Same is true for all companies positioning their products as a luxury.
Hmm... According table in first post in this topic GP104-400-A1 should be chip replacing 980Ti, so maybe it should be 1080Ti ?
Unless we will have new scale:
970 --> 1070
980 --> 1070Ti
980Ti --> 1080
On one tech portal from my country person, who visited Computex2015, says that 4.2 GHz is max. It's not about temeratures, but some complicated enginering stuff and there wouldn't be stable CPUs over 4.2GHz. So probably that's why nobody publishing OC tests :). It should be fixed in next product...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.