If it was at 51% utilization, shouldn't they just have shown off a single Polaris numbers instead??
You'd think so, hence all the people pointing out it makes no sense.
If it was at 51% utilization, shouldn't they just have shown off a single Polaris numbers instead??
So you own stock and have no reason to come at me for being negative? Sure . Shall I count the other people with criticism you aren't telling to stop threadcrapping?
If you don't like my posts, ignore me. I'm not breaking rules and I discuss the topics. If you want to see me go lolly for AMD, rewind a year or older when I defended them indefinitely. I'm a bitter ex-support, sorry it shows.
Why would anyone expect a $200 AMD card to be anywhere near a $700 Nvidia one? Seeing miracles don't happen that would mean Nvidia has a total failure on their hands. Which they don't.
I own stock, what is said in this thread or any other makes zero difference to the share price.
So you own stock and have no reason to come at me for being negative? Sure . Shall I count the other people with criticism you aren't telling to stop threadcrapping?
If you don't like my posts, ignore me. I'm not breaking rules and I discuss the topics. If you want to see me go lolly for AMD, rewind a year or older when I defended them indefinitely. I'm a bitter ex-support, sorry it shows.
One thing I noticed was the distinct lack of paid shills in the crowd due to the fact that this was hosted in a neutral setting. Remember all the tacky phrases and cheering coming from the front row at the nVidia event? Made all the more obvious they literally paid people to sound excited at their event.
Maybe that's what it takes to get that coveted brand image nectar.
The former because the latter would be widely mocked since no one with any sense would think a $250 GPU is anywhere near a $700 one except in some corner case that won't reflect the overall gaming experience. And it would be a huge marketing failure because no way would the promise ever be reality.Which would you rather see at a demo/presentation:
Slide with ~$500 2x RX 480 beating a GTX 1080 barely, with a tag "51 GPU utilization"
or
Slide with a single ~$250 RX 480 barely losing (hell even possibly beating) a GTX 1080 with a tag that says "only ~$250 vs $700!"
RX 485? It shouldnt be RX 480X because that is just too many Xes. But then again they've done that before with the X1950XT or even the X1950XTX.At any rate, point being that they will release a full uncut die version once they have amassed enough highly clockable full dies?I'm still trying to work out what's at the top of the $100-300 range.
The former because the latter would be widely mocked since no one with any sense would think a $250 GPU is anywhere near a $700 one except in some corner case that won't reflect the overall gaming experience.
Disappointed we didnt see a top end 480 vs 1070.
Is it possible the 1070's nda lifted so recently that AMD simply didn't have time to put together a performance comparison?
The former because the latter would be widely mocked since no one with any sense would think a $250 GPU is anywhere near a $700 one except in some corner case that won't reflect the overall gaming experience. And it would be a huge marketing failure because no way would the promise ever be reality.
With the Ashes CF demo, we're generally expecting Polaris to come in at around 390/390X levels, right? That's around 35 fps? Half the Polaris CF score and knock a bit off for scaling and you're pretty much there.
God knows what the 51% is all about though.
With 50% GPU utilization it should have same TDP as single 1080 or less51% is about efficiency, hitting just behind that gtx 1080 60fps mark. More performance with a lower power consumption. I'd say. " Better performace + Efficiency "
RX 485? It shouldnt be RX 480X because that is just too many Xes. But then again they've done that before with the X1950XT or even the X1950XTX.At any rate, point being that they will release a full uncut die version once they have amassed enough highly clockable full dies?
Something was clearly missing because it was definitely not something to brag about. Now a single RX 480 hanging with a GTX 1080, that is something to shine a flash light on.
AMD should be comparing to 1070. Wouldn't need to leverage CF potential to show the value proposition. Also would make for some great legitimately lopsided graphs when CF is mentioned, and $398 vs $379 justifies the comparison.
I think amd's mistake is never announce the polaris 11 in this press conference. $100 market is the one that had the performance stagnated for too long and had a very big market especially for online and moba players.
With 50% GPU utilization it should have same TDP as single 1080 or less
You can't show it being slower when doing PR. Even if you show it slower and put up the perf/$ metrics, it still looks slower to people and less impressive. Keep it simple. 2x480 = $400 > 1 1080 at $600-$700
Depends on things like idle power consumption, voltage and clock scaling, etc.
But they failed to show any slides on power consumption... so we're all left scratching our heads. Good job AMD marketing department.
dual 480 vs 1080 is something to brag about.
They aren't leaving multiGPU to suck forever. Even warhammer is getting explicit multiGPU. If they can make multiGPU good, then the comparison is solid. $400 vs $600-$700. Easy choice.
So the leaked 3DMark DX11 benchmarks showed CF 480 C7) at 90% of a single 1080 and a single 480 C7) within 1% of Fury (presumably the <=$249 8GB model) and a third 480 C4) (presumably the 4GB $199 version) nipping at the heels of the 390x.
480 CF DX12 performance is 6% better than a 1080 FE.
And then there is something between :c7 and $299... 480x?