If that's really the performance of the RX 480 why didn't they show it though? Man 390x performance for $200 is an unreal value, I would have proudly shown that off in a ton of benchmarks if I was running the presentation for AMD. That would make RX 480 an unbelievable 1080p card. The fact they didn't show it off makes me think it's not going to be R9 390x level performance.
But there are GCN 4.0 improvements, they even showed it in the slide. There is a chance that it is even better, still not GTX 1080, but now you got people asking why show what they did?
(Or as someone else said, show the GTX 1070, probably more comparable and still delivers the point).
Was there supposed to be a competitor to 1070 on show? If there is an uncut P10 that's within striking distance of the 1070 then I hope for AMD's sake they release it sooner rather than later, kinda like the Apple's exclusive Tonga die, as it'll not only increase their ASP but also enhance their mindshareDisappointed 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?
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!"
I think that's what some people are saying. Not that we expect the card to beat a GTX 1080 flat out, but what they showed leaves a lot to be question.
Agendas are agendas. I was accused of having one. Why would I care if AMD fails or wins? I'm not financially tied to them. (I also feel the exact same way about Nvidia.)
If it was at 51% utilization, shouldn't they just have shown off a single Polaris numbers instead??
Why would they do that? If they showed 1 Polaris 10 matching a 1080, they might have had a chance at slowing the imminent GTX 1070 craze.Talk about raining on NV's parade. All that demo leaves us with is bunch of questions.It's simple. AMD is basically telling you the performance of a single Polaris 10 GPU in AOTS without directly telling you it. I don't think they're ready to reveal Polaris 10's performance just yet. AMD is intentionally being cryptic. Does it make sense from a marketing standpoint? Hell no. But, this is AMD we're talking about. Those engineers probably thought they were being clever. LOL
It's simple. AMD is basically telling you the performance of a single Polaris 10 GPU in AOTS without directly telling you it. I don't think they're ready to reveal Polaris 10's performance just yet. AMD is intentionally being cryptic. Does it make sense from a marketing standpoint? Hell no. But, this is AMD we're talking about. Those engineers probably thought they were being clever. LOL
If that's really the performance of the RX 480 why didn't they show it though? Man 390x performance for $200 is an unreal value, I would have proudly shown that off in a ton of benchmarks if I was running the presentation for AMD. That would make RX 480 an unbelievable 1080p card. The fact they didn't show it off makes me think it's not going to be R9 390x level performance.
But the 390x is completely supplanted by the 1070 in terms of cost, and performs more like a 980ti. AMD needs to make comparisons of what they will be up against, the new standards not the old standards.
Considering they still have a month before GA, it makes a ton of sense not to spill ALL the beans now, especially with E3 in two weeks.
You can't compare a $400 1440p gpu to a $200 1080p one.
I don't understand the 51% part though for 2 cards. Does this mean its one card at 100% basically?
Not when a graph shows half utilization. Stomp the 1080 into the ground!
When you look at the current batch of DX12 games, I can only think of one game with multi-GPU support, and one with it pending. Dues EX is a possible next, but we'll have to wait and see.
Either way, that graph was odd, lots of people here felt similar, so I won't beat that horse anymore.
Ashes and Total War Warhammer already include it
It would make sense to say something useful about the performance. Like for $200 you can max your games out at 1080p, the resolution virtually everyone uses (outside of these enthusiast forums).
For everyone's sake, except dedicated miners, I sure hope it does.Shame my R9 290 is worth jack now. Well, maybe Polaris will suck at mining.
Shame my R9 290 is worth jack now. Well, maybe Polaris will suck at mining.
Shame my R9 290 is worth jack now. Well, maybe Polaris will suck at mining.
You can and everyone will. Fair or not, similar die size or not, similar cost or not, the 480 series and the 1070/1080 are the new gpus on the block for the two main gpu vendors. The upper end of the 480 series (up to 300 dollars according to Lisa [we'll see if that's accurate]) will be heavily compared to the 1070 at 380, which is the better value, should I go up in price to get a 1070, or stick with a 480 for my gaming needs.
These discussions and arguments are going to be the main focus until more next generation gpus launch. It's inevitable.
It's not worth jack because it makes > $70 USD a month; use it! After 4-6 months of mining, you won't even care if you can only sell it for $100. :thumbsup:
At 1440p, they won't be direct competitors since then we'd have to compare $400 RX 480 CF against $400 GTX1070. For 1080p 60hz gaming, $379 1070 ~ Titan X beats R9 390 by 41% only for almost double the price. There is nothing to think about when it comes to value. Core i3/i5 1080p 60Hz = RX 480. Core i7 1080p 144Hz/1440p = 1070.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080/26.html
If that's really the performance of the RX 480 why didn't they show it though? Man 390x performance for $200 is an unreal value, I would have proudly shown that off in a ton of benchmarks if I was running the presentation for AMD. That would make RX 480 an unbelievable 1080p card. The fact they didn't show it off makes me think it's not going to be R9 390x level performance.
Do people always mine 24/7?