Ok, being serious this is the chart I predict for Polaris 10:
- 480X 8 GB -- Fury Levels
- 480 8 GB -- 390 X levels
- 480 4 GB -- 390 Levels
- 480X 8 GB -- Fury Levels
- 480 8 GB -- 390 X levels
- 480 4 GB -- 390 Levels
Same 150W power as Geforce GTX 1070 (at lower performance tier?), demonstrated in dual-GPU mode against GP104, announced a month before availability (NVIDIA was criticized so I expect the same here), >5 Tflops (below R9 390), 10% higher clocks from a much smaller chip on a brand new FinFET process (if closer to 5 Tflops than 6 Tflops). Geforce GTX 970/980 performance according to rumours (below GM200/Fiji predictions), probably not impossible for GP106 to match or at least come close (at similar/smaller die/power?). Condolences accepted. The only interesting thing about this product so far is the price.
yes confusing
If you believe that a card with a single 6 pin power plug is using the full 150 Watts, I have a bridge to sell. Quick now, before its sold.Same 150W power as Geforce GTX 1070 (at lower performance tier?), demonstrated in dual-GPU mode against GP104, announced a month before availability (NVIDIA was criticized so I expect the same here), >5 Tflops (below R9 390), 10% higher clocks from a much smaller chip on a brand new FinFET process (if closer to 5 Tflops than 6 Tflops). Geforce GTX 970/980 performance according to rumours (below GM200/Fiji predictions), probably not impossible for GP106 to match or at least come close (at similar/smaller die/power?). Condolences accepted. The only interesting thing about this product so far is the price.
My uneducated guess is that the 51% refers to the second GPU and not both GPUs.
If you believe that a card with a single 6 pin power plug is using the full 150 Watts, I have a bridge to sell. Quick now, before its sold.
Tell me the clocks again, I must have missed the reveal.
AnandTech said:First off, the RX 480 will include 36 CUs. If we assume 64 stream processors to a CU – the GCN standard – then this brings us to 2304 SPs. AMD has not named the specific Polaris GPU being used here, but given the CU count I believe it’s reasonable to assume that this is a Polaris 10 SKU, as I’ve already seen Polaris 11 and it’s a very small chip better suited for notebooks.
AMD also revealed that the card would offer over 5 TFLOPs of compute performance. Given what we know about the CU count, this allows us to estimate the GPU clockspeed. This puts the lower bound of the GPU clockspeed at 1.08GHz and an upper bound (6 TFLOPs) at 1.3GHz, which would be in the range of 10-30% higher clocked than comparable Radeon 300 series cards.
You seem desperate. What is the saying about drowning men.
Agree. A very capable card for <$200. I would be very hesitant to get the 4gb version though...with how much recent titles are throwing stuff into vram, that will be bare minimum for new cards that are anywhere close to midrange.
So you don't believe AMD itself?
To be somewhat fair, AMD sometimes does tend to go conservative on the TDP for their cards. Wasn't the 7870's TDP rated like 175W and it used like around 120W at most?
For some reason, I doubt that you're hoping for anything of the sort.Hopefully you're right, because average gaming power consumption for Geforce GTX 980 is not far from this number and that's @ 28nm:
Seriously? Name 1 game where 980/Fury X is 4GB VRAM bottlenecked at 1080p?
I literally heard for all of 2015 how 960 2GB was enough. I then heard days ago how 970/980 3.5/4GB are only 1080p cards (but nothing about how they are VRAM gimped for this resolution). Up until today, 3.5GB VRAM wasn't even a problem on the $329 970 according to most people on this forum, but now on a $199 videocard, it's a red flag?
We are also seeing laughable comparisons of RX 480 CF vs. 1080, while ignoring how for $199 this card will be ~ 50-60% faster than a $199 960 4GB. If we skip AMD's marketing nonsense of 480 CF and focus on single GPU, for $199, this is a solid deal for budget gamers.
We are also seeing people use 150W TDP to mean power consumption, knowing full well NV and AMD do not use the TDP term to mean the same thing. Hint: 6-pin RX480 but 1070 has an 8-pin.
People can't even connect the dots that full Polaris 10 is going to Apple like Tonga XT did?
People cannot connect that if AMD is able to price RX 480 at $199-249, it leaves a tremendous amount of room to position Vega 10/11 cards aggressively that will make a $599-699 1080 FE look like a joke? HBM2 has a trick up its sleeve -- more freed up power usage headroom and smaller memory controller. People forgot that too. Oh, there is no $70-100 premium for AMD's reference blower. Bonus feature. I don't care for blowers but I literally heard days ago how some people MUST have them. Ok so shouldn't they be comparing a Reference Blower $199 480 to a Reference Blower $449 1070 then? No? They don't want that comparison anymore but days ago the premium blower was "required" for miniITX cases. Goal posts moving so fast....
Ryan just reported that 84% of all PC gamers buy graphics cards between $100-300, but nope, by the will of NV CEO they will just pay $200 extra for the 1070 for 1080p 60Hz gaming when Polaris 10 is more than satisfactory for most people using only i3 and i5 CPUs.
Not directed at you, but sometimes I wonder if people just post on this forum, but actually never take the time to read and learn about the tech industry.
The best part of all are some claiming that the only thing RX 480 has going for it is the price. This is hilarious because the price is the #1 leading factor for budget 1080p 60Hz PC gamers buying in the $100-300 space. It's like saying the only things Honda Civic has going for it are fuel economy, reliability and resale value.
For a gaming rig, I'd pick 1070 for a 1440p screen but I also acknowledge that a <150W 4GB card with all that latest feature, display outputs, DX12, has 0 competition for now. When 1060 shows up for $199-249, then we can start criticizing RX 480. For now, this card is a great 1080p upgrade for 750/750Ti/950/960 2GB users.
Indeed. The paper TDP for both the 7870 and 7850 were much higher than their real world numbers. 175W and 130W respectively.
Hopefully you're right, because average gaming power consumption for Geforce GTX 980 is not far from this number and that's @ 28nm:
As always, an excellent post. 390/X (+?) performance at $199 and <150W TDP (6 pin vs 8 pin) is better than the average expected around here (I was thinking $249-$299 for base Polaris 10 model just a day ago!)
All you can say is those are the MINIMUM clocks. You don't know the clocks and to pretend that you do is disingenuous.So you don't believe AMD itself?
Can be easily estimated based on the rest of the specs and the 5+ Tflops rating. I'll quote AnandTech so you won't miss important details anymore:
www.anandtech.com/show/10389/amd-teases-radeon-rx-480-launching-june-29th-for-199
And yet you're the one throwing personal attacks in multiple threads.
Pretty solid mainstream offering for the price but that's it. Boring for anyone currently using anything above Geforce GTX 970 / Radeon R9 390.
Did Lisa just set off the hype machine? Announced the 480 @200 then went on to say they would cover the full range from 100-300 so there should still be a 480x up their sleeve.
If you believe that a card with a single 6 pin power plug is using the full 150 Watts, I have a bridge to sell. Quick now, before its sold.
Tell me the clocks again, I must have missed the reveal.
You seem desperate. What is the saying about drowning men.
For myself, I'm waiting for reviews.
Infraction issued for personal attack.
-Rvenger
I don't think you want RX480 to be a 150W TDP card at stock: combined with the 2.8 perf/watt announced improvements it would make the card up to 50% faster than 390X.Also 150W? That's the same TDP as the Geforce GTX 1070.
Well from what we've seen, the 480 RX @ $200 is a 4GB part, so it'd be higher for an 8GB part.