AMD Polaris Thread: Radeon RX 480, RX 470 & RX 460 launching June 29th

[vissarix]

I knew polaris was going to be cheap...i thought $250...but $199? Thats a nice surprise...if its around r9 390x perf and maybe with oc you get fury x perf then its a great gpu...i think they might sell alot of these till the gtx 1060 appears and then who knows...

 

[sirmo]

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.

Could the $300 version be the rx480 duo? Or is the rx480 the binned version and there is an rx480x? I am puzzled by this as well. We know rx480 will be MSRP $199 probably the 4Gb version. But what's the $300 card?

 

[littleg]

Possibly:

480 (4GB) - $199
480 (8GB) - $229
480X (4GB) - $279
480X (8GB) - $299

 

[DaveSimmons]

Could the $300 version be the rx480 duo? Or is the rx480 the binned version and there is an rx480x? I am puzzled by this as well. We know rx480 will be MSRP $199 probably the 4Gb version. But what's the $300 card?

Possibly the 8GB version?

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/05/amd-rx-480-polaris-release-date-price-specs/

"The RX 480 will come in both 4GB and 8GB configurations (the former being the £160/$200 model), and will support AMD FreeSync and HDR video via its DisplayPort 1.3/1.4 and HDMI 2.0b outputs. Best of all, it has an average power draw of just 150W, which should make it cooler and quieter than AMD's previous-generation graphics cards."

 

[SPBHM]

even if the card underperforms relative to the 390 (and I can see it happening) it still can't be to bad at this price, it will outperform the 380X and it's cheaper (well the official price at least), with lots of newer stuff added to it, the big problem is how soon the 1060 will be ready, because the current cards at this price have no chance against the 480 (like the 960 4GB), and I don't see the 970 price dropping that low?

 

[zentan]

The pricing seems absolutely great. :thumbsup:
Can't wait for reviews.

 

[sirmo]

Also Lisa said June 29th "on shelf" so it's a June 29th hard launch/NDA lift.

 

[zentan]

even if the card underperforms relative to the 390 (and I can see it happening) it still can't be to bad at this price, it will outperform the 380X and it's cheaper (well the official price at least), with lots of newer stuff added to it, the big problem is how soon the 1060 will be ready, because the current cards at this price have no chance against the 480 (like the 960 4GB), and I don't see the 970 price dropping that low?

Yeah, and gtx970 will look outdated relatively(even if it drops that low),it's older node and tech anyway. Would be interesting to see what gp106 or gtx 1060 brings especially the price.

 

[sirmo]

Possibly:

480 (4GB) - $199
480 (8GB) - $229
480X (4GB) - $279
480X (8GB) - $299

That seems likely, although probably no need for the $279 version. If there is a 480X than it's probably just going to be 8Gb.

 

[C@mM!]

That seems likely, although probably no need for the $279 version. If there is a 480X than it's probably just going to be 8Gb.

Except we have a new nomenclature (RX). I have a feeling we are about to see a rationalisation of AMD's product line, with only one version at each level.

So we will get

Fury RX, 490 RX, 480 RX, 470 RX,etc.

With thinking being

Fury RX=Big Vega
390 RX=Little Vega
380 RX=Polaris 10
370 RX=Cutdown Polaris 10
360 RX=Polaris 11
350 down=rebrands or possible cutdown 11's.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Also Lisa said June 29th "on shelf" so it's a June 29th hard launch/NDA lift.

Or a "paper launch" today according to some people.... & :sigh:

(The new definition of "info revealed" == launch.)

 

[TypoFairy©]

I just assumed the x in Rx was a replacement for R10

 

[sirmo]

Or a "paper launch" today according to some people.... & :sigh:

(The new definition of "info revealed" == launch.)

AMD never called this a launch, but I don't really care about the semantics. I was just pointing out that they should be available for order on the 29th according to the CEO of AMD.

 

[desprado]

People are not even discussing this
"AMD showed off a graphics demonstration of their Radeon RX 480 graphics card running in CrossFire setup. The solution was compared against a GeForce GTX 1080 ($599 US) graphics card and delivered much better graphics performance however we noted that the Radeon R9 480X demo was clearly running at different settings versus the NVIDIA solution so we wait to find our more information about the settings used."

Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-480-polaris-10-launch/#ixzz4AJ7EzA4q"

480 Cf was running on lower settings and GTX 1080 image quality was vastly sharper ,therefore, that was the reason why their was no great response on performance wise from the media or audience.
​

 

[Riek]

Or a "paper launch" today according to some people.... & :sigh:

(The new definition of "info revealed" == launch.)

The 'new definition' is about benchmarked and reviewed == launch.

not about releasing info.

 

[renderstate]

They lied about competition not supporting async compute or shader intrinsics so them setting up an unfair comparison wouldn't really surprise me that much.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

480 Cf was running on lower settings and GTX 1080
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

You can see the benchmarks for yourself here.

http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...294-8cab-4399-8815-f956a670b68f/match-history

Be sure to select "Match History" then select "Benchmark" instead of "All Matches". You should see results with a GTX 1080 and "67DF:C7" results which I presume is the RX 480.

For example we got
Crazy settings: 1440p, GTX1080
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...-details/a957db0f-59b3-4394-84cc-2ba0170ab699

Crazy settings 1440p, 67DF:C7
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...-details/ac88258f-4541-408e-8234-f9e96febe303

Seems to be pretty similar performance.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Does anyone else think that 36CU is an unusual number? Wondering the 480 is not a full Polaris 10.

 

[krumme]

199 usd. Half 1070 price. Thats some surprice i will say.

So much for Kyles rant about polaris positioned as 1070 competitor. Muhaha.

I hope gf can crank out a lot of this stuff because its in a pricebracket that really sells and this a wellcome perf upgrade at that level and excellent for 1080.

 

[flopper]

question to be answered how it OC on water.

 

[desprado]

They lied about competition not supporting async compute or shader intrinsics so them setting up an unfair comparison wouldn't really surprise me that much.

What i like about nvidia is that they never compare their new GPU with AMD GPUS or their old tech. They totally keep it simple on to the point. ATOS compression was way way off. Many websiting are saying why AMD needed to put different settings to compare it with GTX 1080.

 

[RussianSensation]

They lied about competition not supporting async compute or shader intrinsics so them setting up an unfair comparison wouldn't really surprise me that much.

I am sure they did....that's why Pascal has such awesome gains moving from DX11 to DX12 when using the graphics + compute paths simultaneously.

You should file a formal complaint to ID Software talking about Polaris having true hardware Async Compute and Custom Intrinsic (Shader) Constructions as key features NV current gen Pascal lacks:

https://youtu.be/ZwlQvjwYFEM?t=34m8s

Ignoring DX12 performance, NV has nothing worth buying in the $150-300 space the day RX 480 launches. Moving on now.

 

[renderstate]

I can't see what you posted but I am sure you can't prove a negative while it's pretty easy to prove a positive. Here we go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKkFqG77-x4

 

[SPBHM]

Does anyone else think that 36CU is an unusual number? Wondering the 480 is not a full Polaris 10.

36 CUs (and 256bit GDDR5) is the exact same amount as the PS4 Neo (which should also be Polaris based, but lower clocked)

 

[renderstate]

Oh I see, the new magical marketing term is "true compute". I am eagerly awaiting for NVIDIA to coin new terms such as true tessellation, true geometry shaders, true color compression, true stereo rendering, etc. or perhaps you stop spreading their FUD and simply acknowledge the evidence.