Actually.
5.8TFlops is according to that guy's review, matching a 390 with less TFlops.
If true, that's a regression. Not a good result.
It should at the very least match a 390X. Then we can say, they went for perf/w gains without performance regression.
However, I will wait for judgement til I see reviews from more reputable sites. Despite that I already pulled the trigger for 2x RX 480 cos it's the best bang for buck by a mile compared to what's available currently. lol
No. They didn't go for perf/watt gains without a performance regression. They went for performance gains AND performance/watt gains over R9 380/380X. It's the complete lack of understanding of what Polaris 10 replaces which has led to people thinking that a $199-229 card replaces AMD's $329/429 tiers. Tiers is the key word here What AMD 14nm cards will replace last generation $329-429 cards? $300-500 cards! It's common sense.
$329 970 -> $379-449 1070
$549 980 -> $599-699 1080
How is it you have no issues seeing NV replacements and price hikes but you incorrectly position AMD's next gen?
$199 R9 380 -> $199 R (10) = RX 480 4GB
$229 R9 380X -> $229 RX 480 8GB
The x80 name, the pricing tier, the 32 ROPs all add up.
You also know AMD confirmed Vega 10 and Vega 11. You are only setting yourself up for disappointment if you think RX 480 was a Hawaii 390X successor. This is the exact false comparison of HD5770 succeeding HD4890. It's wrong.
If you actually believe what you are saying, then Fury X successor would only match Fury X and use less than 200 watts and AMD would call it a generation. Face it, RX 480 is low-end/mainstream, not even mid-range segment, 3rd tier AMD product line in the new 14nm stack. Since I don't work for AMD, I am of course projecting that they will have 180-200W cards and also 250-275W flagship. If they don't have cards 40-60% faster than 390/390X and Fury/X, this entire generation is a fail for them.