Could it be that AMD has been less critical with their binning to ensure sufficient supply for launch, thus leading to the numbers being all over the place?
Silicon lottery is real, reviews are all over the place. Its no wonder we saw so many conflicting leaks. For AMD's sake I hope AIB are better. At this point, I would probably take the 470 for 1080p and save the cash since the 480 seems stretched too thin especially over 1080p. 470 will probably be the real value of the Polaris generation.
A good replacement for the low-end GTX950/960/R9 270/270X/R9 380 tier but in itself is a potentially massive warning flag for Vega 10 and 11 given the massive gap in perf/watt go NV's highly efficient GTX1070/1080 cards.
Looks like Vega going to be another 300W monster
Perfect replacement for my R9 290
indeed. The only selling point is price. Everything else is basically fucked up.
The only way AMD stands any change this iteration of gpu's if the 480 would consume ~100-110W.
They missed that milestone by 50%.
460/470/480 are basically screwed if nvidia lower the price of 970/980 or launches 1060 and can deliver.
1070 is certainly a great bang for the buck as well from what it seems. But it will still be slower than 480s in crossfire.
I believe AMD should just stick to designing APUs for now, 1070 is way faster and consumes less power.Extremely disappointing debut for polaris, it's only saving grace is the price.
PS:
Kyle was right after all
So you expect a card that reaches 390x perf and uses 250w to use 100-110w? Thats pretty optimistic imho.
See how it's possible to be realistically negative/disappointed by this architecture without going off the deep end? Jeezy Petes, you guys...
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/12/
Undervolting can help.
30 Watts less (total system) and it's 5% faster at the default PW
That's still going to be a solid upgrade from a 7970. This happens every AMD release lately - the usual suspects and AMD's marketing hype releases to hell and back and then when crazy expectations are inevitably missed everyone gets sad.
It's a miss for sure at these numbers but it's still priced well for what it is and the 1080p performance is in between a 390 and 390X (which is what [H] etc are saying, and why they gave it an award). 1440p and upwards gets ugly though.
AMD vs Nvidia
2016 vs 2014
14nm vs 28nm
232 vs 398 mm2
1266mhz vs ~1200mhz
160W vs 160Whttp://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/25.html
They've basically reached gtx 970 perf/w while using a lower process. This is bad when going up. Could this be the reason why they are calling/pushing for vega as a "different" architecture?
Could it be that AMD has been less critical with their binning to ensure sufficient supply for launch, thus leading to the numbers being all over the place?
That have been pretty aparent for weeks. Thats bad its confirmed but it would have been a huge surprice if reference cards were actually good. Good or bad the card looks like its at top of voltage. Or one can hope for amd because then they can tailor it for mobile.if you guys plan on overclocking. Stay the hell away from the reference single 6-pin design. You basically have 0 headroom. Looks like the RX480 needs atleast a 6 & 8 pin to even have a chance of overclocking.
So you expect a card that reaches 390x perf and uses 250w to use 100-110w? Thats pretty optimistic imho.
Good luck gaming new dx12 games on that 970. But i guess 30% performance deficit is not important but 25w on desktop is.
The GloFo wafer deal strikes again. You know if they had been able to use TSMC how much better this chip would have been. They are already up against it, but are forced to compete with one arm tied behind their backs.
*waits for RS to tell me how wrong I am to suggest that again with another wall of text*
Oh common guys we all know once the rx480 gets overclocked it will reach gtx1070 performance and even edge it on newer games...����
it really isn't.. expecting better efficiency than 28nm gpu in the same performance ballpark is the least one can expect.
In this case average performance is lower than 980 AND consuming more power than a 980.
It just means polaris doesn't scale at all. They already need more power then chips being 50% faster!
What does that tell you in relation to AMD competitivity?
Nvidia can easily compete with a much smaller chip, that is faster and consumes less energy in doing all that.
I wouldn't say nothing has changed, because we don't know how Vega will do but my guess is that AMD didn't decrease the efficiency difference between nvidia. hence i think it became worse.
If there is plenty supply its a huge win. It doesnt look there is plenty wafers for nv. Actually it looks opposite.The GloFo wafer deal strikes again. You know if they had been able to use TSMC how much better this chip would have been. They are already up against it, but are forced to compete with one arm tied behind their backs.
*waits for RS to tell me how wrong I am to suggest that again with another wall of text*