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

[3DVagabond]

Which still makes the RX480 look better on paper. It has full async compute capabilities (no preemption band aid), a wider bus width, and it may even sport much better DX11/tessellation performance vs older GCN cards. On paper this card looks to be insane for the asking price, if overclocked to let's say 1200+Mhz it comes around the 6TFLOPS territory which is massive for a 200+$ card IMHO. I predict this card selling like hot cakes.

Interesting how this card is considered $200+ and it'd going to sell for $200. While the 1080 is considered $600 and sells for $700. Notice the difference in the shill spin between the two? I mean it's a $200 card and people are out saying, "Well my $450 card is faster." lol Like that's a revelation?!? Probably be 10% faster on release and 10% slower in less than a year. With parity being reached a few months after release. And again, It's a $200 card. :\

 

[96Firebird]

It's really not all that different from 28nm launch, where 7850s were around $200 and OCed to equal OC'ed GTX580. Definitely not the most ridiculous deal in gpu history, but certainly not a bad deal.

7850 launched at $250 and when OC'd could barely catch a stock 580, closer to a 570.

Notice the difference in the shill spin between the two?

I believe a shill would use FE pricing for the entire lineup, rather than the MSRP... :hmm:

http://www.evga.com/Products/Produc...ily=GeForce+10+Series+Family&chipset=GTX+1080

 

[coercitiv]

It seems very possible that - for instance - the efficiency gains are seen on lower clocked mobile chips, while clocking the SKU they were describing high enough meant that they blew the power up a bit more than you'd like.

They would have to lose the entire advantage brought by the new process. If they did that just to get to 1.3Ghz, they are done for this year.

 

[exar333]

One thing to keep in mind is that many of the benchmarks appear to be from NOT the $199 card, but rather (presumably) the 8GB version (maybe ~$239?).

Just food for thought...the slide from AMD said the setup was '<$500' NOT $400.

 

[sm625]

Also the cheaper p10 part hasn't been talked about yet. It will consume even less power and. Be even cheaper than 200. $150 for the cheaper model is huge for most gamers.

I havent heard of there being a "cheaper p10". From what I understand, what they showed at Computex is the "cheaper p10". It is a cut down die with 4CU disabled to get better yields. The only reason to launch an even more cut down SKU is if yields are really bad.

Is there a precedent for two levels of die binning similar to Athlon X2 and X3 that were both using the same die as a X4?

 

[Pheran]

I'm definitely eager to see the benchmarks on this thing, I'm curious if it will be competent at 1440p. Itching to get a GPU for my new rig, the old one has a 7870. Also concerned about VR performance as I want to get a Rift or Vive in 2017. I'd love to not pay for a 1070 if I don't have to.

 

[crisium]

I havent heard of there being a "cheaper p10". From what I understand, what they showed at Computex is the "cheaper p10". It is a cut down die with 4CU disabled to get better yields. The only reason to launch an even more cut down SKU is if yields are really bad.

I doubt this. Why would AMD not want to talk about the highest performing SKU?

We have also never seen any leaks showing a 2560SP part, but several showing 2304SP and 2048SP - likely full and cut right there.

There is absolutely no evidence of a 40CU P10. Hawaii was unusual with a 44CU full chip; Polaris 10 is unusual with a 36CU full chip.

 

[trane]

Is it at all possible that AMD had no intention of competing against 1070/1080 with Polaris10, but perhaps against what could be 1060/1060Ti GP106? Ya know, whenever that comes round?

They have been saying that for months. I think Polaris 10 was always planned to come first.

But I also think Vega was at some point Polaris 12. If you look at the January announcement, there are clear indications to Polaris coming with HBM and G5.

Some time between Jan and Mar, that changed, and Polaris 12 became Vega 10. Why? Delays in HBM2 for reasonable quantity and cost, probably. I think they probably planned to ship P12/V10 some time around October, a few months after P10. Well, some rumours suggest that's still on - maybe if HBM2 ships earlier than expected, it may yet happen.

One thing's for sure, Polaris and Vega are part of the same GCN 4 family. Navi will be something new though.

 

[Det0x]

If this gets anywhere near 980 performance, let alone 980ti, for $300 and 150w power consumption (have I rounded up all the rumors?) I'll buy one on launch day.

My wallet will be safe.

So when are you getting yours 480 ? :thumbsup:

 

[Hitman928]

I havent heard of there being a "cheaper p10". From what I understand, what they showed at Computex is the "cheaper p10". It is a cut down die with 4CU disabled to get better yields. The only reason to launch an even more cut down SKU is if yields are really bad.

Is there a precedent for two levels of die binning similar to Athlon X2 and X3 that were both using the same die as a X4?

Yes there has. The most recent from AMD was the Tahiti LE. It was a further cut down 7950 and marketed as different named 7870 cards (e.g. 7870 MYST edition). Nvidia has done a similar thing with lower tier cards getting a Ti suffix when it is a further cut down card from a higher tier.

 

[Midwayman]

As far as VR, to me it's 3DTVs all over again. It's cool, but it's very unlikely that enough people will spend the necessary coin to have a critical mass of people with the headsets to really justify enough developer time and energy spent on it.

Well if you have experienced VR you probably wouldn't be saying that. VR is far more compelling than 3d TV. Plus both MS and Sony seem to be committed to bringing VR to consoles. That right there is your critical mass.

 

[Coalscraper]

If you have a 1080p 60Hz monitor, you have 2 solid options. Get a cheap 480, use it for 1-1.5 years and upgrade in 2017 when real big flagships come out. Another option is to get a 1070 and keep it for 3 years. Most important for 1080p 60Hz gamers is to look at FPS not just % charts. At this resolution one card could be 50% faster but it could be 90 FPS vs. 60 FPS.

I just registered for that answer.
First of all I want to thank you RussianSensation for your brilliant posts. Whenever I see your name I can be sure that the post is worth reading.

As fas as I know a 1080p 60hz does not even need a 480, in this scenario a 470 could be even the better solution, why would you upgrade the GPU in 12-18 months to an ever better modell that could produce more fps which also can't be shown by the display? I assume that at that time you would get a 1440p or even 4k display, wouldn't you?

 

[Bacon1]

7850 launched at $250 and when OC'd could barely catch a stock 580, closer to a 570.



I believe a shill would use FE pricing for the entire lineup, rather than the MSRP... :hmm:

http://www.evga.com/Products/Produc...ily=GeForce+10+Series+Family&chipset=GTX+1080

And none of them are available for purchase... Let me know when reviewers have them and they are available to be bought. Right now its a paper launch of MSRP @ 600.

 

[tential]

I just registered for that answer.
First of all I want to thank you RussianSensation for your brilliant posts. Whenever I see your name I can be sure that the post is worth reading.

As fas as I know a 1080p 60hz does not even need a 480, in this scenario a 470 could be even the better solution, why would you upgrade the GPU in 12-18 months to an ever better modell that could produce more fps which also can't be shown by the display? I assume that at that time you would get a 1440p or even 4k display, wouldn't you?

Please don't hurt vsrs feelings.

Even if you bought 2 vega high-end gpus at 1080p,uoi could use vsr to render everything in 4k.

It's hard to talk monitor purchases down the line because of the whole hdr thing/refresh rate thing, especially at 4k

 

[96Firebird]

And none of them are available for purchase... Let me know when reviewers have them and they are available to be bought. Right now its a paper launch of MSRP @ 600.

480s aren't available for sale either (let alone listed for sale), can I just make up a price for all the of them too?

Reviews are out there for custom 1080 cards...

I'm not sure if people really think 1080 cards won't sell at $600, or if it is the last straw they need to hold on to before they have nothing left... :\

 

[Qwertilot]

They would have to lose the entire advantage brought by the new process. If they did that just to get to 1.3Ghz, they are done for this year.

Eh, its still well ahead of the 290/x in efficiency

It isn't impossible that the process/design combo is behaving like that though. You've got a process that's only really been used so far on quite low TDP processors, and a GPU design that is probably optimised at heart for mobile/console etc operation.

So it might well have blown up a bit when they pushed the clocks. Like I said its OK here, and they've probably got quite a while to try and work round it before vega.

It would definitely be a bit odd if the 150w was hugely wrong - why ever would they have put it there if it was?

Maybe slightly odd that they didn't mention anything about the mobile versions of these chips - or even the tiny version of this - where you'd presumably see the maximum efficiency. We'll find out

 

[sze5003]

I just registered for that answer.
First of all I want to thank you RussianSensation for your brilliant posts. Whenever I see your name I can be sure that the post is worth reading.

As fas as I know a 1080p 60hz does not even need a 480, in this scenario a 470 could be even the better solution, why would you upgrade the GPU in 12-18 months to an ever better modell that could produce more fps which also can't be shown by the display? I assume that at that time you would get a 1440p or even 4k display, wouldn't you?

I think that was probably the idea that one would upgrade the monitor as well. Maybe with a 470 you could max all settings at 1080p but that's what I've gotten used to doing now.

 

[coercitiv]

Eh, its still well ahead of the 290/x in efficiency

Oh, is that what Nvidia is selling?

 

[AtenRa]

Oh, is that what Nvidia is selling?

Well as of now NV sells GTX 970 from $259 and GTX 980 from $399

prices as of today at newegg

Would anyone in the know would really buy the GTX970 or 980 after the RX480 $199-235 and $379-400 GTX1070 ???

ehm, R9 390 still from $299 with Total War : Warhammer free game.

 

[Stuka87]

I just registered for that answer.
First of all I want to thank you RussianSensation for your brilliant posts. Whenever I see your name I can be sure that the post is worth reading.

As fas as I know a 1080p 60hz does not even need a 480, in this scenario a 470 could be even the better solution, why would you upgrade the GPU in 12-18 months to an ever better modell that could produce more fps which also can't be shown by the display? I assume that at that time you would get a 1440p or even 4k display, wouldn't you?

Many of us have 144Hz displays. I have a 1080P display, but it supports 144Hz refresh rates. And things certainly look smoother at higher frame rates.

 

[psolord]

All that 470/480 naming, reminds me too much of Fermi man.

Let's hope Amd will do good. It's been four years since I had Amd cards on my primary rig.

On the other hand, this Rx 480 card, looks a lot like the good ol' 5850, which is sweet.

 

[Armsdealer]

If these things can overclock 15-25% they will go from being great cards for the money to probably the most ridiculous deal in gpu history.

That would put then within spitting distance of a stock 1070 wouldn't it?

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Yeah, I'm thinking this might be the best deal since geforce 2 mx if it overclocks well. Haha anyone remember that?

In all seriousness though you would probably want g5x on the variants that people intend to oc

 

[Sonikku]

All that 470/480 naming, reminds me too much of Fermi man.

Let's hope Amd will do good. It's been four years since I had Amd cards on my primary rig.

On the other hand, this Rx 480 card, looks a lot like the good ol' 5850, which is sweet.

Just one more month.

Hold together, HD 7770... Hear be baby, hold together!!

 

[RussianSensation]

One thing to keep in mind is that many of the benchmarks appear to be from NOT the $199 card, but rather (presumably) the 8GB version (maybe ~$239?).

Just food for thought...the slide from AMD said the setup was '<$500' NOT $400.

That's fine. Even if RX 480 8GB costs $249, the cheapest 1070 is $379. That means GTX1070 would need to beat RX480 by 52%* at 1080p to even be as good of a value for mainstream/performance PC gamers who value price/performance and have a stricter budget than higher end gamers do. That's only one part of it, but the fact that 84-85% of PC gamers don't purchase GPUs above $349 automatically eliminates GTX1070 from being compared to an RX 480 for 1080p 60Hz gaming in the real world outside of geek forums such as ours. PC gamers with $100-150 monitors using 'peasant' resolution don't go into a store and say to themselves hmmm...there is this card that's great for 1080p 60Hz for $199-249 but this other card is $379-449 maybe I should get that instead. Not happening, which is why GTX750/750Ti/950/960 sold so much.

The fun just got better for NV. Even the "budget" RX 480 seems to have a superior PCB+VRM construction in a small form factor too vs. the $699 GTX1080 "premium" design, which uses 5+1.

"The pictures reveal a very compact reference [RX 480] PCB, which draws power from just a single 6-pin PCIe power connector, and which uses a 5+2 phase VRM to power the card."

FE 1070 only has 4+1 power design. It's no wonder AMD cards can withstand years and years of 24/7 100% operation mining. I just find it amazing how AMD was able to deliver a more premium PCB+power design on a $199 card but NV charged $70-100 extra for what looks to be a budget VRM/PCB design; but man they got that aluminum heatsink with GeForce GTX green logo that shines. Well worth the $70-100 premium. ()

BTW, for OEMs and pre-builts (you know the Dells, the HPs of the world who use junk cases with blowers), that you know LOVE garbage blowers, the comparison in the real world in many cases will be $199-249 RX 480 blower against $449 GTX1070 blower. This OEM market is a key battleground where AMD lost market share and GTX1070 will miss the market by a country mile.

So when are you getting yours 480 ? :thumbsup:

I guess he never expected a $199 card with ~ R9 390X level of performance at 150W TPD from AMD. Better have pictures ready with his username as proof.

RX 480 = 1266mhz x 2304 shaders = 5.833 TFlops
R9 390X = 1050mhz x 2816 shaders = 5.914 Tflops

Polaris 10 should have greater IPC per shader/clock. This card should come in between R9 390X and Fury performance, which is actually faster than the 980 at 1440p.

The we have DX12 games where 980 bombs against R9 390X. Someone buying a card this June isn't only going to care about DX11 games, especially if the rumours of Battlefield 1 using DX12 are true.

*The issue here is that even if it ends up 40-50% faster, if a gamer is satisfied with 60 fps average, the extra performance won't show up on the 1080p 60Hz monitor and their lower end i3/i5/FX8000 CPUs (most reviewers use highly overclocked Haswell-E/SKylake i7 6700K or similar setups which removes the CPU bottlenecks most mainstream/performance PC gamers would actually experience). This point shouldn't be ignored since chances are that the types of gamers who are the target market for $200-250 graphics cards this year are unlikely to have anything faster than an i5 6500.

I just registered for that answer.
First of all I want to thank you RussianSensation for your brilliant posts. Whenever I see your name I can be sure that the post is worth reading.

Thank you Coalscraper! Welcome to the forums.

As fas as I know a 1080p 60hz does not even need a 480, in this scenario a 470 could be even the better solution, why would you upgrade the GPU in 12-18 months to an ever better modell that could produce more fps which also can't be shown by the display? I assume that at that time you would get a 1440p or even 4k display, wouldn't you?

Ya, the poster who was contemplating 1070 vs. 480 was also considering upgrading a monitor to 1440p down the line. This is why I suggested that he could potentially just sell his 7970 and buy a stop-gap RX 480 for as long as he does have the 1080p 60Hz monitor.

A lot of people underestimate how fast R9 390X/980 level of perfomrance really is for 1080p 60Hz monitor even in modern games. Overclockers.ru has a nice chart summarizing average achieved FPS in their 1080 review:
https://www.overclockers.ru/lab/762...ie-videokarty-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080.html#27

That's why for me personally a GTX1070/1080 level graphics card is more suitable for 1080p 120-144Hz, 1440p 60-144Hz, 3440x1440, 4K, multi-monitor 1080p, etc. As you said, if a $199-249 card provides great performance for 1080p 60Hz gaming, why spend the extra $150 on a much more expensive card? That's why I want to see real world gaming tests of RX 480 vs. 1080 and see where the actual FPS lands. Then we can at least calculate the actual average FPS 1070 gets vs. RX 480 at this resolution.

At the end of the day, if someone plays Overwatch or some of the most popular games on Steam, GTX1070 and RX480 could both be overkill for 1080p 60Hz gaming. For some of those games, even an i3 + GTX750Ti/950 is enough.

 

[exar333]

That's fine. Even if RX 480 8GB costs $249, the cheapest 1070 is $379. That means GTX1070 would need to beat RX480 by 52%* at 1080p to even be as good of a value for mainstream/performance PC gamers who value price/performance and have a stricter budget than higher end gamers do. That's only one part of it, but the fact that 84-85% of PC gamers don't purchase GPUs above $349 automatically eliminates GTX1070 from being compared to an RX 480 for 1080p 60Hz gaming in the real world outside of geek forums such as ours. PC gamers with $100-150 monitors using 'peasant' resolution don't go into a store and say to themselves hmmm...there is this card that's great for 1080p 60Hz for $199-249 but this other card is $379-449 maybe I should get that instead. Not happening, which is why GTX750/750Ti/950/960 sold so much.

<snip>

At the end of the day, if someone plays Overwatch or some of the most popular games on Steam, GTX1070 and RX480 could both be overkill for 1080p 60Hz gaming. For some of those games, even an i3 + GTX750Ti/950 is enough.

Yeah, just pointing out the $199 price is 4GB wasn't as represented in the slides (although it was difficult to distinguish the details a bit, honestly) compared to the 8GB in listed benchmarks. Great cards, and I would definitely recommend the 8GB if it is only $30 or so more. Probably get that back in resale and give you a little extra memory to work with and be more ideal if CF is viable.

I will go out on a limb and say the RX480 could be the best 1080P card we have seen since the 8800GT. Great price and performance; not the absolute fastest, but will work for the masses and is efficient. Not the best at anything (other than price) but great at everything else.