It's a 30% OC not a 10% OC according to the chart.
Just wanted to quickly clarify for anyone following. It looks too good to be true, but if it is, I will fight you in store if you get in my way for one, especially if it's good at mining.
If that's real then we could easily see factory OC cards matching the 1070. It's only about a 10% overclock.
Think its plausible that there will an extra special SKU wrangling closeish to a stock 1070. Often see the absolute top AID cards a tier down getting close to the stock cards a tier up.
(Especially at lower resolutions where there's no bandwidth.).
Stuff like die picking, extra special coolers etc. AMD/their AIBs have got real motivation to do it to try and compete.
Won't be especially cheap though, and the power efficiency might well be horrid.
It's a 30% OC not a 10% OC according to the chart.
Just wanted to quickly clarify for anyone following. It looks too good to be true, but if it is, I will fight you in store if you get in my way for one, especially if it's good at mining.
Too improbable to be true. Thats about a 30% OC. If the 480 had that much headroom, AMD wouldnt waste it untapped. They know the majority of buyers dont OC and reviews mainly go by the stock clocks with OC'ing a small section in the back of the review.
They have to appeal to the majority who dont OC, and stock clocks performance in most benchmark charts will show just that. If they left just 10% OC overhead and made it about equal to Fury performance, the card imo would be a far bigger potential sales hit.
only missing now are the benches from custom AIBs running OC at 2.4GHz
I'm pretty sure this OC was reached without added voltage, as shown in the link. If the 1080 is capable of reaching 2.3GHz with added voltage, there should be no reason why the Founders Edition cooler can't handle it either.
The OC is done on a regular reference card. Nothing fancy it seems.
Someone on chiphell benched 1080 at 2.5ghz on air and says these are the scores, and also it is 46% faster than a 980Ti @ 1500/8000.
Obviously a 10% oc can't bring 30% improvement.
1400 / 1080 = 1.296.
Depend if you believe 1080 or 1266 is the final clock speed and if voltage is adjustable at this stage, etc.
When we talk specifically pricing, this is already game over in my eyes. The 480 is at $200....
This isn't the 1080 thread, and this isn't criticism against the 1080 or me taking a jab at the 1080. I'm just trying to say is that we should probably try to hold the hype train, as it looks like it's going full speed. We were in a similar situation just a few weeks ago, with people saying how "easily" the 1080 should overclock. We haven't even seen if these rx480 cards cards even outperform the 980, and we're already talking about getting 1070 performance from OCing the cards.
This is how disappointment from AMD cards is born. People start expecting miracles from 200-230$ cards, when AMD have been talking about 390/970 performance forever.
Price is the best indicator. AMD want to make money, if it's as fast as a 1070 it wouldn't be selling for $200.
Price is the best indicator. AMD want to make money, if it's as fast as a 1070 it wouldn't be selling for $200.
I own a Vive. The hardware is remarkably good and imho the tracking needs no improvement whatsoever. The resolution desperately needs to go up, and the biggest bottleneck there is actually computer hardware (gpu / cpu) , not small 4k screens being unavailable / too expensive. Wouldn't mind getting rid of the wires, but it's not critical for me.
Motion sickness only occurs when the framerates drop or if you do something that would induce it in real life (eg I felt sick flipping over my f1 car a few times in pcars). Afaik from scouring vive reddit, almost nobody is running pcars at 90minfps with good settings. Based on what I've seen from RS, my conclusion was that it's a cpu issue.
But AMD would sell a 1070 killer for $300.
Can you guys stop this? You have no idea how many factors goes into a products cost.
What if AMD wanted to win back mindshare for a generation? Maybe they want to price well below its actual value to get to 75% of the market before they ramp up prices? Its VERY ignorant to be like "well AMD wouldn't price X for Y performance no way no how." You are so uninformed about their actual high level pricing strategy that comments like these only serve as mindless banter in tech forums.
Remember how Google charged way less for its Nexus line of phones despite the high end internals? They wanted to get market traction so they priced it with a low margin.
Companies do this all the time to gain marketshare/mindshare to set up future products for more widespread adoption.
So please stop with the if it was faster it would be more expensive line up fallacies.
I agree in general with this post but the bolded part is strange.Can you guys stop this? You have no idea how many factors goes into a products cost.
What if AMD wanted to win back mindshare for a generation? Maybe they want to price well below its actual value to get to 75% of the market before they ramp up prices? Its VERY ignorant to be like "well AMD wouldn't price X for Y performance no way no how." You are so uninformed about their actual high level pricing strategy that comments like these only serve as mindless banter in tech forums.
Remember how Google charged way less for its Nexus line of phones despite the high end internals? They wanted to get market traction so they priced it with a low margin.
Companies do this all the time to gain marketshare/mindshare to set up future products for more widespread adoption.
So please stop with the if it was faster it would be more expensive line up fallacies.
Can you guys stop this? You have no idea how many factors goes into a products cost.
What if AMD wanted to win back mindshare for a generation? Maybe they want to price well below its actual value to get to 75% of the market before they ramp up prices? Its VERY ignorant to be like "well AMD wouldn't price X for Y performance no way no how." You are so uninformed about their actual high level pricing strategy that comments like these only serve as mindless banter in tech forums.
Remember how Google charged way less for its Nexus line of phones despite the high end internals? They wanted to get market traction so they priced it with a low margin.
Companies do this all the time to gain marketshare/mindshare to set up future products for more widespread adoption.
So please stop with the if it was faster it would be more expensive line up fallacies.
Can you guys stop this? You have no idea how many factors goes into a products cost.
What if AMD wanted to win back mindshare for a generation? Maybe they want to price well below its actual value to get to 75% of the market before they ramp up prices? Its VERY ignorant to be like "well AMD wouldn't price X for Y performance no way no how." You are so uninformed about their actual high level pricing strategy that comments like these only serve as mindless banter in tech forums.
Remember how Google charged way less for its Nexus line of phones despite the high end internals? They wanted to get market traction so they priced it with a low margin.
Companies do this all the time to gain marketshare/mindshare to set up future products for more widespread adoption.
So please stop with the if it was faster it would be more expensive line up fallacies.
I don't understand why some look at this from the AMD undercharging perspective and not Nvidia overcharging perspective. Not that long ago these types of leaps in price/performance used to be expected from a die shrink.