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

[AnandThenMan]

If I didn't know better I'd swear people are purposely over-hyping Polaris. Saying it will be almost as fast as the 1070 is ridiculous the Nvidia card is twice the price. If this happened it would make the 1070 an epic failure and the card is not it's an excellent piece of hardware.

 

[.vodka]

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.

Exactly.

Plus, the 4850 and 4870 did undercut GTX 260 and 280 by a significant margin.

Early GCN cards like 79xx and 78xx had 30-50% OC headroom depending on the model, these were clocked at their perf/w sweet spot.


Anything is possible, there is precedent for any of these two to happen this round. GCN scales nicely with clockspeed in spite of power consumption getting out of hand pretty quickly on 28nm, 14nm resets that, moves the clock speed bar higher in both stock and OC'd speeds PLUS the GCN3/4 improvements AMD has on top of Hawaii/390/390x.

There's a mix of stuff here that could lead to a card that punches way above its weight more than it already does at $200, despite knowing it has less hardware at hand, but more efficiently utilized vs 28nm GCN chips.

Don't over hype. You will ALWAYS be let down. I'm not expecting more than GTX980/390X @ $200. That's already a pretty awesome deal.

So am I. Anything over that is a nice bonus.

 

[linkgoron]

If I didn't know better I'd swear people are purposely over-hyping Polaris. Saying it will be almost as fast as the 1070 is ridiculous the Nvidia card is twice the price. If this happened it would make the 1070 an epic failure and the card is not it's an excellent piece of hardware.

I had similar thoughts a few hours ago, that the "leaks" are created by nvidia PR to create dissapointment when we actually get real results.

 

[zinfamous]

I believe nothing yet. I still expect the worse, 2304SP is the full chip and it trades blows with the 390X.

If stock RX 480 beats Fury in the overall TPU, Sweclockers, and Computerbase averages I'll eat something.

come on now, you were going to do that anyway.

 

[tential]

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.

Why do you have to look at it from one perspective?
I see it that AMD is undercharging AND that Nvidia is overcharging.
Therefore, currently the better deal is AMD because they HAVE to undercharge to do anything. Nvidia can overcharge because they're the market leader.

Nvidia can actually do a lot more things to benefit them financially because they're the market leader, and that's why I go with the nonmarket leader.

It's just like why I prefer the Hyundai Genesis to the E500 Mercedes. They're trying to enter the luxury market, they're the underdog, so they have to charge a TON less for what is close to the same product (I'll always love Mercedes design more but I'm already extremely biased.)

If the competition is close enough in performance, I will always pay significantly less.

Just like why I am only buying IMPORT monitors now (Also because they're the only ones making monitors above 50 inches with freesync).

If you can get more for less why not? Or 90% of a product for 40% fo the cost why not? Competition is good, I love it, it drives the price of things towards equilibrium.

Once you start letting the marketing machines control your actions, we don't move towards competition. We move towards monopolies.

It's not like I don't like Nvidia....
-I think Gsync is great on the monitors it works on. It's just, I don't need Gsyncs strict standard. I need it at 4K. I need it at 4K big. And Nvidia doesn't have any incentive to do what I want because they're the market leader so they can keep gsync strict because it's an upsell for them.
-I think Nvidia flagships are amazing, hello, I bragged about the 980Ti being the fastest card all the time. I had to stop myself numerous times from buying the MSI 980Ti because I know it doesn't work with my setup. It would have been a wasteful "I want it to have it" purchase. The 980Ti OC'd is still a fast card. Most reviews don't show the 980Ti at it's full potential, while showing the Fury X at close to the limit without massive power usage/heat. It's why I say USE AIB cards in reviews. Because the 980Ti is shown where it should be, and the Fury X gains nothing. Few enthusiasts care about reference results after AIB cards are out.
-Nvidia clearly knows how to market and make the right card. Why did the Fiji series not have HDMI 2.0? Seriously? That's a joke. The power usage still couldn't be matched, and that is something that's annoying
-I shouldn't have to mine to make my card worthwhile. Mining isn't something that's simple to setup for everyone. Maybe some enthusiasts here dabble in it, but it's not even a large percentage of ENTHUSIASTS who would take the time to set it up. Not to mention the best drives for it aren't the current ones.
-Nvidia cards get first support and you can find info/benches. It's so annoying trying to find things about my card online when the ratio of gtx 970 to r9 290 users is astronomical.
etc. etc. etc.


But Nvidia is the market leader, so they have no incentive to impress me when their marketing department is literally one of the most amazing things I've seen at work. They use that a lot to make people want to pay more. No thanks. If you want to, props to you if it's something you care about. I just can't be bothered to spend more than I need to on gaming.

 

[Mopetar]

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.

There are some scenarios where the math comes close where the "OC" part is a full die 40+ CU part with less of an OC. 44 CU @ 1366 is ~30% gain over 36 CU @ 1200 for example. The only other way it works out is if you can overclock from 1266 MHz to ~1650 MHz, which seems unlikely for a 6-pin card. Otherwise you have to assume that it only draws 115W at 1266 MHz and that it's capable scaling linearly up to 1650 MHz. Realistically it would probably need to be drawing closer to 105W @ 1266 MHz in order to clock 30% higher while staying within its TDP.

I can see AMD selling a ~$300 part that's similar in performance to a 1070, simply based on the argument that when the 1070 price was announced a lot of people thought it should be closer to $300 than $400 like it was.

If it's a case of getting that performance from a 30% OC though it's a question of how reasonable it is to expect that amount from an arbitrary 480 and whether its sustainable. We've already seen that you can set Pascal's clocks to some pretty insane speeds, but that it has to throttle after ~20 minutes because it runs to hot with the FE cooler.

Of course, all this does assume the numbers posted are true. I'd like to see a few more leaks from other sources to get a feel for the legitimacy of these numbers.

 

[tential]

There are some scenarios where the math comes close where the "OC" part is a full die 40+ CU part with less of an OC. 44 CU @ 1400 is ~35% gain over 36 CU @ 1200 for example. The only other way it works out is if you can overclock from 1266 MHz to ~1650 MHz, which seems unlikely for a 6-pin card. Otherwise you have to assume that it only draws 115W at 1266 MHz and that it's capable scaling linearly up to 1650 MHz. Realistically it would probably need to be drawing closer to 105W @ 1266 MHz in order to clock 30% higher while staying within its TDP.

I can see AMD selling a ~$300 part that's similar in performance to a 1070, simply based on the argument that when the 1070 price was announced a lot of people thought it should be closer to $300 than $400 like it was.

If it's a case of getting that performance from a 30% OC though it's a question of how reasonable it is to expect that amount from an arbitrary 480 and whether its sustainable. We've already seen that you can set Pascal's clocks to some pretty insane speeds, but that it has to throttle after ~20 minutes because it runs to hot with the FE cooler.

Of course, all this does assume the numbers posted are true. I'd like to see a few more leaks from other sources to get a feel for the legitimacy of these numbers.

Nvidia is attempting to drive their prices up another $50 at each price point. ON TOP of that, they charged an extra $100 to get the card early.
That's an amazing business move at the high end.

AMD though is going for as many cards sold ASAP. They want to increase their userbase/mindshare. When I read the PC Performance threads on Neogaf, everyone has Nvidia cards. That's a massive problem and AMD is trying to fix that it's CLEARY with the RX 480. I expect this pricing strategy to hold. Especially since we're expecting AMD is using smaller dies than Nvidia correct? In that case, I believe AMD is going to continue the current pricing scheme, with the R9 390 at $300, they will simply use the R9 490 at $300. It's an aggressive price and goes into the strategy of getting more total user install base. I've NEVER met a person actually in real life who has an AMD card now that I think of it other than the person I bought my card from. And that person went and got an Nvidia card right after. It's clear AMD wants marketshare right now.

Now I hear this "That's stupid AMD needs to make money they're losing money like crazy haha you're idea is stupid."
Look, there are no safe plays in business. There is a risk to reward ratio. You have to take more risk to gain more reward. AMD loses money in the short term, but is able to drive up their prices in later generations in the long term.

AMD needs to give people a reason to actually WANT and OWN their products again.

I don't expect Nvidia will hold their aggressive pricing forever. They will milk as much of the demand curve as possible and utilize their marketeing machine to do what it does.

It's an aggressive pricing strategy vs an amazing marketeing strategey that is able to drive record revenues by tarageting a larger amount of the demandcurve than amd could ever hope to accomplish right now.

 

[Zstream]

If I didn't know better I'd swear people are purposely over-hyping Polaris. Saying it will be almost as fast as the 1070 is ridiculous the Nvidia card is twice the price. If this happened it would make the 1070 an epic failure and the card is not it's an excellent piece of hardware.

I was under the impression that everyone was talking about the $300 card, and not the $200. While the $300 card will be nipping at the heel of the 1070.

 

[tential]

I was under the impression that everyone was talking about the $300 card, and not the $200. While the $300 card will be nipping at the heel of the 1070.

No one knows since AMD is so vague....

 

[renderstate]

I had similar thoughts a few hours ago, that the "leaks" are created by nvidia PR to create dissapointment when we actually get real results.

Of course. Perhaps that tinfoil hat is a bit too tight..

 

[Mopetar]

Nvidia is attempting to drive their prices up another $50 at each price point. ON TOP of that, they charged an extra $100 to get the card early.
That's an amazing business move at the high end.

It makes sense for the 1080, but not the 1070. If AMD comes close (>5%) at $300, the 1070 doesn't look good at $380 even if you're buying it for a specific title that runs better on NV hardware. I think that over time the 1070 will drift down towards $330, which is in line with your $50 price difference figure.

The Founder's Edition pricing makes sense no matter what they set MSRP at though because they knew they wouldn't have sufficient supply for at least a month, so if they sold at MSRP you'd just end up with a lot of cards being resold on eBay. Having the FE pricing kind of limits that behavior, especially for the 1070 as people "know" where the eventual price should settle and won't go above the FE price because the early adopter tax has already been set.

Of course. Perhaps that tinfoil hat is a bit too tight..

Indeed. Nvidia need not bother when AMD fans have been shown to lather themselves up into a fantastical frenzy all by themselves.

 

[Mopetar]

I was under the impression that everyone was talking about the $300 card, and not the $200. While the $300 card will be nipping at the heel of the 1070.

Assuming some of the leaked benches for the 480 are real, it's reasonable to expect that the $300 card should come within 5% of the 1070.

I assume the $300 card is the 480X that has 40 CUs and a 1400 MHz clock speed, which is a ~23% bump over a 36 CU @ 1266 MHz part. Assuming that it only comes with 8 GB (and the 8 GB 480 is $230) that amounts to a 23% performance bump for ~30% more cost, which appears reasonable.

The real question though is how much OC room that $300 part will have. With a 6-pin connector, that card is going to hit its limits much faster than a 1070. I wonder if we'll eventually see third party cards with 8-pin (or 2x 6-pin) that allow for much higher clocks.

 

[Zstream]

Assuming some of the leaked benches for the 480 are real, it's reasonable to expect that the $300 card should come within 5% of the 1070.

I assume the $300 card is the 480X that has 40 CUs and a 1400 MHz clock speed, which is a ~23% bump over a 36 CU @ 1266 MHz part. Assuming that it only comes with 8 GB (and the 8 GB 480 is $230) that amounts to a 23% performance bump for ~30% more cost, which appears reasonable.

The real question though is how much OC room that $300 part will have. With a 6-pin connector, that card is going to hit its limits much faster than a 1070. I wonder if we'll eventually see third party cards with 8-pin (or 2x 6-pin) that allow for much higher clocks.

Makes sense. I just don't have any reason to OC as I'm at 1080p, and can't see any game in the next three years stopping me from playing at that resolution.

The division, SWG, Total Warhammer etc.. all play fine. I just want to add a ton of AA and add extra quality to shadows and what not.

 

[Riek]

Assuming some of the leaked benches for the 480 are real, it's reasonable to expect that the $300 card should come within 5% of the 1070.

I assume the $300 card is the 480X that has 40 CUs and a 1400 MHz clock speed, which is a ~23% bump over a 36 CU @ 1266 MHz part. Assuming that it only comes with 8 GB (and the 8 GB 480 is $230) that amounts to a 23% performance bump for ~30% more cost, which appears reasonable.

The real question though is how much OC room that $300 part will have. With a 6-pin connector, that card is going to hit its limits much faster than a 1070. I wonder if we'll eventually see third party cards with 8-pin (or 2x 6-pin) that allow for much higher clocks.

The part you describe would be about 10% faster than 1070 if we go by the 'leaks'.

I don't believe it though. We have seen leaks of a 1266MHz polaris barely above 980 and we have seen 1080MHz polaris barely above 980. Thats a difference of 17% in the 'leak' fluctuation.

So what could be 1070 performance after oc (1400MHz) could easily be 10% under 980ti (stock)

 

[tential]

It makes sense for the 1080, but not the 1070. If AMD comes close (>5%) at $300, the 1070 doesn't look good at $380 even if you're buying it for a specific title that runs better on NV hardware. I think that over time the 1070 will drift down towards $330, which is in line with your $50 price difference figure.

The Founder's Edition pricing makes sense no matter what they set MSRP at though because they knew they wouldn't have sufficient supply for at least a month, so if they sold at MSRP you'd just end up with a lot of cards being resold on eBay. Having the FE pricing kind of limits that behavior, especially for the 1070 as people "know" where the eventual price should settle and won't go above the FE price because the early adopter tax has already been set.



Indeed. Nvidia need not bother when AMD fans have been shown to lather themselves up into a fantastical frenzy all by themselves.

I'm sorry I thought it's clear when I say this

they will milk as much of the demand curve as possible

that's what I mean. They started at $450, with an already pledged pricedrop to $380... They started at a high price so they can milk as much of the demand curve as possible.

How do you top the GTX 970 sales monster that captured the <$380 market?

Release the new card at <$450 and allow it to have even more room to drop. You get to capture more of the demand curve.

 

[linkgoron]

Of course. Perhaps that tinfoil hat is a bit too tight..

LOL, I don't actually believe it, it was just a random thought. however it's quite clear that the hype train is real.

 

[Mopetar]

The part you describe would be about 10% faster than 1070 if we go by the 'leaks'.

That's why I'm only comparing the performance relative to itself. The $300 part I've proposed could be 10% better or it could be 15% worse relative to the 1070, but it doesn't matter because most prospective buyers will start at the $230 card and ask themselves if they want to upgrade to the $300 card.

Regardless of how AMD gets that >20% performance (some have suggested that full Polaris 10 is a 44 CU unit, which means it would be ~22% better at the same clocks) it generally needs to be around that point in order to justify the 30% cost increase.

We don't need to care about the 1070 at all in order to discuss what the 480X should look like based on what we know about the 480.

 

[Yakk]

If I didn't know better I'd swear people are purposely over-hyping Polaris. Saying it will be almost as fast as the 1070 is ridiculous the Nvidia card is twice the price. If this happened it would make the 1070 an epic failure and the card is not it's an excellent piece of hardware.

Counter marketing? Oh perish the thought...

 

[BlitzWulf]

New Xbox Project Scorpio 6 tflops....Polaris?

 

[Sweepr]

Edit: not allowed to talk about Scorpio's GPU.

 

[kraatus77]

good times ahead for AMD.

 

[crisium]

GDDR5X Polaris confirmed for Scorpio then?

 

[Sweepr]

New models.

AMD Announces 470 and 460 along with 480 launching June 29th

The products include the Radeon RX 480 graphics card, which can run virtual reality on a PC for prices starting at $200 for a four-gigabyte version. AMD is also showing the Radeon RX 470 and the Radeon RX 460 cards. They go on sale on June 29.

The performance will also be the equivalent of &#8220;console class&#8221; performance, meaning that many games that currently run on the PlayStation 4 or Xbox One could theoretically run on these chips on the PC, if someone ported them over. The PCs using these chips would have low power and compact form factors. AMD said it could run such games at 60 frames a second at 1080p HD resolutions.

AMD chief executive Lisa Su showed off the chips at an event at the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) in Los Angeles today.

&#8220;Gamers and consumers today are being left behind,&#8221; said Raja Koduri, senior vice president and chief architect, Radeon Technologies Group at AMD, in a statement. &#8220;Today only the top 16 percent of PC users can afford GPUs that deliver premium VR and gaming experiences. Hundreds of millions of gamers have been relegated to using outdated technology. Notebook gamers are often forced to compromise. And tens of millions more can only read about incredible PC VR experiences that they can&#8217;t enjoy for themselves. That all changes with the Radeon RX Series, placing compelling and advanced high-end gaming and VR technologies within reach of everyone.&#8221;

AMD said the RX 480 can run VR on the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive headsets. It supports DirectX 12 and Vulkan graphics standards, enabling high-end graphics effects. The Radeon RX series supports new monitor technologies and supports HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.3/1.4 standards. It has accelerated h.265 encoding and decoding for better video streaming at 4K resolutions at 60 frames per second.

http://venturebeat.com/2016/06/13/a...w-cost-polaris-graphics-chips-that-can-run-vr

Looks like RX 480 is full P10, RX 470 the cut down version and RX 460 is Polaris 11 for desktops. OP updated, will post all news there as well from now on.

 

[Bacon1]

New models.

AMD Announces 470 and 460 along with 480 launching June 29th



http://venturebeat.com/2016/06/13/a...w-cost-polaris-graphics-chips-that-can-run-vr

Already posted - http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2476721

 

[dark zero]

RX460? YES!
At last a true GT940 competitor!
The salvation of the budget PC's and the old school ones.