NordicHardware said:NordicHardware during the day discussed the overclocking potential of the RX 480 with its own sources of AMD's partner manufacturers and there is talk of potential performance increases of around 10% by overclocking. Which matches quite well with a rate increase of more than 10% if one speaks of 1266-1400 GHz frequency boost for easier overclocking. In other words, no stunning performance gains by pressing Polaris 10 circuit, but nevertheless a noticeable difference.
As previously revealed seem to AMD's partners to sell their cards for prices starting just below 3 000. Partner manufactured models with their own coolers, custom-made circuit boards and factory overclocked frequencies is expected to be slightly more than 3 000 depending on model and configuration. The performance at the standard frequency of 1266 MHz is said to be enough to contend with the GeForce GTX 980 and Radeon R9 390X, although these data are still somewhat contradictory and somewhat editorial team continues to dig deeper into.
Don't think AMD has much say in that. Although I agree that price is ridiculous. The $199 ref version should be 220 Euros at most."starting just below 320 euro" *facepalm*
"Only" 80-100 euro above if that's 4GB and "only" 40-60 euro above if that's 8GB version of what people are expecting.
Ouch. That will hurt AMD image so bad.
Actually more correctly it would propably have to be ~230-240 euro depending on country, since 199$ + 15-25% VAT, but the point still stand.Don't think AMD has much say in that. Although I agree that price is ridiculous. The $199 ref version should be 220 Euros at most.
Yeah I did the math with 20% VAT it should be 211 Euro.Actually more correctly it would propably have to be ~230-240 euro depending on country, since 199$ + 15-25% VAT, but the point still stand.
Consumers don't give a shit about whether AMD has any say in video card companies pricing or not though. Big part of hype Polaris is riding is made on promise of price, if that's not met then well AMD will be blamed.
Don't think AMD has much say in that. Although I agree that price is ridiculous. The $199 ref version should be 220 Euros at most.
I am quoting you, but I am asking all:
How come when Sony announces prices for their consoles, they are followed perfectly and when AMD and Nvidia announce prices, all goes to hell in EU?
How come when Sony announces prices for their consoles, they are followed perfectly and when AMD and Nvidia announce prices, all goes to hell in EU?
Actually more correctly it would propably have to be ~230-240 euro depending on country, since 199$ + 15-25% VAT, but the point still stand.
Consumers don't give a shit about whether AMD has any say in video card companies pricing or not though. Big part of hype Polaris is riding is made on promise of price, if that's not met then well AMD will be blamed.
Actually no. That's urban legend at least when when comparing to EU and when talking about so called normal/mainstream parts.what? I thought countries outside of the U.S have always paid more? Is this news to you? Isn't it true for almost every electronic devices? Why are you so shocked? Bottomline, computer hardware have always been cheaper in the U.S than other countries.
Sony probably has way more influence and control over the stores.I am quoting you, but I am asking all:
How come when Sony announces prices for their consoles, they are followed perfectly and when AMD and Nvidia announce prices, all goes to hell in EU?
Why are people complaining about rumored pricing for AMD, yet still quoting the "MSRP" from Nvidia for 1070/1080 when no cards have released at those prices?
Are there DX9 games you play that aren't CPU bound and you don't already get 200FPS in?
P.S. 1500mhz being 16% over the 1288 boost speed, btw. Good, but not amazing. GP104 overclocks 16% too. http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_1080_STRIX/27.html
And 22% as well: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Nvidi...sts/Asus-Geforce-GTX-1070-Strix-Test-1198327/
I am quoting you, but I am asking all:
How come when Sony announces prices for their consoles, they are followed perfectly and when AMD and Nvidia announce prices, all goes to hell in EU?
And a GTX 1070 murders a single RX 480 by the tune of 45-50%.
CFX and SLI aren't practical solutions. Scaling is game and developer dependent, as well as driver dependent.
P10 is just looking more and more meh. The only way P10 is a great deal is if it comes in at $229 or less and the 1070 stays inflated. If the 1070 comes down to MSRP or the 8gb 480's are $249 out of the gate, then it's only a very small increase in perf/$ over $400 1070's which is right in line with how lower performing parts should be priced.
For some reason I always enjoy reading your posts.Huh?
GTX1070 is only 37% faster than R9 390X using a GPU-dependent resolution.
When was the last time you used SLI/CF, if ever? There is SO much non-sense being spouted about SLI/CF online, it's nuts. Not all of us spend $60-120 on launch day AAA titles. Did it occur to you that some people buy games 12-24 months from launch as GOTY edition and/or for 1/3 to 1/4th the price? By that time SLI/CF work in 80-90% of PC games.
What's the fastest card setup in this review?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9390/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review/13
What about this review?
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_1080_2_way_sli_review,13.html
Don't make blanket statements about SLI/CF if you've never used them for years.
The cheapest GTX1070 for "sale" is $419. Let's just face the truth and admit that $379.99 GTX1070 should not be used as a valid example for GTX 1070's market price. I will admit that it's probably unfair to use $199-249 RX480 prices since we don't know their retail market pricing after June 29th but at least be genuine about GTX 1070's market pricing and lack of inventory.
http://www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/nvidia/gtx1070/
$419.99 / 1.37 (R9 390X's speed) = RX 480 can cost $305 and have directly proportional price/performance.
Your analysis completely ignores 5 major factors (at minimum):
1. GTX1070 is looking like a nice paper launch. Chances are AMD will deliver 10-20X the amount of RX 480 cards worldwide when it launches. If there are no GTX1070s to buy, it makes no differences how much better it is if it's not for sale.
2. You are only looking at % charts and completely ignoring that for 1080p 60hz and below gaming (>85% of PC gamers), in terms of frames per second, RX 480 is close to perfect for the mainstream/performance gamer. % charts are useless if a $200-250 card provides 40-60 fps levels of performance that gamers find satisfactory. If this weren't the case, almost no one would have purchased GTX750/750Ti/950/960. In fact, RX480 will provide GTX970/980/390X level of performance. That means using your own argument, a $550 GTX980 or $430 R9 390X was worth buying in 2014-2015 but a card with this level of performance for $200-250 is garbage now for 1080p 60Hz High settings? :sneaky:
3. You are 100% ignoring CPU bottlenecks. Nice try. The target market for RX 480 $200-300 GPU landscape tends to have i3/i5/FX or stock i7s. All of these are too slow to extract maximum performance out of the GTX1070.
http://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/te...pamieci_ram_wybrac_do_intel_skylake?page=0,12
http://www.techspot.com/article/1171-ddr4-4000-mhz-performance/page3.html
Nearly every professional review online is using i7 6700K @ 4.5Ghz or 5820K-5960X OC (or similar). The vast majority of Mainstream/Performance PC gamers do not own such fast CPUs. For many of them, GTX1070 would be CPU bottlenecked straight up.
4. History has proven already that it's going to be better to purchase a $250 RX 480, then sell it for $100 in 2 years and buy another $250-300 card for the 2018-2020 period. This is better than buying a $420-450 GTX1070 and holding onto to it for 4 years.
Considering you bought a $550 GTX980 and used it for the last 2 years, calling a $200-250 card with similar level of performance and better feature set (HDR, DX12, 4K video acceleration, 8GB of VRAM, lower power usage) meh sounds like you are straight up trolling.
5. Given GTX1070's higher launch price worldwide, the taxes that most of us have to pay on top of the already inflated price and the strong USD imply that it's highly likely that the disparity between ALL-IN price (retail USD MSRP converted to local currency + import tariffs + local VAT) will be greater worldwide than it will be in the U.S. This implies the $379.99 USD vs. $199-249 RX 480 USD is actually a best case scenario for NV. Looking at prices of GTX1070 in Europe, Russia, Canada, the RX 480 will be an even better value.
You have now resorted to using the most useless engineering metric of all time to discredit P10 -- perf/mm2.
487mm2 GTX275 vs. 282mm2 HD4890 -- you bought the 275
520mm2 GTX570 vs. 389mm2 HD6950/6970 -- you bought the 570
561mm2 GTX780 vs. 438mm2 R9 290/290X -- you bought the 780
To summarize, every new generation, you pick the most favourable metric in which NV leads and hype it up to the moon but looking at the past history of your GPU ownership, you clearly couldn't care less about perf/watt or perf/mm2.
If you are going to use the perf/mm2 metric and expect to be taken seriously, then you'd trash all over the mid-range Pascal GP104 as one overpriced turd and tell everyone to not buy it. Why aren't you telling everyone how a $599-699 GTX1080 is a $249 GTX560Ti line? All of a sudden your perf/mm2 metric doesn't sound so good when 95% of PC gamers cannot afford this product. Instead you manipulate this metric to imply how much faster the full GP104 is, while 100% ignoring:
1) RX 480 will use less power in games than GTX1070/1080 will
2) GTX1080 uses much faster and more efficient GDDR5X over RX 480's regular GDDR5
3) Even if GP104 1080 was 9mm2, do you think we care? It costs almost $1,000 Canadian over here after taxes. You can keep hyping up perf/mm2 and perf/watt all you want but in the real world, price/performance smashes both of those metrics for mainstream/performance consumers when comparing a $200-250 videocard with a $400-450 one.
On top of all of this, you keep ignoring the MOST important barrier to entry for mainstream/performance segment -- PRICE. Are you seriously telling everyone here with a straight face that even if GTX1070 had superior or similar price/performance scaling to a $199-249 RX480 that someone would just go from that to a $419-449 GTX1070? :sneaky:
Your posts are seriously taking a nosedive as of late and the hypocrisy from you is out of this world since you never ever recommended R9 280X/380X/290 over the GTX950/960 but the price difference was smaller and the price/performance advantage of those AMD cards was greater than GTX1070 will have over RX 480. If perf/mm2 was a huge metric you make it out to be, then you'd have never purchased or recommended the GTX275/280/285, GTX570/580, GTX780/780Ti, etc. but you did....
It's pretty simple, some people would prefer to donate the money to his favorite company even when the product they offered are actually more expensive for the same performance.Huh?
GTX1070 is only 37% faster than R9 390X using a GPU-dependent resolution.
When was the last time you used SLI/CF, if ever? There is SO much non-sense being spouted about SLI/CF online, it's nuts. Not all of us spend $60-120 on launch day AAA titles. Did it occur to you that some people buy games 12-24 months from launch as GOTY edition and/or for 1/3 to 1/4th the price? By that time SLI/CF work in 80-90% of PC games.
What's the fastest card setup in this review?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9390/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review/13
What about this review?
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_1080_2_way_sli_review,13.html
Don't make blanket statements about SLI/CF if you've never used them for years.
The cheapest GTX1070 for "sale" is $419. Let's just face the truth and admit that $379.99 GTX1070 should not be used as a valid example for GTX 1070's market price. I will admit that it's probably unfair to use $199-249 RX480 prices since we don't know their retail market pricing after June 29th but at least be genuine about GTX 1070's market pricing and lack of inventory.
http://www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/nvidia/gtx1070/
$419.99 / 1.37 (R9 390X's speed) = RX 480 can cost $305 and have directly proportional price/performance.
Your analysis completely ignores 5 major factors (at minimum):
1. GTX1070 is looking like a nice paper launch. Chances are AMD will deliver 10-20X the amount of RX 480 cards worldwide when it launches. If there are no GTX1070s to buy, it makes no differences how much better it is if it's not for sale.
2. You are only looking at % charts and completely ignoring that for 1080p 60hz and below gaming (>85% of PC gamers), in terms of frames per second, RX 480 is close to perfect for the mainstream/performance gamer. % charts are useless if a $200-250 card provides 40-60 fps levels of performance that gamers find satisfactory. If this weren't the case, almost no one would have purchased GTX750/750Ti/950/960. In fact, RX480 will provide GTX970/980/390X level of performance. That means using your own argument, a $550 GTX980 or $430 R9 390X was worth buying in 2014-2015 but a card with this level of performance for $200-250 is garbage now for 1080p 60Hz High settings? :sneaky:
3. You are 100% ignoring CPU bottlenecks. Nice try. The target market for RX 480 $200-300 GPU landscape tends to have i3/i5/FX or stock i7s. All of these are too slow to extract maximum performance out of the GTX1070.
http://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/te...pamieci_ram_wybrac_do_intel_skylake?page=0,12
http://www.techspot.com/article/1171-ddr4-4000-mhz-performance/page3.html
Nearly every professional review online is using i7 6700K @ 4.5Ghz or 5820K-5960X OC (or similar). The vast majority of Mainstream/Performance PC gamers do not own such fast CPUs. For many of them, GTX1070 would be CPU bottlenecked straight up.
4. History has proven already that it's going to be better to purchase a $250 RX 480, then sell it for $100 in 2 years and buy another $250-300 card for the 2018-2020 period. This is better than buying a $420-450 GTX1070 and holding onto to it for 4 years.
Considering you bought a $550 GTX980 and used it for the last 2 years, calling a $200-250 card with similar level of performance and better feature set (HDR, DX12, 4K video acceleration, 8GB of VRAM, lower power usage) meh sounds like you are straight up trolling.
5. Given GTX1070's higher launch price worldwide, the taxes that most of us have to pay on top of the already inflated price and the strong USD imply that it's highly likely that the disparity between ALL-IN price (retail USD MSRP converted to local currency + import tariffs + local VAT) will be greater worldwide than it will be in the U.S. This implies the $379.99 USD vs. $199-249 RX 480 USD is actually a best case scenario for NV. Looking at prices of GTX1070 in Europe, Russia, Canada, the RX 480 will be an even better value.
You have now resorted to using the most useless engineering metric of all time to discredit P10 -- perf/mm2.
487mm2 GTX275 vs. 282mm2 HD4890 -- you bought the 275
520mm2 GTX570 vs. 389mm2 HD6950/6970 -- you bought the 570
561mm2 GTX780 vs. 438mm2 R9 290/290X -- you bought the 780
To summarize, every new generation, you pick the most favourable metric in which NV leads and hype it up to the moon but looking at the past history of your GPU ownership, you clearly couldn't care less about perf/watt or perf/mm2.
If you are going to use the perf/mm2 metric and expect to be taken seriously, then you'd trash all over the mid-range Pascal GP104 as one overpriced turd and tell everyone to not buy it. Why aren't you telling everyone how a $599-699 GTX1080 is a $249 GTX560Ti line? All of a sudden your perf/mm2 metric doesn't sound so good when 95% of PC gamers cannot afford this product. Instead you manipulate this metric to imply how much faster the full GP104 is, while 100% ignoring:
1) RX 480 will use less power in games than GTX1070/1080 will
2) GTX1080 uses much faster and more efficient GDDR5X over RX 480's regular GDDR5
3) Even if GP104 1080 was 9mm2, do you think we care? It costs almost $1,000 Canadian over here after taxes. You can keep hyping up perf/mm2 and perf/watt all you want but in the real world, price/performance smashes both of those metrics for mainstream/performance consumers when comparing a $200-250 videocard with a $400-450 one.
On top of all of this, you keep ignoring the MOST important barrier to entry for mainstream/performance segment -- PRICE. Are you seriously telling everyone here with a straight face that even if GTX1070 had superior or similar price/performance scaling to a $199-249 RX480 that someone would just go from that to a $419-449 GTX1070? :sneaky:
Your posts are seriously taking a nosedive as of late and the hypocrisy from you is out of this world since you never ever recommended R9 280X/380X/290 over the GTX950/960 but the price difference was smaller and the price/performance advantage of those AMD cards was greater than GTX1070 will have over RX 480. If perf/mm2 was a huge metric you make it out to be, then you'd have never purchased or recommended the GTX275/280/285, GTX570/580, GTX780/780Ti, etc. but you did....
Let's see what the past had shown us when they find criteria's to bad mouth:@RussianSensation great post.
I don't understand how anyone can hate on the new Polaris cards, if half of the leaks are true they are absolutely going to be an insane value.
Even rx460 delivers similar performance to gtx950 at more than half the power utilization: https://youtu.be/oNA6fll2DDQ?t=50
The fact that people are arguing an absolute pointless performance metric perf/mm just shows you how far detractors have to reach to bad mouth the product(s).
It's pretty simple, some people would prefer to donate the money to his favorite company even when the product they offered are actually more expensive for the same performance.