Yeap that concludes the R9 390/GTX 970 performance at lower price. Full stop.
Ya, which is nowhere close to 980Ti level of performance for $299. It was already possible to get 390/970 level of performance years ago. Countless after-market R9 290/290X on sale. Recent times had R9 390 for $275 which after selling the Hitman game coupon for $30 US translated into a $245 390. There have been deals for $240-245 GTX970 in the US. $249 Polaris 10 with 390 level of performance is only great for people outside the US who cannot regularly get these deals or OEMs/users with crap power supplies. For people who regularly visit this forum, if Polaris 10 is $249 and is only as good as a 390, that's mediocre.
As I repeated many times ago, someone who looks in the Hot Deals, could have purchased a
Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X with 3 games for $200 and
PowerColor PCS+ R9 290X for $255 around
November 2014.
Using today's market prices of R9 390, R9 390X and 980 is almost BS imho to justify Polaris 10's price/performance because all 3 of those cards are flat out overpriced. If you look at market prices of R9 390/390X, they have barely budged from their MSRP about a year ago. In the old days when AMD/GPU passed on manufacturing node savings to us, R9 390/390X would already be $249 and $329 cards a year later.
This going to be another HD4870 vs GTX 280, unless NV will lower the price of the top cards to $500.
No, not even close. This comparison is completely flawed. 4870 and GTX280 were flagship cards of their generation, only superseded by marginally faster HD4890/GTX285 before Fermi/HD5870 launched. Not a chance that Polaris 10 is like 4870 and GP104 is like 280. Also, if Polaris 10 is only going to reach GTX980/390X's performance tops, 1080 will smoke it by much more than GTX280 beat HD4870.
GTX280 beat HD4870 by about 18-20%.
If NV releases 1080 that's only 25% faster than the 980Ti, that's almost 70% faster than the R9 390. (1440p = 83% x 1.25 / 62% = 67%)
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_XtremeGaming/23.html
Roy Taylor must be dreaming if he thinks the 3 rumoured GP104 cards will land in the $600-1000 US price ranges.
If this is HD 4870 all over again, I'd buy two!
EDIT: It has to be 90-110% of whatever NV puts out, if both are aiming for some where near 980 Ti, I'd go for the better perf / price option like I did last time.)
Ya, which is inconsistent with everything that's coming out from AMD => Bring VR spec to much lower prices than $349. He continues reiterating VR spec around 290X/390/970 level. If he wanted to tell us they are bringing flagship performance at mid-range prices, he'd tell us Fury X/980Ti level of performance at more affordable prices. Who knows of course if Polaris 10 can scale from 110-175W TDP it could reach Fury/Fury X performance but hints after hints from AMD imply this is a low-end to low mid-range part.
Also, simply based on rumors of GP104 beating 980Ti by 25-30% at high resolutions and the best case rumours of Polaris 10 matching Fury X or slightly beating it, again it's impossible to have a 4870 vs. 280 situation as I already posted above. For that to happen, Polaris 10 would need to be faster than 980Ti. Besides, HD4870 demolished previous gen AMD and NV flagships by miles. The comparison of 4870 vs. GTX280 being thrown around is used incorrectly.
I Believe GP104 (full die) will be more than 10-15% faster than GTX 980Ti. The thing to look at is the performance at DX-12 games, Polaris may be extremely close to GP104 at a significant lower price for the 1080/1440p resolutions.
I call BS on that. Pascal has pre-emption and should handle DX12 better than Maxwell.
The fact alone that Polaris 10 is rumoured to have 8Gbps GDDR5 (256GB/sec) while the high-end GP104 is rumoured to have 10-12Gbps GDDR5X (320GB/sec - 384GB/sec) should already be the biggest red flag that these products don't compete anywhere close to in the same class.
I don't know why AMD fans on these boards are trying to desperate jam Polaris 10 into performance classes it was never meant to be in.
In summary, AMD fans are ignoring:
- Polaris 10 will have lower memory bandwidth (clearly not a Tahiti successor)
- Polaris 10 will have smaller die size (clearly not a Tahiti successor for the new 14nm node)
- Polaris 10 is clearly being aimed at lower pricing segments to increase total install user-base
- Polaris 10 is clearly not AMD's high-end product. The 2304-2560 shaders vs. 4000+ for Vega 10 should be another red flag here
- Even if Polaris 10 matches Fury X, that's nowhere close to where after-market 1080 would be unless NV failed miserably or purposely gimped clocks speeds on the GPU
If you have 2x 290 i would wait for Vega, unless Polaris 10 at $299 is ~GTX980ti . You could sell your 2x 290 and buy a single Polaris 10 for the same price. Or, by 2x $199 Polaris 10 Pro and be faster than GP104 at lower cost when CF is supported
This is bad advice. 980Ti OC is already on average better than R9 295X2 for consistency if someone plays Day 1 launch games, which is what he mentioned. So how in the world is a $199 Polaris 10 Pro which in the best case ~ 390X be superior to say a $400-450 1070 OC? You are not making any sensible projections again. Besides, recommending two much lower-tier CF cards against a much faster single GPU is not great advice either. SLI/CF makes sense when it's something blatantly superior such as $600 R9 295X2 vs. $550 980 or if buying flagship cards.
I can't imagine Polaris 10 will be slower than a 390x
I can't imagine it being much faster either. Fury X is only
21% faster at 1440p against 390X using TPU's latest benchmarks. Start ethereum mining on those 290s and by May 31st, that's easily $100 US in profits that you can instead use towards a GP104 card that's a worthwhile upgrade.
What rumors point to means jack as long as it's performing better than nvidia.
because that's the thing which matters.
Sure but the chance of Polaris 10 performing as good as higher tier GP104 cards is close to 0%. What people on our forum are doing is trying to manipulate AMD's road-map because they cannot accept that Polaris 10 is not a GP104 competitor. They don't want to accept that AMD may need to lower prices on the entire Fiji line and suck it up until Vega.
This is actually a perfect scenario for NV and AMD. NV gets the entire $350-650 market all to itself while maximizing profit margins, while AMD regains market share in the $300 and below segments until GP106/107 launch.
Even common sense logic prevails here.
4096 Vega on paper is already 60-70% faster than Polaris 10 (this is because Vega 10 has even better perf/watt which suggests shaders are more linearly utilized vs. Fury X against 290X). So now if Polaris 10 is a GP104 competitor, do people expect Big Pascal to beat 1080 by 60-70% as well? It's not making any sense now.
The only way to reconcile these differences is that Polaris 10 is a much slower card than GP104 1080 and that it's not aimed at $350-650 markets. For some reason though this is hard to accept so let's start making up facts like 85% of GP104's performance for half price. :sneaky:
This is how AMD products are set up to fail on this forum. :thumbsdown:
Just not getting it are you...
Hint - This whole post has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Hint2 - Rumors. What do they represent?
Hint3 - Timing. Are rumors for predicting a year ahead?
Keep at it, you'll understand soon enough!
His point is that Fury X was hyped to beat Fury X and at high resolutions it does stock vs. stock. Since not everyone buys a $650-1000 GPU to keep for 12 months, and many keep it for 3-4 years, Fury X isn't as bad as people make it sound when discussing stock vs. stock performance. He has a point here. Your point is that Fury X was hyped to beat Titan X by much more than a couple percentage points and that ultimately 980Ti's overclocking gave it the win anyway. So you also have a point.
Regardless, the hype behind Polaris 10 is far worse than Fury X. People expected Fury X to beat 980Ti at high resolutions and it certainly does -- stock vs. stock. OTOH, expecting Polaris 10 stock to offer 85% of 1080's stock performance (HD4870 vs. 280 situation) for half price is starting to leave any realm of reasonability.