Polaris 10 benchmarks...

[Bacon1]

Amd can't do the "premium" brand, they tried with Fury X and almost no reviewers commented on the WC and instead compared its price/perf against 980 Ti. They almost all used open air cases and tested in tiny batches (no throttling / heat issues). Nvidia has the fan mindshare of being "better", so why would someone buy AMD over Nvidia for equal price/perf?

Until Amd can prove / remove their bad reputation, they have to be cheaper for people to buy them (in mass, many informed people realize the huge benefits from freesync and other options that make "Equal" price/perf cards better deals).

 

[topmounter]

With regards to the marketing angle and considering that 85% of PC gamers are still at 'peasant' resolutions (myself included)....

Instead of bundling games... I'd love to see AMD offer 480 bundles that include a FreeSync monitor.

• RX-480 + 1080p/144MHz Freesync monitor for <=$450, and
• RX-480 + 1440p/144MHz monitor for <=$699*

*this of course assumes that the 480 delivers 390x performance at 1440p

 

[RussianSensation]

That is all great, but we had that performance years ago with the 290/290x (close to $200), albeit at higher power consumption. Just not that exciting...if anything, just shows how overpriced the last gen has been.

Ya, but the rest of the world could never buy 970/980/390/390X/290/290X for $199 brand new. You keep saying AMD is a budget brand by launching Polaris 10 first. I'll take that and a reasonably priced Vega than getting owned hard by a $650 780, $700 780Ti or $550 980.

Did you say NV was a budget brand when they launched 750/750Ti?

You realize if the rumors are true, for the mainstream gamer they are delivering a card almost as fast as a 980 for half the price less than 2 years later? You are saying that's underwhelming? You know it's worse to charge $599 for a mid-range Pascal that's only 22-25% faster than a 980Ti => the worst generational increase from NV ever.

Polaris 10 was never aimed at 290/290X/970/980 owners as an upgrade path and we knew that. But all those poor souls that bought the 750/750Ti/950/960 2GB. will now have a card that's 50-100% faster. That's a win-win.

Remember, even I warned gamers to not waste $$$ on the 389/380X/285/950/960 for months. I actually kept saying buy an after-market 290 for $250-275 in 2014 and enjoy it for 4 years because the next gen's $199 card won't be much better.

Think about it September 2014 we had $550 980 with 185W power usage. AMD is about to bring close to that level for $199-249 less than 2 years after and the card will have all the latest features and up to 8GB of VRAM. Ya, you or I are not the target market but for tens of millions, this will be THE card to buy until 1060/Ti shows up.

It's going to be impossible to recommend a $379 1070 for 1080p 60Hz gaming if there is 390X performance for $199-249. Most people also have lower end i3 and i5 CPUs, against impossible to objectively recommend a 1070 for those systems. This might not excite you but millions of gamers, in fact 85% of them, don't spend above $349.

 

[tential]

With regards to the marketing angle and considering that 85% of PC gamers are still at 'peasant' resolutions (myself included)....

Instead of bundling games... I'd love to see AMD offer 480 bundles that include a FreeSync monitor.

• RX-480 + 1080p/144MHz Freesync monitor for <=$450, and
• RX-480 + 1440p/144MHz monitor for <=$699*

*this of course assumes that the 480 delivers 390x performance at 1440p

Sorry, this is what we call a good idea (I've been suggesting AMD push Freesync forever now), but meh, AMD is content to ignore explaining how the ecosystem it has can benefit gamers. Screw it.

 

[exar333]

Ya, but the rest of the world could never buy 970/980/390/390X/290/290X for $199 brand new. You keep saying AMD is a budget brand by launching Polaris 10 first. I'll take that and a reasonably priced Vega than getting owned hard by a $650 780, $700 780Ti or $550 980.

Did you say NV was a budget brand when they launched 750/750Ti?

You realize if the rumors are true, for the mainstream gamer they are delivering a card almost as fast as a 980 for half the price less than 2 years later? You are saying that's underwhelming? You know it's worse to charge $599 for a mid-range Pascal that's only 22-25% faster than a 980Ti => the worst generational increase from NV ever.

Polaris 10 was never aimed at 290/290X/970/980 owners as an upgrade path and we knew that. But all those poor souls that bought the 750/750Ti/950/960 2GB. will now have a card that's 50-100% faster. That's a win-win.

Remember, even I warned gamers to not waste $$$ on the 389/380X/285/950/960 for months. I actually kept saying buy an after-market 290 for $250-275 in 2014 and enjoy it for 4 years because the next gen's $199 card won't be much better.

Think about it September 2014 we had $550 980 with 185W power usage. AMD is about to bring close to that level for $199-249 less than 2 years after and the card will have all the latest features and up to 8GB of VRAM. Ya, you or I are not the target market but for tens of millions, this will be THE card to buy until 1060/Ti shows up.

It's going to be impossible to recommend a $379 1070 for 1080p 60Hz gaming if there is 390X performance for $199-249. Most people also have lower end i3 and i5 CPUs, against impossible to objectively recommend a 1070 for those systems. This might not excite you but millions of gamers, in fact 85% of them, don't spend above $349.

Thats a fair statement and I don't disagree. I wasn't saying the product wasn't compelling, but rather uninteresting to the crowd here (for the most part). Not a lot of people here with main rigs on GPUs >$200. It IS a great 1080P/60hz card, but I think we will see those displays go away from the gaming crowd (and thank goodness for that) over time. For now though, I agree the audience is huge to upgrade, but not 'exciting' from an enthusiast standpoint, outside of growing the 'capable PC population' so to speak. I am all for that.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Thats a fair statement and I don't disagree. I wasn't saying the product wasn't compelling, but rather uninteresting to the crowd here (for the most part). Not a lot of people here with main rigs on GPUs >$200. It IS a great 1080P/60hz card, but I think we will see those displays go away from the gaming crowd (and thank goodness for that) over time. For now though, I agree the audience is huge to upgrade, but not 'exciting' from an enthusiast standpoint, outside of growing the 'capable PC population' so to speak. I am all for that.

I agree with this. I'm not sure if pulling out all the stops to take the performance crown is a good move for AMD, but if they could manage that, it would gain them a great deal of mindshare and seeing the more-money-than-sense market (i.e., the ones with who buy four Titan Xs and such) buy AMD for once would be a milestone. Compelling products or not, simply having the fastest, most robust gaming card on the planet is a huge brand boost, and it would embarrass NV.

 

[exar333]

AMD did fine being the bargain brand with the HD3000,HD4000,HD5000 and HD6000 series. All these series targetted price/performance.

In the last couple of years,with the HD7970,R9 290 and Fury series,they targetted the higher price ranges and high end and had more brief dips into the fastest cards territory(twice with the HD7970 and getting close to the GTX780TI and Geforce Titan with the R9 290X),and with the Fury X even managing to get close to the GTX980TI after a while. AMD produced two 400MM2+ GPUs in that period and still lost marketshare. They produced a 400MM2+ GPU in the R600 and lost marketshare. In the last four years they have been actively attacking the high end with largish GPUs and it has not worked for them.

Yet during these years they ignored the midrange and laptops more and it has seen their sales drop. Moving back to smaller and cheaper chips is the correct move for AMD.

During the period of the HD3000 to HD5000 series,they only had the fastest card once,and concentrated on price/performance and their marketshare was still between 30% to 40% and they were making reasonable profits during that time. All the chips were under 400MM2 in size.

Fine, but not great. Not sustainable long-term. That is why they attempted to change and go upmarket. I am not saying that was right or wrong, but it didn't turn out great for them. The graphics division grew from 2008-2010 and then shrank. It is a little harder to tell now because they are grouped with computing and it is rather a mixed picture. Anyways, they wanted better returns on investment and they could likely do OK if they had 70-75% of the market. With only 20-25%, it is tough to make a buck when you are peddling the cheapest products around. NV has both market share and margins right now...AMD needs one of those. The fact AIBs were expecting P10 to go for more than $199 is interesting. Is it AMD being aggressive or pricing competitively toward NV's offerings? Or Both? One thing is that information around the P10 launch has been murky at best. AMD should come out strong, show really great performance on 1080P for less and focus on capable VR as well.

http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-reportsannual

http://videocardz.com/60773/amd-radeon-rx-480-to-cost-199-usd

 

[exar333]

I agree with this. I'm not sure if pulling out all the stops to take the performance crown is a good move for AMD, but if they could manage that, it would gain them a great deal of mindshare and seeing the more-money-than-sense market (i.e., the ones with who buy four Titan Xs and such) buy AMD for once would be a milestone. Compelling products or not, simply having the fastest, most robust gaming card on the planet is a huge brand boost, and it would embarrass NV.

Good post.

AMD should have dropped their CPU console prices a dollar (just for example) to get a nice 'AMD' splash screen every time people booted their PS4s/XBones. It is amazing what associating their brand with gaming can do...

 

[maddie]

Fine, but not great. Not sustainable long-term. That is why they attempted to change and go upmarket. I am not saying that was right or wrong, but it didn't turn out great for them. The graphics division grew from 2008-2010 and then shrank. It is a little harder to tell now because they are grouped with computing and it is rather a mixed picture. Anyways, they wanted better returns on investment and they could likely do OK if they had 70-75% of the market. With only 20-25%, it is tough to make a buck when you are peddling the cheapest products around. NV has both market share and margins right now...AMD needs one of those. The fact AIBs were expecting P10 to go for more than $199 is interesting. Is it AMD being aggressive or pricing competitively toward NV's offerings? Or Both? One thing is that information around the P10 launch has been murky at best. AMD should come out strong, show really great performance on 1080P for less and focus on capable VR as well.

http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-reportsannual

http://videocardz.com/60773/amd-radeon-rx-480-to-cost-199-usd

Don't you think their driver support appears to be a lot better now than the period you're mentioning? This could be the key to why it failed the last time.

I find a lot of emphasis being placed on the fact that it failed and not so much on why it did. Hopefully they learnt from the previous failure. Support software, etc, is essential. Build it and they will come doesn't work here.

 

[exar333]

Don't you think their driver support appears to be a lot better now than the period you're mentioning? This could be the key to why it failed the last time.

I find a lot of emphasis being placed on the fact that it failed and not so much on why it did. Hopefully they learnt from the previous failure. Support software, etc, is essential. Build it and they will come doesn't work here.

I honestly cannot say they had any more driver issues than NV in that time. Outside of CF/SLI issues, AMD drivers have been fine for a long time. The troubled days were back 10 years ago, or even older. At least that was my experience with 4xxx and 5xxx parts. They were fantastic.

 

[MagickMan]

Tesla P100 buyers are paying more than $10,000 per card.

For $40-50M render farms.

 

[C@mM!]

I honestly cannot say they had any more driver issues than NV in that time. Outside of CF/SLI issues, AMD drivers have been fine for a long time. The troubled days were back 10 years ago, or even older. At least that was my experience with 4xxx and 5xxx parts. They were fantastic.

Its hard for people to split what was driver problems with the hell of Gameworks from 2010-2015 .

 

[railven]

I honestly cannot say they had any more driver issues than NV in that time. Outside of CF/SLI issues, AMD drivers have been fine for a long time. The troubled days were back 10 years ago, or even older. At least that was my experience with 4xxx and 5xxx parts. They were fantastic.

Single card, I'd say I had less issues with my Radeons than I've had in the shorter time I've spent with my GeForces. Crossfire was a completely different animal that broke me.

I'd swing back to AMD for a powerful single card. I miss the red aesthetics.

 

[exar333]

Single card, I'd say I had less issues with my Radeons than I've had in the shorter time I've spent with my GeForces. Crossfire was a completely different animal that broke me.

I'd swing back to AMD for a powerful single card. I miss the red aesthetics.

Had enough bad experiences with multi-GPU going back 20 years. DX12 will need a good year or two SOLID track record to entice me back.

 

[guskline]

I'm going with a single card to replace my 2 R9 290s. Looks like the GTX 1080 is the only one available in the near future.

 

[Shmee]

I remember when I first bought a 5870, BIG step up form my GTX 260. Nvidia had no competion at the time. And that high end part was around $380 not counting the shortage issue.

 

[topmounter]

I'm going with a single card to replace my 2 R9 290s. Looks like the GTX 1080 is the only one available in the near future.

Single card 1080 competitor would be Vega.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

Someone in the other thread linked the benchmarks done in Ashes by the Raedon demo.

http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...294-8cab-4399-8815-f956a670b68f/match-history

Be sure to select "Match History" then select "Benchmark" instead of "All Matches". You should see results with a GTX 1080 and "67DF:C7" results which I presume is the RX 480.

 

[SelenaGomez]

Someone in the other thread linked the benchmarks done in Ashes by the Raedon demo.

http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...294-8cab-4399-8815-f956a670b68f/match-history

Be sure to select "Match History" then select "Benchmark" instead of "All Matches". You should see results with a GTX 1080 and "67DF:C7" results which I presume is the RX 480.

I dont understand those benches... Why is it giving different scores for the same card? And why are the polaris scores higher than the 1080 scores?

 

[Bacon1]

I dont understand those benches... Why is it giving different scores for the same card? And why are the polaris scores higher than the 1080 scores?

Those aren't necessarily the same machine or specs from the slides. Someone just found one of their accounts.

 

[guskline]

Single card 1080 competitor would be Vega.

Would be but where is it?

 

[2blzd]

I asked this in the other thread before it got locked but do you think polaris pricing could effect GTX 1070 and 1060 pricing?

 

[Bacon1]

Vega is going to likely compete with the big pascal die as well, the 1080 Ti or w/e they call it (1090?)

Buying the 1080 (even 1070 really), especially founder's edition is a major waste of money. Both cards will be replaced in a few months by much better cards and neither can handle 4k very well and are so damn expensive for what they do offer. 3rd party for closer to their actual MSRP that have great factory OC / coolers? Maybe they'll be good value for those few months before Vega / Big Pascal, maybe not. It is quite a gamble.

 

[R0H1T]

I asked this in the other thread before it got locked but do you think polaris pricing could effect GTX 1070 and 1060 pricing?

If there is a fully enabled (uncut?) chip with 2560 SPs & 40 CUs possibly laced with GDDR5x then it'd be the natural competitor to the 1070. But as of now only the 100~300$ price segment was mentioned during AMD's live stream, that means they don't have a GPU which matches or possibly even outperforms the 1070 at stock, though OCed 480 could match or beat the stock 1070.

Therefore 1070 will likely not move below 349$ unless, as has been speculated previously, the big Polaris beats 1070 decisively.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I asked this in the other thread before it got locked but do you think polaris pricing could effect GTX 1070 and 1060 pricing?

No. Nvidia already started as well that Polaris ended up they expected to be. AMD priced Polaris were they do because that's the performance. They didn't price it there for their blue eyes sake.