Polaris 10 benchmarks...

[Bacon1]

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.

Source for that? You seem to post a lot of "facts" without any sources to back them up.

Polaris's whole purpose was to provide VR level gaming performance at affordable levels. They stated that 6 months ago when they first announced it.

 

[Midwayman]

I think AMD showing these confusing benches just turns off casual gamers who don't want to get an answer about GPU utilization/efficiency/frame limiters/etc. when seeing some charts.

I really doubt 'casual' gamers are paying attention to polaris this early. Once real reviews are out they'll show that its easily the fastest card in its price range. That's all that will matter except for the few that will buy nvidia no matter what without research.

 

[mkmitch]

Source for that? You seem to post a lot of "facts" without any sources to back them up.

Polaris's whole purpose was to provide VR level gaming performance at affordable levels. They stated that 6 months ago when they first announced it.

The masses can't afford VR even with a free GPU.

 

[topmounter]

Source for that? You seem to post a lot of "facts" without any sources to back them up.

Polaris's whole purpose was to provide VR level gaming performance at affordable levels. They stated that 6 months ago when they first announced it.

I think the only "surprise" so far seems to be that AMD actually stuck with 380 4GB pricing for the 480 4GB card.

 

[tential]

I really doubt 'casual' gamers are paying attention to polaris this early. Once real reviews are out they'll show that its easily the fastest card in its price range. That's all that will matter except for the few that will buy nvidia no matter what without research.

I mean gamers who are casual about hardware. Like over on neogaf, the average reader there isn't going to care about all of that stupid explanation. They just want an idea of what their $200 will get them and AMD didn't clearly define that and continues to dance around the topic.

 

[Bacon1]

The masses can't afford VR even with a free GPU.

Production scale my friend.

If you can only make 3 million because that is your potential user base, parts cost more than when you can bulk make 20 million of them.

They are trying to raise the Total Available Market from 7.5m -> 100m+.

 

[Sonikku]

The masses can't afford VR even with a free GPU.

They need to be able to find a vendor with stock to sell them before they can worry about having the money for one.

 

[mkmitch]

Production scale my friend.

If you can only make 3 million because that is your potential user base, parts cost more than when you can bulk make 20 million of them.

They are trying to raise the Total Available Market from 7.5m -> 100m+.

You really believe that the masses as you called them will now buy VR headsets because they can spend $179 less on a video card. Just a yes or no, no more marketing BS. If so show me a citation my friend.

 

[Armsdealer]

You really believe that the masses as you called them will now buy VR headsets because they can spend $179 less on a video card. Just a yes or no, no more marketing BS. If so show me a citation my friend.

I own a vive headset. I am more than a casual gamer, but not an enthusiast. I always try to buy budget-mid range cards and overclock to mid-high. I think it's absolutely retarded to spend anywhere close to 400 USD on a gpu because in this case a 200 USD gpu will accomplish over 80% of what the 400 USD gpu will. I can easily afford 4x1080, but I don't believe in being parted from my money.

 

[Bacon1]

You really believe that the masses as you called them will now buy VR headsets because they can spend $179 less on a video card. Just a yes or no, no more marketing BS. If so show me a citation my friend.

Did you completely ignore my post?

It will be cheaper to produce the headsets because they can produce more because there are more customers to sell them to.

More customers = cheaper parts = cheaper to buy = more customers... repeat.

Obviously its not infinite but prices can come down a lot due to scaling up production.

And even if they aren't buying VR, they are still getting a great gaming card for cheap. VR is a bonus if they want to go that route. Now they have the option where they didn't previously.

 

[SelenaGomez]

I just wish AMD made the Polaris 20% faster than it is now and maintain the $199 Price. OR the $230 price for the 8GB version. Then it would be a no brainer on what card to buy. AMD would completely dominate the market and put a huge dent in 1070 sales. But of course its AMD so why would they make a decision that would help them dominate the market...

 

[RussianSensation]

I just wish AMD made the Polaris 20% faster than it is now and maintain the $199 Price. OR the $230 price for the 8GB version. Then it would be a no brainer on what card to buy. AMD would completely dominate the market and put a huge dent in 1070 sales. But of course its AMD so why would they make a decision that would help them dominate the market...

Various sites reported $229 for the reference 8GB model. Even if it's $249, AMD's AIB very often have $10-20 rebates. By Q3/4 when volumes skyrocket for the biggest gaming season of the 2nd half of the year, we should see $179 and $219.99 4/8GB cards, possibly even lower around Black Friday.

 

[tential]

I just wish AMD made the Polaris 20% faster than it is now and maintain the $199 Price. OR the $230 price for the 8GB version. Then it would be a no brainer on what card to buy. AMD would completely dominate the market and put a huge dent in 1070 sales. But of course its AMD so why would they make a decision that would help them dominate the market...

So you want AMD to release a card as fast as the GTX 1070 for $150 less dollars.....

It's not hard to figure out what card you need and what card is a good value proposition.

The R9 290 was touted as the best price/performance card you can get. AMD wants to cut the price of this card to the $200 price bracket.

How hard is it to figure it out? The HIGHEST performance per dollar ratio card is now getting a price cut, lower TDP, and is going to become FASTER.

How hard is it to figure out what the good deal is....

 

[tential]

I just wish AMD made the Polaris 20% faster than it is now and maintain the $199 Price. OR the $230 price for the 8GB version. Then it would be a no brainer on what card to buy. AMD would completely dominate the market and put a huge dent in 1070 sales. But of course its AMD so why would they make a decision that would help them dominate the market...

Not to mention the 1070's competitor is the RX 490....
That comes in a couple months. If the RX 480 is $230, and slower than the GTX 1070, then where does that let the RX 490 slot in? How fast is it? There is a LOT of space between $230 and $380. If you are a price conscious person, you wouldn't get the GTX 1070 either way. You would wait for Vega, allow Nvidia to slash their prices to compete with Vega, then pick up your GTX 1070 then. You wouldn't be worrying about picking up a GTX 1070 right NOW vs RX 480..... Right now, there are only going to be Founder's Edition GTX 1070s. In which case, are you telling me it's that hard of a decision to figure out whether you need a $450 GTX 1070 or a $200 RX480...

 

[Midwayman]

You really believe that the masses as you called them will now buy VR headsets because they can spend $179 less on a video card. Just a yes or no, no more marketing BS. If so show me a citation my friend.

Not because of a dGPU costing less, no. However the consoles is going into at VR ready levels will make a difference.

 

[Dresdenboy]

You really believe that the masses as you called them will now buy VR headsets because they can spend $179 less on a video card. Just a yes or no, no more marketing BS. If so show me a citation my friend.

I'm still wondering, how careless kids lose or damage one $500 phone after another with a 3 month cadence. I think there is room and money for new experiences.

 

[swilli89]

Various sites reported $229 for the reference 8GB model. Even if it's $249, AMD's AIB very often have $10-20 rebates. By Q3/4 when volumes skyrocket for the biggest gaming season of the 2nd half of the year, we should see $179 and $219.99 4/8GB cards, possibly even lower around Black Friday.

Which makes me wonder about Lisa Su's quote that Polaris would occupy "$199-$300" price points. What SKU will be at 299? Fully unlocked super clocked Polaris 10 to do battle with the 1070?

 

[.vodka]

Which makes me wonder about Lisa Su's quote that Polaris would occupy "$199-$300" price points. What SKU will be at 299? Fully unlocked super clocked Polaris 10 to do battle with the 1070?

Probably. Keep in mind this is 14nm GCN and a new revision at that, that might inherently clock higher than 28nm GCN1-3.

28nm GCN could already do 1200Mhz under certain conditions. Due to the node shrink alone that top frecuency is going to get a lot higher.


We'll see what happens on June 29.

 

[Qwertilot]

Seems likely. If nothing else, with nothing higher to use for the moment, the AIB's will have every incentive to try and somehow do a SKU driving as near stock 1070 performance as possible.

The power draw might end up a bit ugly!

 

[Armsdealer]

I'm still wondering, how careless kids lose or damage one $500 phone after another with a 3 month cadence. I think there is room and money for new experiences.

Absolutely right. VR with literally gen 0 software is already amazing. Actually being in the videogame and physically moving around is something everyone should experience. At some point I'm going to go back to a monitor game and see how I feel about it. My guess is it will seem really boring in comparison.

I also noticed the butthurt of being beaten in VR is somehow more real since it was actually YOU that sucked...not YOUR control over DOOMGUY... it is actually YOU that sucks.

Point being that I have no issue paying 900 USD for a genuinely new experience but paying 400 USD for a gpu that is 20% better than the 200 USD gpu seems ridiculous.

 

[SelenaGomez]

So you want AMD to release a card as fast as the GTX 1070 for $150 less dollars.....

It's not hard to figure out what card you need and what card is a good value proposition.

The R9 290 was touted as the best price/performance card you can get. AMD wants to cut the price of this card to the $200 price bracket.

How hard is it to figure it out? The HIGHEST performance per dollar ratio card is now getting a price cut, lower TDP, and is going to become FASTER.

How hard is it to figure out what the good deal is....

Nothing to figure out. AMD is far behind for a reason. Stop pretending the reason is because people jstu arent smart or educated enough to know. ITYs because AMD makes poor business decisions. Like i said if they made the card 20% faster then they would dominate but now what is going to happens is jsut a mix of some people buying th polaris while more peopel buy the 1070. Like usual. Rinse and repeat for AMD

 

[tential]

If they made the card 20% faster then it would be as fast as the 1070.

Again, you're saying the only way AMD can release a good card is if it's as fast as the Nvidia competition for $150 less.

And no, people do make POOR purchasing decisions.
Most people don't know any of this stuff and don't read any benchmarks.

Just like how not every gamer understands AdaptiveSync/Gsync/Freesync or 144hz.
Not every gamer understands GPU tech, they just buy the GPUs that are marketed the best, and AMD has no marketing department.

If you're willing to pay 90% more, for only 20% performance boost, then AMD never had a chance getting you as a customer.

But hey, if you feel the GTX 1070 for 90% more is a better buy for 20% more performance, you're more than welcome to get a GTX 1070 instead. And a Gsync monitor too.

 

[showb1z]

Nothing to figure out. AMD is far behind for a reason. Stop pretending the reason is because people jstu arent smart or educated enough to know. ITYs because AMD makes poor business decisions. Like i said if they made the card 20% faster then they would dominate but now what is going to happens is jsut a mix of some people buying th polaris while more peopel buy the 1070. Like usual. Rinse and repeat for AMD

Taking into consideration how many people actually bought a 960 that doesn't seem that farfetched to me.
Honestly, you sound like one of those people who wants AMD to start a price war so they can get their Nvidia card for cheaper.

 

[iiiankiii]

I just wish AMD made the Polaris 20% faster than it is now and maintain the $199 Price. OR the $230 price for the 8GB version. Then it would be a no brainer on what card to buy. AMD would completely dominate the market and put a huge dent in 1070 sales. But of course its AMD so why would they make a decision that would help them dominate the market...

ok, buddy. Just go buy a GTX 1070. You preach on and on about good business decisions; yet, you want AMD to price Polaris 10 that has the same performance as a GTX1070 for $199 (20% more performance means it would be FASTER than a GTX1070 based on leaked benchmarks)? Why the heck would AMD sell a card in that performance bracket for such a low price when Nvidia is selling their FE card for $449? You make no sense. It's almost irresponsible amounts of nonsense.

Market share is nothing if no money is made. How about you go complain to Nvidia about their prices? Let me guess.. You want AMD to force a price war with Nvidia so you can grab yourself an Nvidia card, right? This guy.

 

[ShintaiDK]

you want AMD to price Polaris 10 that has the same performance as a GTX1070 for $199 (20% more performance means it would be FASTER than a GTX1070 based on leaked benchmarks)?

Absolutely nothing points to this. In the leaked 3Dmark scores, 1070 is ~27% over the highest Polaris 10 bin.

Also its the 4GB version being 199$.