Polaris 10 benchmarks...

[MajinCry]

Uh, fallout 4? That's playable just fine on 2GB cards at ultra texture etc settings.

Yeah, I remember there being a big hubbub about it, as well as the texture settings being broken (textures always at max res), and the LOD being rendered despite the player being close as the engine just chokes with flushing textures 'n' models, on cards with limited vRAM.

Last time I played the game was back on one one of the v1.5 versions, so it could have changed, and it was as hellish as the earlier versions.

Plenty of lads attesting to the lower res texture pack on Nexusmods solving stutter 'n' the LOD issue as well.

 

[ctk1981]

Yeah, I remember there being a big hubbub about it, as well as the texture settings being broken (textures always at max res), and the LOD being rendered despite the player being close as the engine just chokes with flushing textures 'n' models, on cards with limited vRAM.

Last time I played the game was back on one one of the v1.5 versions, so it could have changed, and it was as hellish as the earlier versions.

Plenty of lads attesting to the lower res texture pack on Nexusmods solving stutter 'n' the LOD issue as well.

Sources for this, or is all this based off of your memory? Like I said, I played with a 290x 4gb @1440p and didn't have any problems, this was with one the earliest versions of the game.

 

[Magee_MC]

I think that the reported pricing of the 480 4/8gb variants of $199/229 makes sense in the context of AMD's statements that they want to increase the numbers of people with VR capable cards from 7.5 million to 100 million.

They're targeting the mainstream audience and they want to sell a boatload of cards to a very price sensitive market range. Most of the in this market range are price conscious first then look at performance after. Giving the 8gb version at a nominal markup of $30 makes it easier for people on either side of the fence to buy one. If you can only spend $200 or only want to keep it for a year or two buy the 4gb version, and if you plan on hanging on to it a little longer or have a budget under $250 get the 8gb one.

It seems that in this market, AMD has decided to go for volume to make their profits instead of pure markup. It's the old saw that there are two ways to make money, sell a little with a lot of profit on each one, or sell a lot with a little profit.

One other thought is that since there are fixed costs for designing a chip, spreading out that cost over a lot of chips sold allows the amount that each chip has to pay for the design costs to be lower and allows a lower final price.

 

[IntelUser2000]

The problem that AMD has is that VR is too expensive even with the video card being significantly cheaper. Likely if you can get it at MSRP, its still $600 for a headset. That's $600US, at a time when US dollar is at an high against other currencies.

And you still need a good CPU, unless you have one already. Vive isn't as picky, but Oculus doesn't like 2600K even though its capable.

$1500 to $1300. A big whoop. If the headset was $300 then it'd be $1000, and their claims start being believable. Really though, the system prices need to be $700-800.

The most positive way it could turn out for AMD : People decide to buy RX 480 for $199 at launch to play current titles. They wait until next year when Oculus/Vive releases 2nd generation headsets, each with two, one at $300 and one at $600.

 

[SPBHM]

Yeah, I remember there being a big hubbub about it, as well as the texture settings being broken (textures always at max res), and the LOD being rendered despite the player being close as the engine just chokes with flushing textures 'n' models, on cards with limited vRAM.

Last time I played the game was back on one one of the v1.5 versions, so it could have changed, and it was as hellish as the earlier versions.

Plenty of lads attesting to the lower res texture pack on Nexusmods solving stutter 'n' the LOD issue as well.

around patch 1.2 or 1.3 they improved it massively, I played with a 1GB card and with the first few versions the game was totally unplayable on the heavier downtown areas, like constant freezing for a few sec while loading stuff, after a few patches it runs smoothly.

now with a 1GB card it kind of fails to stream the highest quality textures a lot of times, but using the mod "enbboost" it uses more ram and load textures properly even on ultra and it's playable with the current version.

so yes, 2GB card should be fine,

 

[Thinker_145]

I just hope we have proper benches on the 480 before the 1070 is readily available at MSRP because I am already getting so impatient with my 7850. Decided at the last minute not to buy a 390 and wait.

If the 8GB 480 is no more than $250 and convincingly beats the 390X I'll probably buy it over the 1070 as I never mind saving money. But I need to know that before 1070 is within touching distance as I already do have the money to buy it.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[USER8000]

I just hope we have proper benches on the 480 before the 1070 is readily available at MSRP because I am already getting so impatient with my 7850. Decided at the last minute not to buy a 390 and wait.

If the 8GB 480 is no more than $250 and convincingly beats the 390X I'll probably buy it over the 1070 as I never mind saving money. But I need to know that before 1070 is within touching distance as I already do have the money to buy it.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

So,basically even if it was near R9 390X for $230,it would be over double the speed of your HD7850:

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080/images/perfrel_2560_1440.png

The R7 370 is an HD7850. The GTX1070 is meant to be around Titan X level or a bit slower. So,around 30% faster for 65% more money??

I don't know why the RX480 would have to beat an R9 390X for you to buy it over a GTX1070? An R9 390X would be 2.4X faster than an R7 370 and the GTX1070 around 2.9X faster.

If you really wanted to save money,you would buy the RX480 at $230 instead of the GTX1070 at $379 and save the extra money. By the end of next year both Vega and the GP102 would have pushed prices down even more,and AMD and Nvidia will probably start launching their next cards.

A $230 card then will probably be much faster than a GTX1070,and you could sell your older card and get some money back.

 

[Thinker_145]

So,basically even if it was near R9 390X for $230,it would be over double the speed of your HD7850:

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080/images/perfrel_2560_1440.png

The R7 370 is an HD7850. The GTX1070 is meant to be around Titan X level or a bit slower. So,around 30% faster for 65% more money??

I don't know why the RX480 would have to beat an R9 390X for you to buy it over a GTX1070? An R9 390X would be 2.4X faster than an R7 370 and the GTX1070 around 2.9X faster.

If you really wanted to save money,you would buy the RX480 at $230 instead of the GTX1070 at $379 and save the extra money. By the end of next year both Vega and the GP102 would have pushed prices down even more,and AMD and Nvidia will probably start launching their next cards.

A $230 card then will probably be much faster than a GTX1070,and you could sell your older card and get some money back.

At this point everything is way faster than a 7850 so that's not really a big deal.

Of course a 390X at $230 would give better price/perf than the 1070 but it doesn't quite max out Witcher 3 at 1080p which is one of the first games I am looking forward to playing when I get a new card.

If I exclusively cared about price/perf I wouldn't have some of the things I have in my PC. I am somebody who can afford the 1070 and had even made up my mind about it. I am just giving my personal opinion as to what it would take for AMD to make me change my decision.

 

[SelenaGomez]

Its not all about price per performance though. I mean you can get an old card that costs almost nothing and it be a better price per performance because its almost free.

The 1070 is a beast. I truly hope the Polaris comes very close to it and not 20-30% slower than it. But the Polaris most likely will be 20-30% slower. I mean they are talking about releasing a card in a few weeks and they dont even have real benchmarks out yet? They aren't releasing the benchmarks because they know its no where close to the 1070 that is being released so it will make it look even worse.

 

[Thinker_145]

Its not all about price per performance though. I mean you can get an old card that costs almost nothing and it be a better price per performance because its almost free.

The 1070 is a beast. I truly hope the Polaris comes very close to it and not 20-30% slower than it. But the Polaris most likely will be 20-30% slower. I mean they are talking about releasing a card in a few weeks and they dont even have real benchmarks out yet? They aren't releasing the benchmarks because they know its no where close to the 1070 that is being released so it will make it look even worse.

Ya if I don't see benchmarks till 15th June it's safe to assume in my opinion that it's not going to be that good. Why won't AMD want potential 1070 buyers to know what they could get by waiting a few more weeks?

 

[maddie]

Ya if I don't see benchmarks till 15th June it's safe to assume in my opinion that it's not going to be that good. Why won't AMD want potential 1070 buyers to know what they could get by waiting a few more weeks?

Because the number of individuals getting to buy a 1070 in that 20 day period is vanishingly small compared to the total to be sold. Those who want to rush and buy the 1070 ASAP are not concerned about value in any case if they can't wait less than 3 weeks. Those who want to get the best for their money are keeping ready for the 29th.

If you think it will be not good, then a simple choice for you and others clamouring for more early data, is to just buy a 1070 and be happy.

Just like how the $199 shocked some. Let Nvidia wonder what's coming and then slam the big P10 down, together with best perf/W and best per/$.

 

[Bacon1]

Its not all about price per performance though. I mean you can get an old card that costs almost nothing and it be a better price per performance because its almost free.

The 1070 is a beast. I truly hope the Polaris comes very close to it and not 20-30% slower than it. But the Polaris most likely will be 20-30% slower. I mean they are talking about releasing a card in a few weeks and they dont even have real benchmarks out yet? They aren't releasing the benchmarks because they know its no where close to the 1070 that is being released so it will make it look even worse.

You are going to be disappointed when a card is 50% of the cost, yet maybe 30% slower?

 

[Silverforce11]

Just like how the $199 shocked some. Let Nvidia wonder what's coming and then slam the big P10 down, together with best perf/W and best per/$.

Right, they don't need to rush their launch or change their time-table. The damage is already done, $199 GPU with $500 equivalent performance.

I saw LinusTechTip's stream on the new GPUs, he did a survey, the overwhelming majority of the viewers said they are more interested about the RX 480 now that they heard the price.

Anyone looking to spend >$400 will go with the 1070. Anyone else that wants to spend $699, will go with the 1080.

The rest, will wait and see reviews for AMD's Polaris. The fans of NV will wait to see when the 1060 will be out and details on it.

This idea that gamers with a small budget will suddenly spring up heaps more $$ for 1070 or 1080 is unfounded. The vast majority buy around $200.

 

[SelenaGomez]

Still not answering the question about why they aren't releasing the benchmarks already. Why would they not want to potentially take clients away from the 1070? You cant jsut say peopel will buy the 1070 regardless. That is not true and I am proof of that. I was goign to buy the 1070 but Now the Polaris is interesting but NO benchmarks so makes me wonder and might go ahead and buy the 1070 anyways now.

 

[Silverforce11]

Still not answering the question about why they aren't releasing the benchmarks already. Why would they not want to potentially take clients away from the 1070? You cant jsut say peopel will buy the 1070 regardless. That is not true and I am proof of that. I was goign to buy the 1070 but Now the Polaris is interesting but NO benchmarks so makes me wonder and might go ahead and buy the 1070 anyways now.

If you can't wait a few weeks, go buy the 1070 if it's within your budget. It's in a different performance and price tier.

 

[Silverforce11]

This kind of talk reminds me of Kyle @ [H] bashing Polaris for not matching GP104.

That's like being upset about a GTX 960 for not matching a GTX 980. Really.

The mass market doesn't spend $699 for a GPU. Not even $449.

AMD is not the one threatened. It's actually NV that has to respond with a 1060 that competes against Polaris 10.

 

[KaRLiToS]

This kind of talk reminds me of Kyle @ [H] bashing Polaris for not matching GP104.

That's like being upset about a GTX 960 for not matching a GTX 980. Really.

The mass market doesn't spend $699 for a GPU. Not even $449.

AMD is not the one threatened. It's actually NV that has to respond with a 1060 that competes against Polaris 10.

The GTX 1060 WILL compete with Polaris, that is no doubt.

 

[Silverforce11]

The GTX 1060 WILL compete with Polaris, that is no doubt.

Certainly, when it's in retail it will compete. Until then, it's actually NV that has market-share to lose (the bulk of it $100-$300 market), not the other way around.

 

[KaRLiToS]

Certainly, when it's in retail it will compete. Until then, it's actually NV that has market-share to lose (the bulk of it $100-$300 market), not the other way around.

Do you have any reason to believe that Nvidia will be late to the party when Polaris releaes?

 

[.vodka]

Still not answering the question about why they aren't releasing the benchmarks already. Why would they not want to potentially take clients away from the 1070? You cant jsut say peopel will buy the 1070 regardless. That is not true and I am proof of that. I was goign to buy the 1070 but Now the Polaris is interesting but NO benchmarks so makes me wonder and might go ahead and buy the 1070 anyways now.

AMD likes to play their cards close to their chest, for better or for worse, and usually reveal peformance and/or features at launch date. Remember 480 vs 800sp final RV770 (4870) that made a joke out of GT200 (GTX 280) at half the die size and 90-100% the performance while consuming the same or less? Eyefinity? Only a few key people developed that and got it included in the 5870, it was a secret until launch date.


Besides, it's been repeated ad nauseum and known that P10 doesn't target the same market segment GP104 does, so there's no point in comparing a card that has its competition in the GTX1060 (~980Ti -20-30%?), not in the 1070 (~980Ti) nor 1080 (~980Ti +20-30%).

Having said that, if you can't wait less than a month to see what's up with the option that will provide (as far as we know, this could change) around 80% (~390x/980) of the 1070's (~980Ti) performance at about ~40-50% the cost ($200 vs ≥$450, it's blower-scam edition with founder's-scam tax at first, then decent $380 custom cards later), then go ahead and get an overpriced early adopter 1070 if you must have a 1070 as soon as they go on sale. It's your money after all and you seem to have made your mind up already on this matter.



There could also be a suprirse in store that hasn't been announced since 2304sp/36CU sounds like a salvaged part, most likely there is a 2560sp/40CU "full" P10 card (beefed up 8GB edition?).

That card if available will get dangerously close to the 1070, if not being an equal in paper specs that could very well outperform it if GCN4's architectural changes are sound (2560sp at the rumored 1250MHz clockspeed for 2304sp P10 is around 6.5TF of theoretical compute performance, same as listed for the 1070). At the reveal AMD did mention $200-300 as the price range for Polaris, so there has to be something else at the $300 price point and below that. $230 is the 8GB RX 480, that's already known.


If you get 1070's performance for $300 should this card exist, it's a much better value vs $380 custom 1070 or $450 scam edition 1070. $200 RX 480 is already quite the value vs the 1070, if you have no need for the extra 20% performance it provides (1080p60 is the target here)


If I were you, I'd wait until the 29 for this very possibility and to see what the RX 480 is capable of in reviews, not speculation like this entire thread. This is GCN4 after all, and these slides certainly make it interesting:

Almost everything that's important in the GPU is labeled "new".

 

[Silverforce11]

Do you have any reason to believe that Nvidia will be late to the party when Polaris releaes?

Well, since they took an entire month to paper launch the 1070 and the 1080... and now we're hearing that the 1080 shipments are delayed (Gibbo @ OCUK confirmed).. & my retail buddies here told me only a handful of 1080 were shipped. Pre-orders sold out. No ETA on the next shipment...

It does make you think they were rushed to launch.

If they wan't to have the 1060 in retail, they better start their paper launch soon.

 

[KaRLiToS]

Well, since they took an entire month to paper launch the 1070 and the 1080... and now we're hearing that the 1080 shipments are delayed (Gibbo @ OCUK confirmed).. & my retail buddies here told me only a handful of 1080 were shipped. Pre-orders sold out. No ETA on the next shipment...

It does make you think they were rushed to launch.

If they wan't to have the 1060 in retail, they better start their paper launch soon.

Fair enough. Just checked the stock and I agree it is Out of Stock most of the places.

 

[Thinker_145]

You are going to be disappointed when a card is 50% of the cost, yet maybe 30% slower?

50% of the cost? That would be $190 why the hell do people have to keep exaggerating the hell out of everything?

If the 480 is 30% slower that would be pretty bad because then it would be identical to the 390. I think the word you are looking for here is "faster". If the 1070 is 30% faster than 480 then it makes the AMD great value but not exactly a 1070 killer.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[USER8000]

5

If the 8GB 480 is no more than $250 and convincingly beats the 390X I'll probably buy it over the 1070 as I never mind saving money. But I need to know that before 1070 is within touching distance as I already do have the money to buy it.

At this point everything is way faster than a 7850 so that's not really a big deal.

Of course a 390X at $230 would give better price/perf than the 1070 but it doesn't quite max out Witcher 3 at 1080p which is one of the first games I am looking forward to playing when I get a new card.

If I exclusively cared about price/perf I wouldn't have some of the things I have in my PC. I am somebody who can afford the 1070 and had even made up my mind about it. I am just giving my personal opinion as to what it would take for AMD to make me change my decision.

But now you are changing your tune - first you said you want to get a GTX1070 and only would get a RX480 at a lower cost it it consistently beat a R9 390X which means close to a GTX1070. So for some weird reason you really want to go with Nvidia,and will only get an AMD card if it is nearly a GTX1070 for $150 less??

Why are you wanting to pay more dollars per FPS since it has a Nvidia badge on it?? It seems really weird.

If it is not a big deal,just get the RX480 then.

In the end the RX480 is still better price/performance and since you have an HD7850,it will be a big upgrade and you are worried about 20% to 30% which won't make much if any difference for 65% more.

Plus the boat has sailed on The Witcher 3 - the latest patches means it runs much better than at launch. CD Projekt Red introduce sliders meaning the OTT tessellation for the Hairworks effects can be turned down with little or no reduction in IQ. AMD users could already do that via the drivers.

This is the whole problem,you are inefficiently spending your money.

You are paying OTT for the smaller additional increases,meaning you keep your cards too long,and so on. Its a vicious circle.

Its much cheaper to get the best price/performance deals and upgrade slightly more often,and sell the old card off.

You get better performance overall over a few years,instead of almost spending twice to get 30% more,which will barely make the card last longer.

Anyway each to their own I suppose.

 

[trane]

The GTX 1060 WILL compete with Polaris, that is no doubt.

I don't know about that. Nvidia has consistently lost in this segment. Look at the situation now - 960 is nowhere near a R9 380X. Heck, it's slower than a R9 380. It's not like it's much more power efficient either, unlike the 390/X-980/970 market.

The last good Nvidia product in this segment was 660 Ti, but that was $299. At $199 they have had nothing compelling for years.