Polaris 10 benchmarks...

[tential]

You are right my initial argument was a bit outdated when 1080p was the maximum resolution available on big screens. On a 42" 1080p screen you have to maintain a certain distance otherwise it becomes a pixelated mess if you sit as close to it as your FOV allows.

I really feel like you need a primary screen that's above 40 inches before you make these sweeping claims. When the majority of your gaming is 1080p resolution below 30 inch monitor you don't really have an idea of how large screen gamers feel. Especially considering there are so few large screen pc gamers

 

[Thinker_145]

I really feel like you need a primary screen that's above 40 inches before you make these sweeping claims. When the majority of your gaming is 1080p resolution below 30 inch monitor you don't really have an idea of how large screen gamers feel. Especially considering there are so few large screen pc gamers

Again so much assumption. I have gamed on a 50" 1080p screen and apart from a few genres I mostly prefer a smaller and sharper screen.

Large screen 1080p TVs are fairly cheap now. People who choose to game on smaller 1080p screens certainly aren't limited by budget in doing so. I know I am not.

 

[Ma_Deuce]

There is an entire section of the forum outside of the polaris benchmark thread that is perfect for monitor discussion...

 

[tential]

Again so much assumption. I have gamed on a 50" 1080p screen and apart from a few genres I mostly prefer a smaller and sharper screen.

Like I said, having a primary system.

Not having gamed on one once in awhile. I'm speaking generally. Most PC gamers are not large screen gamers, it doesn't fit how they PC game.

 

[topmounter]

There is an entire section of the forum outside of the polaris benchmark thread that is perfect for monitor discussion...

I concur.

 

[tential]

Gotta keep ourselves occupied til the E3 announcement. So close now!

 

[Thinker_145]

Like I said, having a primary system.

Not having gamed on one once in awhile. I'm speaking generally. Most PC gamers are not large screen gamers, it doesn't fit how they PC game.

And yet when I first played on a large 4K screen there were no problems....

Maybe you know some people just prefer a smaller sharper screen over a bigger pixelated one? It's really a matter of preference and not ignorance.

 

[faseman]

Every time this thread is pushed to the top I hope for more polaris news, instead we get a bunch of people arguing about monitors. Come on guys!

 

[SelenaGomez]

Every time this thread is pushed to the top I hope for more polaris news, instead we get a bunch of people arguing about monitors. Come on guys!

I created a monster. I cannot wait for Polaris benchmarks now since the 1070 is priced so much higher in Canada than I thought. It would cost $650 to buy a 1070. Completely disapointed in Nvidia and will msot likely buy AMD for my first time ever. Hopefully the Polaris is quite a bit faster than the 980. I need to upgrade my Gtx 670

 

[Borealis7]

mountain of salt...

 

[redzo]

mountain of salt...

It looks too good to be true. Impressive OC scaling for a 200$ part. If it is not fake, I wonder if the OC potential is representative for the entire product lineup.

 

[Ancalagon44]

I call BS on that graph.

Look at the difference between RX 480 normal and RX 480 OC - it's nearly 30%. If a simple overclock could get you 30% additional performance, why would AMD not simply sell it with higher clocks?

The normal RX 480 score is higher than I would expect - would be a pleasant surprise if that part of the graph turns out to be accurate.

EDIT: Even if such a higher OC causes power consumption to spike, what most businesses would do is sell the normal one for low power systems, and restrict OC on that one. Then, sell a factory overclocked 480 with clocks that are not possible via overclocking the normal 480.

So I still call BS.

 

[khon]

That graph does indeed look too good to be true.

If the 480 can equal the 980/R9-390X in performance, I would call that a win, and buy myself an 8GB version as soon as it is available. Anything more would be an unexpected bonus.

 

[Borealis7]

I call BS on that graph.

Look at the difference between RX 480 normal and RX 480 OC - it's nearly 30%. If a simple overclock could get you 30% additional performance, why would AMD not simply sell it with higher clocks?

it's not a "simple" overclock, it's a 29.6% OC for around the same % performance. the scaling is reasonable, plus we don't know the memory OC. it's only Firestrike, not really indicative of real world performance either...
and AMD wouldn't sell parts with higher clocks because it ruins their "2.5X perf/watt" figure.

 

[Ancalagon44]

it's not a "simple" overclock, it's a 29.6% OC for around the same % performance. the scaling is reasonable, plus we don't know the memory OC. it's only Firestrike, not really indicative of real world performance either...
and AMD wouldn't sell parts with higher clocks because it ruins their "2.5X perf/watt" figure.

If all you need to do to get your $200 card to perform like a $400 card is to overclock it, then AMD is doing something wrong.

As far as I know, not even the 980, 980Ti or 1080 can manage a 30% overclock, and those are all known for their overclocking ability.

So first of all, I doubt that a 30% OC is possible. Second of all, if a 30% OC is possible, it means AMD is leaving performance on the table. AMD knows that performance sells - they would take advantage of that.

So, I call BS.

 

[selni]

If all you need to do to get your $200 card to perform like a $400 card is to overclock it, then AMD is doing something wrong.

As far as I know, not even the 980, 980Ti or 1080 can manage a 30% overclock, and those are all known for their overclocking ability.

So first of all, I doubt that a 30% OC is possible. Second of all, if a 30% OC is possible, it means AMD is leaving performance on the table. AMD knows that performance sells - they would take advantage of that.

So, I call BS.

Or it's some exotic cooling solution. Who knows, it's meaningless without context.

 

[Silverforce11]

How quickly people forget the 7850 and 7950.

800mhz stock clocks.

Overclocks to 1.2ghz or above. Both of mine did 1.2ghz.

Bought the 7950 close to launch for $330. OC 1.2ghz it was faster than a GTX 680.

Btw, we had the same bs arguments then, about how AMD was too conservative and left a lot of performance left on the table.

It seems to be double standards. When NV overclocks well (Maxwell), it's just better all-round, everyone overclocks and loves it. Nobody mentions NV leaving performance on the table.

When Pascal overclocks crap, suddenly overclocking is not important... and if a GPU overclocks well, it's a negative thing, "all that performance left on the table"... -_-

Btw, that chart is wrong. It's using an NDA-trap bios with stock clocks 1080mhz (AMD trolling GTX 1080). So it looks like a massive OC, but if clocks are actually 1266mhz, an overclock to 1400mhz isn't much. I also doubt they have vcore mod access with afterburner yet so it's "stock vcore" overclocking, which is gimped on AMD.

 

[redzo]

... Second of all, if a 30% OC is possible, it means AMD is leaving performance on the table. AMD knows that performance sells - they would take advantage of that.

Borealis7 made a good point about the possibility of a severe regression when it comes to efficiency. Leaving performance on the table makes sense under this context.

 

[3DVagabond]

If all you need to do to get your $200 card to perform like a $400 card is to overclock it, then AMD is doing something wrong.

As far as I know, not even the 980, 980Ti or 1080 can manage a 30% overclock, and those are all known for their overclocking ability.

So first of all, I doubt that a 30% OC is possible. Second of all, if a 30% OC is possible, it means AMD is leaving performance on the table. AMD knows that performance sells - they would take advantage of that.

So, I call BS.

It's showing stock clocks of 1088. We've seen stock clocks as high as 1266. What's better marketing. Faster stock or better O'C's?

 

[R0H1T]

It's showing stock clocks of 1088. We've seen stock clocks as high as 1266. What's better marketing. Faster stock or better O'C's?

Depends on who you're asking, Maxwell is an OCers dream but Pascal isn't even halfway there, tells exactly what you need to know.
In the end however all that matters is the performance you want, whether an OC gets you there or just stock clocks is largely irrelevant.

 

[casiofx]

I think RX 480 can do around 1500mhz oced.

Just think about the difference of maxwell and gcn 1.1 on 28nm
1500mhz oced on maxwell vs 1150 on gcn1.1
So on 14/16nm, pascal can do around 2000mhz, then polaris 10 would break over the 1500mhz barrier.

But still i would think after oced it could only do like 3500 to 3700 points of firestrike ultra, nothing more

 

[Borealis7]

If all you need to do to get your $200 card to perform like a $400 card is to overclock it, then AMD is doing something wrong.

do you know what is the percentage of the general population who overclock? less than 1%?
AMD is leaving nothing on the table if they can later on release a "RX 485" which is an 480 OC model.

 

[IntelUser2000]

That chart is said to be fake if you read in other forums. Apparently the forumgoers in the leak site say so and want to pull the picture down.

 

[Aristotelian]

I call "BS" on that graph already because what, are we going back to the days again where I had to patrol threads and point out the manipulation of graphs? The 1070 is OC'd, the 1080 is not, so it skews comparative results. All OC'able parts should be OC'd. That's the true comparison.

 

[linkgoron]

It looks too good to be true. Impressive OC scaling for a 200$ part. If it is not fake, I wonder if the OC potential is representative for the entire product lineup.

I think that they just photoshopped this image:
http://www.suyongso.com/anidong/13061640