Polaris 10 benchmarks...

[antihelten]

No, you don't need to be a genius

Card with 4GB of ram @199.
reference card with 8GB @ (iirc) 229.
Standard AIB card with 8GB @250-75.
Really fancy, AIB card with a bigger factory overclock @~300.

Entirely in line with nearly every GPU of recent times. The final column may not exist, with the 300 being covered by 'routinely' expensive AIB cards. Depends on how much OC headroom there is - if there is some, even at the expense of a mad power draw, then they'll ramp it up as there'll be some sales for the fastest vaguely modern AMD card.

And the really fancy card at $300 would obviously be faster than the $200 one.

At this stage there is not really any doubt that there will be cards at $300 (or there about), that will be faster than the $200 card. People who are arguing against this are either delusional or believe that AMD are liers.

The only open question that remains is how much faster said card will be and whether or not the specs will differ for anything other than clocks (which seems unlikely, given the latest slides from AMD)

 

[Midwayman]

And the really fancy card at $300 would obviously be faster than the $200 one.

At this stage there is not really any doubt that there will be cards at $300 (or there about), that will be faster than the $200 card. People who are arguing against this are either delusional or believe that AMD are liers.

The only open question that remains is how much faster said card will be and whether or not the specs will differ for anything other than clocks (which seems unlikely, given the latest slides from AMD)

Oh no doubt someone will try it. The really issue is that there is no stock card in that market space to put a cap on what they can charge for a cooler and a OC you could do on your own.

 

[Thinker_145]

I think the 8GB card should not start below $250 because otherwise it would be really stupid and poor relative value to buy the 4GB one.

 

[Rezist]

Exactly. Americans quickly forget that over the pond we have different prices. 370$ 1070? Yeah, dream on. More like over 500€. That's not mainstream, it's freaking robbery. So if a 470 gets to 170€ it's gonna sell like hot bread.

Yeah a 1080 FE is almost 1K CDN$.
I need an upgrade from a 7950, AMD doesn't usually brutally rape Canadians like nVidia does so I'm hoping I can snag a 480 for under 260$ CDN taxes in, if not a 470 would be ok to.

 

[jpiniero]

Yeah a 1080 FE is almost 1K CDN$.
I need an upgrade from a 7950, AMD doesn't usually brutally rape Canadians like nVidia does so I'm hoping I can snag a 480 for under 260$ CDN taxes in, if not a 470 would be ok to.

I doubt the 470 would be really much of an upgrade, except for power draw obviously. The 480 would be pushing it but I guess.

 

[Stuka87]

Yeah a 1080 FE is almost 1K CDN$.
I need an upgrade from a 7950, AMD doesn't usually brutally rape Canadians like nVidia does so I'm hoping I can snag a 480 for under 260$ CDN taxes in, if not a 470 would be ok to.

A 470 would be a bit of a side grade. But the 480 (if rumors are true) will be a nice upgrade. Thats what I am looking at doing.

 

[AtenRa]

Some people spend $700-800 to get 20-30% more performance, RX470 at $150 will be more than 30% faster than HD7950, especially in DX-12/Vulcan it could be up to 2X.

But I will agree that if you can get the RX 480 it will be a bigger upgrade over the HD7950.

Dont forget that HD7950 is only 10-20% faster than the R9 270X(HD7870), i will say that RX 470 4GB at $150 could even be a nice cheap upgrade even for R9 280/285/380 and GTX 660/670/680/750/960 users. Especially for those with only 2GB memory cards.

 

[jpiniero]

He has it overclocked to a Ghz though, so the 470 may only be 10-15% faster and then the 480 would be 20-25% faster than that. I'm assuming AMD is shipping the 470/480 at the top of the clock range so I wouldn't expect much in the way of overclocking on it.

 

[Silverforce11]

I'm assuming AMD is shipping the 470/480 at the top of the clock range so I wouldn't expect much in the way of overclocking on it.

Is that why they kept on focusing on perf/w? I would think it helps that to not push the clocks beyond the optimal point where it gets diminishing returns on perf vs power usage.

Just take a short trip back in time to the 7850 and 7950 era.

 

[AtenRa]

This is from April,
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_950/23.html

R9 285 is ~HD7950 1GHz

According to the slide bellow, 285 is only 12% faster than R9 270X

According to the early performance numbers, RX 470 is ~60% faster than 270X.
With new drivers and DX-12 games, RX470 will be 50%+ faster than HD7950 1GHz/285.
That is a nice upgrade for only $150 for the 4GB 110W TDP card.

Edit: And if rumors for 1400MHz with default voltages is true, a RX 470 will be more than 60% faster than a 1GHz Tahiti/Tonga.

 

[sm625]

I think the 8GB card should not start below $250 because otherwise it would be really stupid and poor relative value to buy the 4GB one.

But there is no value in having an 8GB card. So how can there be value in paying 25% more for it? The money would be much better spent buying the top of the line superclocked 4GB version, assuming there will be such a thing at $250.

 

[Thinker_145]

But there is no value in having an 8GB card. So how can there be value in paying 25% more for it? The money would be much better spent buying the top of the line superclocked 4GB version, assuming there will be such a thing at $250.

But not paying $30 more for a feature that could really mean a lot in the future would be really stupid.

 

[sm625]

But not paying $30 more for a feature that could really mean a lot in the future would be really stupid.

That extra $30 worth of VRAM will never be more useful than $30 worth of better cooling/better binning. Not today, not 3 years from now.

 

[Kenmitch]

But not paying $30 more for a feature that could really mean a lot in the future would be really stupid.

It's hard to say without proper reviews. 8GB sounds good but if the gpu runs out of grunt before it's needed then there really isn't a point. No fun playing maxed out if you only get 30fps in the end.

 

[realibrad]

That extra $30 worth of VRAM will never be more useful than $30 worth of better cooling/better binning. Not today, not 3 years from now.

CF could be worth it. A single 480 is not likely to be able to do enough work where 8gb is needed, but in CF, that shared pool might be. Those dual chips should be enough to use up 8gb.

Also, the sad truth is that game devs are moving more and more to gpu memory. I have a 6950 2gb and was told over and over that 1080 gaming would never need more than 2 gb. Yet, here we are right?

 

[Thinker_145]

CF could be worth it. A single 480 is not likely to be able to do enough work where 8gb is needed, but in CF, that shared pool might be. Those dual chips should be enough to use up 8gb.

Also, the sad truth is that game devs are moving more and more to gpu memory. I have a 6950 2gb and was told over and over that 1080 gaming would never need more than 2 gb. Yet, here we are right?

lol actually talking about the 6950 I don't know if you were following things this closely back then but when the 1GB 6950 was released everyone was like THIS is the card to get the 6950 is not powerful enough for 2GB anyways. It was actually true that games didn't really need 2GB back then but tell me again how that story turned out over the lifespan of the card...

I have had enough of this 4GB vs 8GB thing. Those who want to buy 4GB its your choice and your freedom.

 

[Thinker_145]

No fun playing maxed out if you only get 30fps in the end.

Well if it's consistent then I don't see a problem. When you are sitting on an outdated card like if I am using a 480 in 2019 then I better be willing to lower my standards.

When I don't have money to buy a new card I will keep sacrificing my FPS until I go below 30.

 

[realibrad]

lol actually talking about the 6950 I don't know if you were following things this closely back then but when the 1GB 6950 was released everyone was like THIS is the card to get the 6950 is not powerful enough for 2GB anyways. It was actually true that games didn't really need 2GB back then but tell me again how that story turned out over the lifespan of the card...

I have had enough of this 4GB vs 8GB thing. Those who want to buy 4GB its your choice and your freedom.

Its the reason i went with the 2 gb. You could see even then that devs were making games that were just using more and more. I now see many games using well over 1gb for my card.

Its well past time for me to get a new card. If the 480 turns out to be a 390/x replacement for around 199 then I am in. I want to go to 1440 gaming but I will need to see some real benchmarks. I cant believe how long I have had my 6950 and 2500k.

 

[Thinker_145]

Its the reason i went with the 2 gb. You could see even then that devs were making games that were just using more and more. I now see many games using well over 1gb for my card.

Its well past time for me to get a new card. If the 480 turns out to be a 390/x replacement for around 199 then I am in. I want to go to 1440 gaming but I will need to see some real benchmarks. I cant believe how long I have had my 6950 and 2500k.

I am also still using a 7850 2GB. I haven't played any games from 2015 onwards and this has allowed me to play all my backlog once and for all. Now I will get a new card once I have finished all the old games.

I also lugged around my Core 2 Quad since forever before getting a 6700k.

 

[Bacon1]

4gb vs 8gb all depends on if you plan on using 2 cards or keeping the cards way over their lifespan.

4GB is going to be fine for 99% of games. Only crazy settings will require 8GB and as seen by Mirrors Edge, "Hyper" settings kill over 40% (even on 1080) of performance for almost zero actual graphical changes you'd notice while playing the game.

You'll have to turn down settings due to the card not being able to handle the settings before you'll hit memory limits.

 

[Zstream]

It's hard to say without proper reviews. 8GB sounds good but if the gpu runs out of grunt before it's needed then there really isn't a point. No fun playing maxed out if you only get 30fps in the end.

I've been playing games for over 20 years on a PC. I never had an issue playing at 30fps, as long as the screen isn't tearing like crazy. People are obsessed with this number, seesh.

 

[laamanaator]

I've been playing games for over 20 years on a PC. I never had an issue playing at 30fps, as long as the screen isn't tearing like crazy. People are obsessed with this number, seesh.

But you're not everyone. For example I can't play at 30fps, hell even 45 is too low for me. FPS lower than 45 starts to give me a headache. I'd probably go for a 120Hz+ monitor, if i had the money to buy it (and the harware capable of running games at 120FPS), but because I don't have, I'm fine gaming at 60FPS

 

[Headfoot]

But you're not everyone. For example I can't play at 30fps, hell even 45 is too low for me. FPS lower than 45 starts to give me a headache. I'd probably go for a 120Hz+ monitor, if i had the money to buy it (and the harware capable of running games at 120FPS), but because I don't have, I'm fine gaming at 60FPS

Seconded. Anything less than 60 fps minimums or ~45 FPS on adaptive sync in most action games (FPS, 3rd person, etc.) leaves me uncomfortable and feeling very disconnected. Acting like no one sees the point in getting over 30 FPS in a Video Card and Graphics forum on a technology enthusiast site is laughable

 

[Irenicus]

But there is no value in having an 8GB card. So how can there be value in paying 25% more for it? The money would be much better spent buying the top of the line superclocked 4GB version, assuming there will be such a thing at $250.

There is value when you consider that some games, now or in the future might have fewer constraints if the memory is 8GB vs 4GB. Maybe they are bad ports (still a benefit by giving more breathing room for bad ports when it comes to memory usage), maybe it makes the devs job easier to balance some effect if they have much more vram to play with. If it's 30 extra dollars, what's the harm?

 

[Bacon1]

There is value when you consider that some games, now or in the future might have fewer constraints if the memory is 8GB vs 4GB. Maybe they are bad ports (still a benefit by giving more breathing room for bad ports when it comes to memory usage), maybe it makes the devs job easier to balance some effect if they have much more vram to play with. If it's 30 extra dollars, what's the harm?

$30 is 15% of the total cost of the card.

That means you can save that money and put to towards your next GPU purchase.

The 8GB is only worth it for those that really, really need to up graphics and don't mind suffering massive performance hits which the cards can't handle, or go dual cards to increase perf.