Polaris 10 benchmarks...

Page 19 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
Seriously guys, it was only up to 6 months ago that many people thought the 2GB 960 was fine for mainstream 1080p gaming.

Suddenly 4GB RX 480 is not enough? Don't be silly. That low resolution does not stress the frame buffer.

If gamers are on 1440p (and especially 4K), I would shell out extra for 8GB for sure, for 2-3 years future proofing. But 1080p is mainstream resolution, with many budget gamers running below that even (steam survey).

One thing that's certain though, we've seen it with Mirror's Edge.. NV's plan to phase out their older stuff will focus on VRAM. So if they sponsor the PC port, expect to see a special "Hyper" mode that's designed to eat up your vram & destroy performance for next to zero visual gains.

As long as gamers are fine running at normal Ultra settings, 4GB for 1080 will be great for the next few years.
 

selni

Senior member
Oct 24, 2013
249
0
41
Seriously guys, it was only up to 6 months ago that many people thought the 2GB 960 was fine for mainstream 1080p gaming.

Suddenly 4GB RX 480 is not enough? Don't be silly. That low resolution does not stress the frame buffer.

If gamers are on 1440p (and especially 4K), I would shell out extra for 8GB for sure, for 2-3 years future proofing. But 1080p is mainstream resolution, with many budget gamers running below that even (steam survey).

One thing that's certain though, we've seen it with Mirror's Edge.. NV's plan to phase out their older stuff will focus on VRAM. So if they sponsor the PC port, expect to see a special "Hyper" mode that's designed to eat up your vram & destroy performance for next to zero visual gains.

As long as gamers are fine running at normal Ultra settings, 4GB for 1080 will be great for the next few years.

Yes, nvidia's master plan to phase out cards by adding a VRAM eating mode that doesn't look any better to get people to upgrade because everyone likes lower performance for no visible gain.

If that actually makes sense to you I don't know what to say... either this sort of thing actually looks better in which case it's unambiguously a good thing, or it doesn't in which case no one interested in actually playing games as opposed to just max settings benchmarks cares.
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
Yes, nvidia's master plan to phase out cards by adding a VRAM eating mode that doesn't look any better to get people to upgrade because everyone likes lower performance for no visible gain.

If that actually makes sense to you I don't know what to say... either this sort of thing actually looks better in which case it's unambiguously a good thing, or it doesn't in which case no one interested in actually playing games as opposed to just max settings benchmarks cares.

The enthusiast mindset: if there's a default setting higher than Ultra, they want to be able to run it, just because. Even if it has no visual difference, they will want to crank it up to the "MAX".

Go look at Mirror's Edge Ultra vs Hyper comparisons. 40% perf loss, major stutter on <8GB cards at 1440p onwards. So what's the visual gain? Distant shadows are now a sharper blob?

Most review sites also love to crank everything to the max as well, reinforcing this mantra that enthusiast gaming should be about maxing settings.
 

selni

Senior member
Oct 24, 2013
249
0
41
The enthusiast mindset: if there's a default setting higher than Ultra, they want to be able to run it, just because. Even if it has no visual difference, they will want to crank it up to the "MAX".

Go look at Mirror's Edge Ultra vs Hyper comparisons. 40% perf loss, major stutter on <8GB cards at 1440p onwards. So what's the visual gain? Distant shadows are now a sharper blob?

Most review sites also love to crank everything to the max as well, reinforcing this mantra that enthusiast gaming should be about maxing settings.

A lot of sites also correctly pointed out that hyper is pretty much just shadows/lighting and is something of a mess (and that the game in general has issues with texture streaming or something). If people are trusting crappy no effort reviews that obviously just set everything to max and make a chart or want to run higher settings that look no different, that's on them.
 

Bacon1

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2016
3,430
1,018
91
Yes, nvidia's master plan to phase out cards by adding a VRAM eating mode that doesn't look any better to get people to upgrade because everyone likes lower performance for no visible gain.

If that actually makes sense to you I don't know what to say... either this sort of thing actually looks better in which case it's unambiguously a good thing, or it doesn't in which case no one interested in actually playing games as opposed to just max settings benchmarks cares.

Because many reviewers only test at "max" settings. So they see things like Mirrors edge where the 980 ti is suddenly way slower than the 1080.



Sure in game reviews they will test multiple settings, but in video card reviews they often just test "max" settings since they have so many games to test before the review releases.

1080 goes from 24 -> 30% faster when swapping from Ultra to Hyper.
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
A lot of sites also correctly pointed out that hyper is pretty much just shadows/lighting and is something of a mess (and that the game in general has issues with texture streaming or something). If people are trusting crappy no effort reviews that obviously just set everything to max and make a chart or want to run higher settings that look no different, that's on them.

If logical people like us dictated how well products sold....

Let's face it, as soon as there's a few more AAA NV sponsored title that has 8GB Hyper settings, it makes 8GB GPUs much more attractive. It fits their narrative well because the 1070 has 8GB.
 

Thinker_145

Senior member
Apr 19, 2016
609
58
91
The argument isn't necessarily whether 4GB is enough or not. There is rumored $30 difference between 4 and 8 GB which makes the 4 GB DOA as far as I am concerned. AMD is only releasing it so they can tout the all important $199 marketing number.
 

richaron

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2012
1,357
329
136
The argument isn't necessarily whether 4GB is enough or not. There is rumored $30 difference between 4 and 8 GB which makes the 4 GB DOA as far as I am concerned. AMD is only releasing it so they can tout the all important $199 marketing number.

Well people are of course free to make their own mistakes.

The rational argument is exactly whether "4GB is enough or not"... Because if 4GB is enough then there's no point spending 2% more on it, let alone $15% more.

You seem to be one of those who fall under the illusion $30 more for an expensive item is worth less than $30 more for a cheap item. Let me put it like this: you are arguing it's fine paying $30 more for a video card when 4GB may be enough, but would you pay $30 more for a hamburger?
 

littleg

Senior member
Jul 9, 2015
355
38
91
If logical people like us dictated how well products sold....

Let's face it, as soon as there's a few more AAA NV sponsored title that has 8GB Hyper settings, it makes 8GB GPUs much more attractive. It fits their narrative well because the 1070 has 8GB.

:thumbsup: It's pure marketing to drive hardware sales. Boggles my mind that some poor dev actually had to take the time to intentionally make their game run worse for no real gain.

Possibly in the future we could just have the usual low, medium, high and ultra modes then 'marketing mode' on top of that which caps you at 10fps and makes your PSU explode no matter what hardware you're running.
 

Ma_Deuce

Member
Jun 19, 2015
175
0
0
One thing that's certain though, we've seen it with Mirror's Edge.. NV's plan to phase out their older stuff will focus on VRAM. So if they sponsor the PC port, expect to see a special "Hyper" mode that's designed to eat up your vram & destroy performance for next to zero visual gains.

A little OT, but it's right on the money. Pascal is too similar to maxwell to have a kepler style drop off. At least nv is giving a little more carrot and a little less stick this time around.

I'm curious to see if 290/290x/390/390x start to age more now that AMD is on a new GCN.
 

Thinker_145

Senior member
Apr 19, 2016
609
58
91
Well people are of course free to make their own mistakes.

The rational argument is exactly whether "4GB is enough or not"... Because if 4GB is enough then there's no point spending 2% more on it, let alone $15% more.

You seem to be one of those who fall under the illusion $30 more for an expensive item is worth less than $30 more for a cheap item. Let me put it like this: you are arguing it's fine paying $30 more for a video card when 4GB may be enough, but would you pay $30 more for a hamburger?
I wouldn't pay $30 for a hamburger because there is no justified reason for it to cost that much. VRAM on the other hand costs AMD money so they cant just give it away for free. Whether 8GB is needed or not is another matter but when I am paying $30 more for it I am not paying for some marketing number I am paying for a physical piece of technology that costs money to produce.

You can't "know" whether 4GB will be enough or not. Nobody can know and I'll rather make the mistake of spending $30 than not spending $30.

I have seen the "majority pro opinion" proving to be wrong time and time again. My first GPU was a 640MB 8800GTS but the opinion was it is not worth the price over 320MB 8800GTS. Soon after 512MB became the minimum requirement for max settings.

My second GPU was the 1GB GTS 250 but the majority opinion was that it's not worth the price over 512MB version. Soon enough 512MB was no longer enough.

My first CPU was the core 2 duo and the majority opinion was that the core 2 quad is not worth the extra money. That proved to be a bad decision which ended up costing me a lot more than the then price difference between duo and quad. Some games literally became a stutter fest with core 2 duo while the quad wasn't even breaking a sweat.

So ya I'll rather be wrong and "waste" $30.
 
Last edited:

littleg

Senior member
Jul 9, 2015
355
38
91
I think we can all agree that everything else being equal it's worth paying the extra $30 for the 8GB model over the 4GB. It's still nice to have the 4GB as an option though for those on a really tight budget. 4GB is still plenty enough for 1080 gaming for now.
 

prtskg

Senior member
Oct 26, 2015
261
94
101
I think we can all agree that everything else being equal it's worth paying the extra $30 for the 8GB model over the 4GB. It's still nice to have the 4GB as an option though for those on a really tight budget. 4GB is still plenty enough for 1080 gaming for now.
You missed the miners. They would prefer 4GB. I think 8GB will be good for gamers as it seems Nvidia sponsored games will focus on that aspect too.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
It's good marketing to offer a $199 card that competes with last gen cards of 2x the price. It might not be good business though to make a $199 card that gives people no reason to want to spend more. Thus the 4Gig and limited O/C'ing compared to 8Gig models that you can sell for up to 50% more if they have better cooling and can O/C better. I wouldn't be surprised if the 4Gig reference card is somehow limited in max performance.
 

MrTeal

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,586
1,746
136
Well people are of course free to make their own mistakes.

The rational argument is exactly whether "4GB is enough or not"... Because if 4GB is enough then there's no point spending 2% more on it, let alone $15% more.

You seem to be one of those who fall under the illusion $30 more for an expensive item is worth less than $30 more for a cheap item. Let me put it like this: you are arguing it's fine paying $30 more for a video card when 4GB may be enough, but would you pay $30 more for a hamburger?

The $30 delta isn't worth less, but the difference is the effect it has on the item. If getting pickles on my $2 burger costs $30, I'll skip it. The pickles may or may not make the burger better, but even if they do it's not worthwhile. If $30 allows top textures to be used on a $200 graphics card for a longer time, that's a more reasonable purchase. If I could buy the max tow package on an F-150 for $30 it would be a no brainer even though it increases tow rating from 9600lbs to 11200lbs and my trailer weighs 4000lbs dry. I may never need it, but given that $30 would be less than 0.1% of the cost of the vehicle it would be stupid not to.
 
Last edited:

sirmo

Golden Member
Oct 10, 2011
1,014
391
136
I think 4Gb is probably enough for anyone who wants to go for the absolute best bang per buck. Chances are the games in which you need 8Gb to max all the settings you will likely be making a quality vs FPS trade off anyways, and often times more FPS is more important that that little extra on textures.

The install base still has tons of 2Gb video cards out there. Heck the most popular GPU from last generation was 970 and we know how much Vram that has.

If you want to be safe get 8Gb, but if you plan on upgrading within the next 2 years, I don't think 8Gb is absolutely necessary.

There is no correct answer, both are viable.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
I think 4Gb is probably enough for anyone who wants to go for the absolute best bang per buck. Chances are the games in which you need 8Gb to max all the settings you will likely be making a quality vs FPS trade off anyways, and often times more FPS is more important that that little extra on textures.

The install base still has tons of 2Gb video cards out there. Heck the most popular GPU from last generation was 970 and we know how much Vram that has.

If you want to be safe get 8Gb, but if you plan on upgrading within the next 2 years, I don't think 8Gb is absolutely necessary.

There is no correct answer, both are viable.

Yes. Considering that 90%(99%?) of the time there will be no difference in performance. Why spend more?

I'm curious to know if they are doing anything else to limit performance. Like hearing about 1400MHz bios on some and 1500MHz bios on others. I wonder if there will be bios hacks to go even higher? Imagine if the cards can be modded and go even higher? $199 for 1600MHz or more? Just dreaming a bit, but it could be pretty epic if that were the case.
 

zentan

Member
Jan 23, 2015
177
5
36
That would be as rosy as hd6950 to 6970 unlock days(if all of it happens).
 
Last edited:

littleg

Senior member
Jul 9, 2015
355
38
91
Considering the recent rumours of 1500MHz models it'll be interesting to see if the initial reviews are just reference cards or if there'll be some AIB cards reviewed aswell.

First impressions count a lot so if I was AMD i'd be pushing to have the non-reference cards reviews released alongside the reference model. A factory OC'd 480 at 1500MHz will have a much bigger impact than just releasing the reviews for the standard reference model.
 

Bacon1

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2016
3,430
1,018
91
Considering the recent rumours of 1500MHz models it'll be interesting to see if the initial reviews are just reference cards or if there'll be some AIB cards reviewed aswell.

First impressions count a lot so if I was AMD i'd be pushing to have the non-reference cards reviews released alongside the reference model. A factory OC'd 480 at 1500MHz will have a much bigger impact than just releasing the reviews for the standard reference model.

It sounds like many of the factory OC'd 1500 cards are using more than single 6 pin, so won't be reference boards. Guessing we'll see:

4GB $199 reference

8GB ~$230 reference

8GB $240-$300 AIB custom cooled / extra power connector boards

If they do binning, expect to see the lowest binned ones on the 4gb boards
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
Considering the recent rumours of 1500MHz models it'll be interesting to see if the initial reviews are just reference cards or if there'll be some AIB cards reviewed aswell.

First impressions count a lot so if I was AMD i'd be pushing to have the non-reference cards reviews released alongside the reference model. A factory OC'd 480 at 1500MHz will have a much bigger impact than just releasing the reviews for the standard reference model.

AMD and it's AIB's need to get cards into the reviewers' hands like nVidia. Look at TPU's front page. There are three 1080 reviews and a 1070 review right across the top. Same with Guru3D. This isn't release day or anything. People who look at tech sites for buying information are bombarded by nVidia's new cards.

It's the same with GSync. Look at TFTCentral. Three Gsync monitors (which I think is an all time low. lol) vs. one FreeSync. And the one Freesync is a +$1200 Eizo premium model.

This is the type of stealth marketing that AMD doesn't even seem to know exists.
 

atakall

Member
Jan 18, 2010
26
16
81
Long time lurker, long time PC enthusiast (long before 2010).

Given the discussions of 4gb vs. 8gb 480's, I thought some might find the following to be of interest (because it's mostly been ignored in the thread until the last few posts). At bottom, the 4gb exists only to sell the 8gb version to maximize AMD income & marketing mindshare. It's all about consumer psychology. I would suggest that >70% of the 480s manufactured will be 8gb models b/c significant research by AMD has surely confirmed that the overwhelming number of consumers will end up purchasing the 8gb model as explained below.

The pricing of, and difference between, the 4gb and 8gb versions of the 480 exists to upsell consumers to the 8gb version. For those interested in the strategy, it's referred to as "decoy pricing." For the most straight-forward example, see http://www.realcasestories.com/2016/02/decoy-effect-popcorn-pricing.html for a brief discussion of a study conducted concerning movie theater popcorn pricing. Most are familiar with this strategy in movie theaters where the "large" size is priced to attract purchasers even though the quantity is unnecessary and the price differential still excessive to justify the true additional value provided (not that I'm saying that applies to the 4gb/8gb - but the theory is the same).

Although the "decoy pricing" technique frequently involves 3 pricing tiers (as discussed in article above), it can equally be applied here, where there are only two tiers but the prices between the tiers versus the perceived benefits are minimal.

The 480 4gb will be priced at $200. This is the anchor price that sets the overarching market tier of the 480 series. But, it's not the product that AMD really wants to sell. Instead, AMD prefers to maximize revenue, profits (& mindshare but that's a different issue from pricing strategy and I don't want to digress). Welcome, the 480 8gb for but a mere $30 more. Why $30 more? Because the purpose isn't really to highlight a huge technical discrepancy between 4gb vs 8gb that would call people to really examine the issue of 4gb vs 8gb. It's a non-winner (for the aforesaid reason that at this time and near future 4gb is sufficient and b/c it would have a negative effect on the overarching marketing tier ($200 & below with the 4gb 480, 470 & 460)). The purpose is to provide a low barrier incentive to get people to spend more than they really need. AMD realizes that a gamer purchasing a $200 card is unlikely to immediately discount the option of spending $30 more for a perceived benefit (4gb more VRAM) whereas $50 or $70 may. Thus the gamer will consider the upsell depending on the bait ("perceived value") of the upsell. For the decoy pricing to work, the "perceived value" must be greater than the cost of obtaining the perceived value.

We know the cost. How strong is the perceived value/benefit?
(1) Future Proofing - Few want to purchase within their tier thinking that their investment is already of questionable value or will be short-lived. And, believe it or not, it's an important emotional aspect of electronics purchases. With but a slight increase in price ($30) one can future proof their 480 video card to ensure that VRAM limits won't get in the way any time soon. For $30, that's quite a bit of piece of mind.
(2) Top Level Purchase - Within a purchasing tier, many prefer to first eye the top of the offerings within a tier. In this case that's the 480. Having decided to consider the top offering, one is more likely to consider "options" that go along with the top tier so as to ensure they've maximized their choice. In this case, if you're going to buy the top-tier of the market segment, you can spend an extra $30 and ensure that you have the best of the best of that teir. For $30, you just got the best!!!!!!! What a cheap price to pay (again, some of the statements I am making reflect the emotional thinking of consumers; I'm not literally saying "you just got the best" b/c the 8gb version is any greater than the 4gb version. That's a different discussion).
(3) Gaming Satisfaction - As demonstrated here, there is some debate about the current value of 4gb vs 8gb vram. Independent of who is right, it demonstrates that some consumers will view the extra 4gb as an actual benefit to their gaming enjoyment.

In this instance, the "perceived value" to many buyers will be substantially greater than a mere $30 (15%, or "hmmm, I can get 4gb more for a bit more than my sales tax....not bad"). The "perceived value" of 4gb to many is actually quite high in this case (& remember "perceived value" is not the same as "actual value" - that's the whole purpose of decoy pricing). And, as it not uncommon in pricing schemes, the perceived value is mostly emotional (some will argue differently), but substantial in this case.

In a nutshell, AMD has posed the following question to consumers by positioning the 4gb card vs the 8gb cards with only a $30 price different: Is foregoing the increased gaming satisfaction you'll receive having 8gb VRAM, the future-proofing of 8gb you obtain, and the sense of purchasing the "best of the best" of your tier really worth sacrificing but for a measly $30? Really? You sure? You're dropping $200? Come on, it's just $30 more. You can make sure you don't waste your entire investment of $200 for just $30 more? (future-proofing concern). Sale.....cha ching.

Ultimately, while $30 more on a $200 card isn't much to consumers, it will result in a significant amount of margin/revenue/profit to AMD on a sale that they were already going to make. This is precisely the purpose of decoy pricing.

At bottom, the 4gb/8gb pricing disparity allows AMD to capture additional profit and revenue without threatening sales or market position of the products. It provides perception value for many consumers (via future proofing, belief that it may provide better gameplay, etc), confirms marketing equilibrium for AMD (enabling AMD to market 8gb cards as its competitor has), and is great for competition as it will strengthen AMD's bottom line (& I think few would disagree that at this juncture, the market for CPU's & GPU's only benefits from AMD being a financially viable entity). It's a win/win all around.

There's a lot more to say on the topic. For, e.g., there are other reasons for an 8gb independent of pricing structure, "necessity" or "gameplay improvements", such as market perception. After all, AMD wants to be able to sell an 8gb product b/c it's competitor does, and if AMD didn't the market could perceive that its products are inferior or automatically targeted at budget people that don't care about performance. They could have satisfied the market perception need by selling the 8gb for substantially higher than $30 more. Alas, they didn't. And, I'm confident my explanation above is precisely why (and they get the added benefit of positive market perception "wow, an 8gb video card for only $230....great price").
 
Last edited:

DeeJayBump

Member
Oct 9, 2008
60
63
91
Many folks are over-thinking the 4GB versus 8GB Polaris 480.

As several have stated (including drunkenmaster on other forums) the 4GB 480 is a very attractive option for OEMS like Dell, HP, etc who offer pre-packaged PCs for the non-enthusiast crowd. The $30 they (OEMs) save by going with the 4GB card saves them on the overall price of the PC, leaving the 8GB 480 as a possible upgrade option.

There will conceivably be MANY of the 4GB 480 cards sold in these OEM PC builds.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |