Thanks for the information.
Are you sure there is only going to be a 4gb rx560 and not 2gb as well?
Also if its only going to be 40% faster than R7 360 why is amd misleading by advertising as upto 2X faster?
Thanks for the information.You should know by now that if AMD marketing is throwing some numbers they are the best case and nowhere close to real world average performance increase. Anyway R7 360 was a partially disabled Bonaire chip with 768 sp clocked at 1050 Mhz boost . 16 ROPs. 128 bit GDDR5 memory at 6500Mhz . Bandwidth 104 GB/s. 1.61 TFLOPS (768 x 2 x 1050 )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Radeon_Rx_300_series
With Rx 560 we have a fully enabled Polaris 11 with 1024 sp at 1275 Mhz boost . 16 ROPs. 128 bit memory at GDDR5 7000 Mhz. Bandwidth 112 GB/s. 2.61 TFLOPS (1024 x 2 x 1275 ). We are for sure not going to have 2x perf of R7 360 even when theoretical TFLOPS are only 1.6x . btw performance never scales linearly with TFLOPs especially when the chips have same shader engines, tesselation engines, ROPs and roughly same theoretical memory bandwidth even though Polaris does have color compression which improves actual bandwidth. I would say we will see 30-40% improvement in DX11 games and close to 50% in DX12/Vulkan wrt R7 360.
We have already seen AMD partner Sapphire launch fully enabled Polaris 11 with 1250 Mhz boost for Chinese market. So the Rx 560 is just an official SKU of what was previously a region limited SKU. It will be roughly similar to the GTX 1050 in performance.
http://wccftech.com/sapphire-rx-460-nitro-oc-1024-polaris-11-gpu/
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/55411/amd-radeon-rx-460-unlock-free-12-5-performance-gain/index.html
http://overclocking.guide/amd-radeon-rx-460-unlocking-1024-stream-processors/
The main advantage is the Rx 560 comes with 4GB VRAM as the default SKU while GTX 1050 only has 2GB . I think USD 99-109 is the right price for this GPU. Anything higher and its not worth it as the faster GTX 1050 Ti can be found for USD 130.
Thanks for the information.
Are you sure there is only going to be a 4gb rx560 and not 2gb as well?
Also if its only going to be 40% faster than R7 360 why is amd misleading by advertising as upto 2X faster?
Yeah its best not to trust amd marketing slides. That 2.8x perf/watt thing was a blatant lie. Amd has to resort to these misleading slides to make their product look good.The slides mention Rx 560 4GB. So I assume thats the default SKU. AMD marketing has proven to very manipulative with Polaris like the 2.8x perf/watt claim vs previous generation we saw at Rx 400 series launch. Reality was far from that. AMD could compare a R7 360 2GB with a Rx 560 4GB in a game which uses more than 2GB VRAM at the tested settings. The R7 360 2GB will tank badly and AMD could thus get such extreme gains in such corner cases . But those will not be the norm.
Freesync 2 is only useful on HDR monitors (which don't exist yet). HDR TVs of course don't support adaptive refresh yet.FreeSync 2? wth AMD that better not require a new screen
This is exact the same as the Skylake>Kaby Lake refresh. Same power, higher clocks/same clocks, lower power.3rd generation LPC has lesser electricity consumption and production cost than 2nd generation LPP.
Freesync 2 is only useful on HDR monitors (which don't exist yet). HDR TVs of course don't support adaptive refresh yet.
Here's what Samsung has to say about 3rd gen FinFET: 14nm LPC(Compact or Cost depending on who reported it)
This is exact the same as the Skylake>Kaby Lake refresh. Same power, higher clocks/same clocks, lower power.
AMD better be launching this at cheaper prices than the launch prices of the rx 480/470 then.
The leaked pricing seems too high. Its pretty low to take a rebranded chip that's cheaper to make and charge the same launch pricing of the original chip.
Every other rebrand in history has been dramatically cheaper than the original chip. To price it the same is pretty low, particularly when it is cheaper to make now and is not a new chip design.
AMD better be launching this at cheaper prices than the launch prices of the rx 480/470 then.
The leaked pricing seems too high. Its pretty low to take a rebranded chip that's cheaper to make and charge the same launch pricing of the original chip.
Every other rebrand in history has been dramatically cheaper than the original chip. To price it the same is pretty low, particularly when it is cheaper to make now and is not a new chip design.
AMD better be launching this at cheaper prices than the launch prices of the rx 480/470 then.
The leaked pricing seems too high. Its pretty low to take a rebranded chip that's cheaper to make and charge the same launch pricing of the original chip.
Every other rebrand in history has been dramatically cheaper than the original chip. To price it the same is pretty low, particularly when it is cheaper to make now and is not a new chip design.
One thing you should have known by now is that rebrands are meant to lift up the falling prices of PC tech products which have seen price erosion due to competitive pressure, market demand/supply and the natural price erosion which happens to high tech PC products which have a short shelf life like GPUs (roughly 12-24 months). I would not expect any price cuts. USD 239 for Rx 580 8GB, USD 199 for Rx 580 4GB, Rx 570 4GB for USD 169 , Rx 560 4GB for USD 119 is what we can expect.
The R9 390 was about $100 more expensive than what R9 290s sold for.
The R9 390 was about $100 more expensive than what R9 290s sold for.
Is it confirmed that the new RX line is on the new third gen finfet 14nm LPC?
AMD better be launching this at cheaper prices than the launch prices of the rx 480/470 then.
The leaked pricing seems too high. Its pretty low to take a rebranded chip that's cheaper to make and charge the same launch pricing of the original chip.
Every other rebrand in history has been dramatically cheaper than the original chip. To price it the same is pretty low, particularly when it is cheaper to make now and is not a new chip design.
Kabylake was dramatically cheaper than Skylake?
Devil's Canyon was dramatically cheaper than Haswell?
Ya... you're wrong.
Says 3rd gen on this slide,I don't think there's been any indication that it is, and I don't even know if Global Foundries has it yet. My thinking was that Vega is using it, but I think Polaris is still probably on LPP, just a more mature process as the 480 cards that have been released more recently are capable of much better OCs than those sold at release.
Kabylake was dramatically cheaper than Skylake?
Devil's Canyon was dramatically cheaper than Haswell?
Ya... you're wrong.
It's not lie, it's called marketing. Companies take best case scenario, and put "up to" or footnote that says "we got these results in our conditions, during full Moon night while hungry wolves were howling"Yeah its best not to trust amd marketing slides. That 2.8x perf/watt thing was a blatant lie. Amd has to resort to these misleading slides to make their product look good.
They actually outlined their specific testing and it was based on FPS in games. The deceptive part was that they were comparing cards based on the assumption that they used their paper TDP, which isn't true. Basically they just decided that the RX 470 drew 110W and that the R9 270X drew 180W; in reality, they draw 121W and 111W respectively. The games chosen were also favorable towards the new architecture. On average, those two cards are actually pretty close in power efficiency. The 470 would be about 109% on that chart (55% ahead).It's not lie, it's called marketing. Companies take best case scenario, and put "up to" or footnote that says "we got these results in our conditions, during full Moon night while hungry wolves were howling"
They could take Tahiti with worst single precision GFlops/watt ratio (which I think is ~14) and Polaris 10 with best (~40), and say it has 2.8x perf/watt. And that won't be a lie. Of course, people don't care about single precision GFlops, but FPS in games. But it's users fault since they ignore available information. If you are buying new product you'll use for the next couple of years, then you should take few hours and look all specs and details of the product.
Nvidia kicked off pascal by selling a midrange gpu, gtx 1080 for $700, but amd is taking the piss?it could signal a very sharp drop off in GPU progress for both performance and price to performance.
It's not lie, it's called marketing. Companies take best case scenario, and put "up to" or footnote that says "we got these results in our conditions, during full Moon night while hungry wolves were howling"
So shouldn't the launch prices of RX570/580 be lower than launch price of RX470/480? It should be lower because tech is supposed to get cheaper every year.290 4GB launch price - $399
390 8GB launch price - $329 ($70 less!)
290X 4GB launch price - $549
390X 8GB launch price - $429 ($120 less!)
What people are being confused by are the closeout/rebate/post-mining sale prices of 290/290X cards (I remember seeing them around $200-250 frequently) leading up to the launch of the 390/390X. That's not really a fair comparison.
Why wouldn't you take RX470 instead which is under $150 now?It's not lie, it's called marketing. Companies take best case scenario, and put "up to" or footnote that says "we got these results in our conditions, during full Moon night while hungry wolves were howling"
They could take Tahiti with worst single precision GFlops/watt ratio (which I think is ~14) and Polaris 10 with best (~40), and say it has 2.8x perf/watt. And that won't be a lie. Of course, people don't care about single precision GFlops, but FPS in games. But it's users fault since they ignore available information. If you are buying new product you'll use for the next couple of years, then you should take few hours and look all specs and details of the product.
Regarding R7 360 vs RX 560, it says up to 2x. And as someone mentioned, it is easy to find that scenario due to VRAM differences (just test some new AAA game on ultra settings). But user should take a look at specs (CUs, clocks, VRAM, architecture) and know it's more likely to be ~1.6x (avg FPS). As I said, I expect it to be somewhere between 1050 and 1050 Ti.
I really don't see why people whine about card refresh/rebrand, price, performance, TDP... It's a product like any other. If it suits your requirements, you'll buy it. If not, you won't. No-one can force me to buy GPU at price I don't like to play unoptimized games on day1 with crazy system requirements. I can wait. Last year I wanted to upgrade my R7 260X with new Polaris model. But 460 wasn't worth it, while 470 was to expensive. So I didn't buy any. It's AMDs (and game publishers) loss, not mine. Now I might take RX 560
April 18 is what am hearing.So any date on this or just soon™?