Source for this ? or it's just bs like you said ?Every new GPU has launch issues due to demand and other stock inventory. It takes around 2 months time to sort it out. Same will happen to Polaris.
Where is "dominate" coming from? I believe what AMD said was that they planned to make VR capable video cards "affordable". If the 480 meets minimum VR specs and sells between $200-$300 then mission accomplished.
After reading last few pages I come to conclusion that people on forums are not really interested in technology but cheerleading their favorite brands, and/or bashing the other one brand based on personal preferences.
People who are really interested in technology can be counted in single digits on this forum.
Nothing points to that. Polaris 10 got an official AMD VR score of 6.3. That's around what an R9 290 gives. RX 470 cant even reach minimum VR specs.
Even if you OC Polaris from 1266Mhz to 1500Mhz. We talk 390X performance in VR measurement.
VR was another part they would dominate, right?
And those yields didn't work out either...
Nothing points to that. Polaris 10 got an official AMD VR score of 6.3. That's around what an R9 290 gives.
Vega will be competing with GP100/102.Ummm. No. That is what 1060/Ti is for.
Been suspecting for a while now that Polaris is meant to compete with GP106. Not GP104. That will be what Vega is for IMHO.
Vega will be competing with GP100/102.
Why do you keep ignoring the key points of this slide. "At low power" and the fact that it is using a 5 month old driver that has no Polaris optimizations in it.Nothing points to that. Polaris 10 got an official AMD VR score of 6.3. That's around what an R9 290 gives. RX 470 cant even reach minimum VR specs.
Even if you OC Polaris from 1266Mhz to 1500Mhz. We talk 390X performance in VR measurement.
VR was another part they would dominate, right?
And those yields didn't work out either...
People forget that he's from the Nvidia Focus Group... that, even when his signature indicates as much.You think he doesn't know this? It's been discussed over and over that GP102/100 is meant to battle Vega.
The pro-Nvidia drool that drips from a few here is amazing. If people aren't interested in discussing AMD tech why bother with the doom and gloom.
Do you think "at Low Power" means the card is running at some lower-than-max setting?
I think it means exactly what this thread is about. At low clocks/power this is where the card scores with 5 month old drivers. If you are ok pushing the clocks you can expect higher performance.Do you think "at Low Power" means the card is running at some lower-than-max setting?
You say it's a key point of the slide, why would running at stock settings be a key point?
I'm just trying to get an idea of why the words "at Low Power" in the slide stick out to some people as more than the marketing term that it is...
AMD promised the 2.5x number. That number is with stock settings (A bit less at boost clock). It all makes sense.
AMD promised the 2.5x number. That number is with stock settings (A bit less at boost clock). It all makes sense.
Here is one of many sources available to anyone who does a simple Google Search...
Stock issues will not improve until sometimes in July or August..
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/52650/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-stock-improve-until-late-july/index.html
Heh, now the performance of the cards is measured from the VR benchmark
Heh, now the performance of the cards is measured from the VR benchmark
Yep, because it's a direct successor of mainstream Pitcairn GPU.They get that number by comparing it to a 180W GCN 1.0 card. Take a wild guess on why.