Rumour: Radeon R9 480/480X 3DMark 11 Scores

[R0H1T]

I agree. I'd expect 480/x pricing to be consistent with that of the 380/x generation. I've seen nothing that makes me think P10 has any aspirations of being a 490/x tier card.

I do think that with nVidia's pricing of the 1070 has left the door open for the 480x to be a $279 card at launch if it can deliver Fury Air / 90% of the 1070's performance at FHD/QHD resolutions.

It's not, small Vega should be the replacement for Hawaii while big Vega will be Fury X class. In case you haven't been paying attention, the 980 replacement is already over a 100$ more expensive at launch, expect 1080Ti to follow in it's footsteps. So the initial launch price will definitely be higher for any card that replaces it's previous gen equivalent, also because the market leader has already set a precedent & a new (price) floor is in place.

 

[ZZZAAA]

The Polaris XT jumps from 18060 to 25803 in crossfire. Is a <50% jump about the average gains you typically get in crossfire? Can someone PLEASE help? This is a very important build for me.

 

[sirmo]

The Polaris XT jumps from 18060 to 25803 in crossfire. Is a <50% jump about the average gains you typically get in crossfire? Can someone PLEASE help? This is a very important build for me.

No, crossfire usually has much better scaling. My guess is either something is wrong with the test system (x4 PCI bottleneck maybe?), or the drivers aren't optimized.

Also these benchmarks are probably fake.

 

[ZZZAAA]

I see. Nvidia would be 16x and 8x, and AMD would be 16x and 4x, right? What would be the average percentage gain off the top of your head?

 

[maddie]

Wafers costs 4400 or 5k for TSMC and samsung after equipment expense. Actual selling price to companies is around 8k-9k. There are rumors of some discounts but nothing close to cost and these are mostly for contracts with big volume phone company soc's, and the rumors mention these companies as well.

Since GF is paying royalty fees and is a separate entity compared to samsung, it is not going to get the same discount. Hence costs are higher than 5k per wafer. Probably 8k with 7k as a best case scenario.

Too low a cost, kills AMD margins. Volume means nothing if margins are none existent.

Videocards with normal gddr memory have a cost somewhere between 50-60 dollars to make. So add this cost in and if AMD starts selling these cards at under 250, they start losing money elsewhere for their lower bins. Cut down cards are only about 10-20% cheaper to produce for the chip itself in the BOM. So if a cut down chip retails for 60-100 dollars less, then margin become console like very quickly without the volume of console chips.

Things that will affect your numbers.

AMD has the WSA agreement where they pay a substantial fee irrespective of if they produce anything or not.

AFAIK, both Gloflo and Samsung are not awash in customers, so I would expect both lower prices and much greater available capacity.

In my opinion, AMD has the ability to accept much lower margins than competitors, partly due to the lower overhead costs through the downsizing they experienced and also, the much lower share price. ANY profit will dramatically improve the share price.

Anybody expecting AMD to return to full health in one step is fantasizing.
First goal. Return to a sustainable profitable position and then you can talk improving margins.

 

[airfathaaaaa]

I see. Nvidia would be 16x and 8x, and AMD would be 16x and 4x, right? What would be the average percentage gain off the top of your head?

amd gained like 7% since they dropped the bridge design and started using the pcie as a "bridge"

 

[beginner99]

I see. Nvidia would be 16x and 8x, and AMD would be 16x and 4x, right? What would be the average percentage gain off the top of your head?

Wrong. It depends on the Motherboard. Note that SLI needs license cost and hence mobos with SLI are more expensive than such with just CrossFire. Crossfire since Hawaii (using PCIe, no crossfire bridge) is superior to SLI.

Still, I would avoid either solution. I would wait for vega. 1080 is overpriced and Polaris offers mainstream performance, eg. will be slower than 1070 as well.

 

[beginner99]

Problem for AMD about pricing is the fact that 290 got bad rep and dropped in price and also due to mining had a lot of supply on ebay and such. therefore 290/390 level performance for $200-230 has been available for 2 years for the price conscious buyer. And most users here on this forum are aware of this.

Polaris 10 therefore will be a disappointment. It will be priced around $220 for 390 level of performance or higher if it performs better. I'm repeating myself but getting better performance/$ than from sued 290s will take forever. they were such a great deal.

 

[3DVagabond]

Problem for AMD about pricing is the fact that 290 got bad rep and dropped in price and also due to mining had a lot of supply on ebay and such. therefore 290/390 level performance for $200-230 has been available for 2 years for the price conscious buyer. And most users here on this forum are aware of this.

Polaris 10 therefore will be a disappointment. It will be priced around $220 for 390 level of performance or higher if it performs better. I'm repeating myself but getting better performance/$ than from sued 290s will take forever. they were such a great deal.

People seemed to forget pretty fast what they could get 290/X for when the 390/X came out. The average gamer just doesn't know what the average person on this forum does.

Just like trying to explain to people that they can get their cards for free and even make a profit mining with their GPU.

 

[coercitiv]

No, crossfire usually has much better scaling. My guess is either something is wrong with the test system (x4 PCI bottleneck maybe?), or the drivers aren't optimized.

Also these benchmarks are probably fake.

Imagine the uproar had they scaled crossfire results past 1080. Woof!

 

[ZZZAAA]

I see. Good thing AMD forum is slow these days. I guess I should have waited to buy my computer since I just read the new eight core zens are twice as fast as the old piledriver cores and should match up with the extreme i7s. Could have gotten a brand new computer with all AMD parts. Oh well.

On a side note, I never completely understood the concept of money creation and who and how they control it because nobody taught me. Is bitcoin just a way of transferring money/digital credits and protecting it from scams?

 

[DarkKnightDude]

980 performance for 300 bucks sounds like a good deal.

 

[rainy]

Just because you select the ones you believe doesn't mean they're more than rumours.

Of course it's purely coincidental that you're posting negative rumors about AMD in VG&C section lately.


Personal attacks are not allowed.
Markfw900

 

[showb1z]

If there's nothing positive to post about their favorite team what else can they do.


Personal attacks are not allowed.
Markfw900

 

[Tumaras]

Problem for AMD about pricing is the fact that 290 got bad rep and dropped in price and also due to mining had a lot of supply on ebay and such. therefore 290/390 level performance for $200-230 has been available for 2 years for the price conscious buyer. And most users here on this forum are aware of this.

Polaris 10 therefore will be a disappointment. It will be priced around $220 for 390 level of performance or higher if it performs better. I'm repeating myself but getting better performance/$ than from sued 290s will take forever. they were such a great deal.

I agree on most points, but I'm a little skeptical on the $220 price point that's been thrown around recently. I think the only firm info from AMD we've seen referred vaguely to ~$250 in an early slide presentation, and another comment on being under $300. That seems more in the $249 or $279 range to me. $220 would be nice, I'm just not sure why that number has come up recently unless there was a semi-reputable leak that mentioned it that I missed. New 390s (non-x) are still going for $320+ due to the mining prices and hype, and $280+ used. I just sold my 390 for $290 and it went very (very) quickly. So $220 for the 480 would be almost overly aggressive.

 

[Det0x]

Just because you select the ones you believe doesn't mean they're more than rumours.

Word, here we have one example :thumbsup:

Before people with crazy overclocked GM200 start comparing, don't forget this:
ACCORDING to our sources, reaching 2.5 GHz using a liquid cooling setup such as Corsair H115i or EK waterblocks should not be too much of a hassle.

Geforce GTX 1080 @ 2.5 GHz - 3DMark Scores:

Fire Strike: 31.286
Fire Strike Extreme: 15.280
Fire Strike Ultra 7.369

 

[Paul98]

Not exciting in the desktop space, you have been able to get the 290 for 220, and the 390 for not much more.

I am still excited to see what we get out of mobile Polaris 10. That's what I am looking for right now anyway.

Thankfully I am not looking for an upgrade on my desktop till begining of next year sometime.

 

[crisium]

980 performance for 300 bucks sounds like a good deal.

Not if 1070 brings Titan X performance (or more?) for $380 ($450 initially). I am aware that the masses bought $200 GTX 960s when a Radeon 290 (45%+ faster) was still regularly available for around $240-$280, but much of that is due to the brand and model number preconception of the product.

If 390X/980/almost Fury Air performance is achieved by the full P10, I think they need a $100 cushion between it and 1070. $280 then. Then the cutdown P10 with 390/970 speed can hang out at the $220 price. I know $280 vs $300 isn't much difference, but I don't think having a much faster 1070 within stones throw is wise for AMD.

 

[Krteq]

Word, here we have one example :thumbsup:

A source please, thx in advance

 

[Det0x]

A source please, thx in advance

Its Sweepr who needs to supply a source, i just linked what he posted.

But if my memory serves me right, that will be easier said then done to get any factual backup to claims made..

 

[Sweepr]

Its Sweepr who needs to supply a source, i just linked what he posted.

But if my memory serves me right, that will be easier said then done to get any factual backup to claims made..

This particular post, completely unrelated to the subject of this thread, comes from VR-World. I thought you would recognize it, you're very familiar with this source:

http://vrworld.com/2016/04/25/16nm-n...x-taipei-2016/

APRIL 25, 2016

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38229715&postcount=5

 

[Glo.]

This particular post, completely unrelated to the subject of this thread, comes from VR-World. I thought you would recognize it, you're very familiar with this source:



http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38229715&postcount=5

I do not want to interrupt your fascinating argument, but don't you think that VRWorld was in some way correct? And what is more, Det0x just reposted it, as you do.

 

[Shmee]

Please cease the arguing and callouts. Back on topic, about polaris benchmarks.

 

[ZZZAAA]

Oops, misread chart. Sorry. Anyway, 1070 benchmarks are out and it looks like its about ~25% faster than Polaris XT according to these charts. If these benchmarks are true, AMD better position it below $279.

 

[ZZZAAA]

1070 = Second fastest card in the world.

Infraction issued for off topic discussion
-Rvenger