AMD RX 400 series (Polaris) MegaThread! FAQ & Resources


Hello fellow Hardware Enthusiasts!

It is currently June 30th, AMD has just released the RX480 which is selling well. As for the RX470 and RX460, they seem to be simply put, "coming soon". After Nvidia's 16nm Pascal architecture rolled around a month ago, AMD was left with some big shoes to fill, and this thread will hopefully cover their efforts to fill or perhaps even surpass expectations using their 14nm Polaris architecture. Naturally as tech news goes, the rumor mills are running full time, and thus this thread is likely to change if better/ newer reasonably believable information is available.

The current lineup of Polaris cards is divided into Polaris 10 and 11. Like Nvidia, this seems to reflect the lower number = bigger chip idea, thus, Polaris 10 is the higher performance card, while polaris 11 will be for more mid range.Currently AMD has announced 3 cards:
The Rx 480 470 and 460 in lessening price and performance respectively.

So without Further ado...

******************************************************
Polaris 10
******************************************************

Rx480 MSRP:$199 4GB/$239 8GB

The core:
2304 Stream Processors (R9 290X/390X has 2816)
32 ROPs ( Render OutPut Units)
144 TMUs (Texture Mapping Units)
1266 MHz base clock

RAM: 4GB or 8 GB of GDDR5 RAM on a 256 bit memory bus. The 4GB card uses Memory clocked at 7 GHz effective which translates to around a 224GB/s bandwidth, while the 8 GB card ships with an 8GHz effective speed. This should mean a memory bandwidth of 256GB/s

Compute performance: 5.8 Trillion Floating Point Operations Per Second Peak ( R9 290X is 5.6)

Power: 150 W TDP
This power comes from the up to 75W that both the PCIE Slot ( and thus motherboard) and six pin PCIE power cable are rated to supply.
This means that the PCIE slot will have to supply power in order to fully power the card, however, there are current issues that would imply the card is taking excessive power from the PCIE slot as seen in this forum's Rx 480 review

Comparisons are made to the R9 290X, as this is AMD's current non Fiji flag ship card, and now sells for around $290 meaning that being able to beat out a R9 290X or at least tie it will mean that Polaris is indeed a successor in performance and power efficiency. Release day results show the 8GB card performing in between a R9 390 and R9 390X, so it stand to reason, that the 4GB RX480 card is under R9 290X performance which is slightly below R9 390X performance.

For a more complete review of the RX 480 here are a bunch of sites to go binge on...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-480-polaris-10,4616.html
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10446/the-amd-radeon-rx-480-preview
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/06/amd-rx-480-polaris-review/
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=RX+480&tbm=nws

For those who want video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GdfDCq86Gk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vazL57c4nq8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRDgiWBfs5I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y6Ky_pCawQ
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=RX+480

If you find more good sites, please tell me.

**************************************************************
Polaris 10 Pro ( cut down Polaris 10)
**************************************************************

RX470MSRP:$149 4GB/ $179 8GB

The Core:
2048 Stream Processors
32 ROPs
128 TMUs
1206MHz Base clock

RAM: 4GB or 8 GB of GDDR5 RAM, with the same 256 bit memory bus running at 7 GHz effective, which should result in 224GB/s memory bandwidth

Compute Performance: ~4.95 Trillion Floating Point Operations Per Second Peak ( R9 390 is 5.1)

Power: Once again a single six pin is to be used and this time the TDP should be around 110W
As this card seems to be sporting specs similar to the situation with the 970 and 980, it seems the RX 470 should fall between the R9 380X and the R9 390

**************************************
Polaris 11
**************************************

RX460MSRP:$99 2GB/$129 4GB

The Core:
1024 Stream Processors
16 ROPS
64 TMUs
Perhaps a 1400MHz core clock

RAM: 2GB or 4GB of GDDR5 running on a 128 bit memory bus running at 7GHz effective for a 112GB/s bandwidth


RX 480 power debate

Although the RX 480 had a favorable launch, it was soon noticed, that the card did not really follow its TDP recommendations and overdrew from the PCIE slot. For more on that please see here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-480-polaris-10,4616-9.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjAlrGzHAkI
While this was not going to set motherboards on fire, it certainly was a setback, so AMD had to make some fixes, as of today, here they are:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-480-polaris-power-fix,4668.html
The power re routing is most likely possible over a simple driver update, as the board has a very complex power delivery system.

This video here looks at the PCB design
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG2e-v94L4M

While the reference card now draws around 10W less from the PCIE slot, making current owners more pleased, it will be interesting to see what AIB cards can do, as it seems power delivery on the board is a real limit to overclocks.
More updates to follow!
Reply to Robert Cook
1260 answers Last reply
More about amd 400 series polaris megathread faq resources
  1. TechyInAZ said:
    Rogue Leader said:
    So I did the driver upgrade here is my results:

    Idle power useage went down from 180w to 136w, thats a huge improvement IMO.

    Ran Firestrike, gained 70 points over my prior best score (which was done when the card was 4gb), and 90 points over my best score with the card set to 8gb. While my power meter on my UPS doesn't do averages it was clearly biased towards the lower range running around 290 to 340w most of the time with some spikes to 370 and up as high as 408. So total power useage is the same on a spike but generally it seemed to run lower.

    Current score: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9199250
    Prior 8gb best score: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9157036

    Temp went from 82 to 81 C.

    Seems like its working.


    Really small performance penalty, that's probably less than 1fps difference in the real world.

    I'm amazed that a graphics driver was able to fix this problem. I would of guessed the only way to fix this is thru a BIOS update.


    You're getting in backwards- he's saying he *gained* between 70 and 90 points in FireStrike- his card is running FASTER after the update :)

    Edit: Woo, I hereby officially launch this new thread, may all who comment here gain knowledge and wisdom through it's many pages :P
    Reply to cdrkf
  2. cdrkf said:
    You're getting in backwards- he's saying he *gained* between 70 and 90 points in FireStrike- his card is running FASTER after the update :)
    I wonder if that's due to less thermal throttling or just better drivers. What are your thoughts on the matter?

    A bit of a technical question: Since we're speaking about drivers affecting power consumption (and possibly reprogramming the on-board power management chip?) does anyone know how, since partner boards may or may not contain the same power management chip, AMD caters for each different AIB's power management chips? The power management chips all expose a common API, perhaps?
    Reply to AndrewJacksonZA
  3. cdrkf said:
    TechyInAZ said:
    Rogue Leader said:
    So I did the driver upgrade here is my results:

    Idle power useage went down from 180w to 136w, thats a huge improvement IMO.

    Ran Firestrike, gained 70 points over my prior best score (which was done when the card was 4gb), and 90 points over my best score with the card set to 8gb. While my power meter on my UPS doesn't do averages it was clearly biased towards the lower range running around 290 to 340w most of the time with some spikes to 370 and up as high as 408. So total power useage is the same on a spike but generally it seemed to run lower.

    Current score: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9199250
    Prior 8gb best score: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9157036

    Temp went from 82 to 81 C.

    Seems like its working.


    Really small performance penalty, that's probably less than 1fps difference in the real world.

    I'm amazed that a graphics driver was able to fix this problem. I would of guessed the only way to fix this is thru a BIOS update.


    You're getting in backwards- he's saying he *gained* between 70 and 90 points in FireStrike- his card is running FASTER after the update :)

    Edit: Woo, I hereby officially launch this new thread, may all who comment here gain knowledge and wisdom through it's many pages :P


    Yeah exactly I think he got it backwards, it works better! Didn't get a chance to game on it. TBH real world 70 points is only 1 or 2 fps, the power issues were really the fix here. I'm thinking next I may try the power conservative mode and see if that changes anything.

    Incidentally I hate how much power my PC uses at idle, my wife's i7-6700 (admittedly has an m2., only 1 hd (I have 2), only 2 fans (I have 4), and a GTX 950) sits right around 50w at idle.

    Hoping AMD's next processor generation is powerful while being a little more power friendly. I mean power isn't expensive here, but it just seems like a waste, not that I even leave it on unless I'm using it anyway most of the time. However my whole Xeon E3 1231v3 based server folding all day long at 50% uses the same wattage.

    Anonymous said:
    cdrkf said:
    You're getting in backwards- he's saying he *gained* between 70 and 90 points in FireStrike- his card is running FASTER after the update :)
    I wonder if that's due to less thermal throttling or just better drivers. What are your thoughts on the matter?

    A bit of a technical question: Since we're speaking about drivers affecting power consumption (and possibly reprogramming the on-board power management chip?) does anyone know how, since partner boards may or may not contain the same power management chip, AMD caters for each different AIB's power management chips? The power management chips all expose a common API, perhaps?


    I don't think it was thermal throttling, at 1deg C difference the temps are effectively the same. Probably just some optimizations on voltages and clocks at specific states.
    Reply to Rogue Leader
  4. Need to test the overclocking on the new driver.
    Reply to 17seconds
  5. here's an interesting little snippet speculating on what a 490 card could be http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-490-dual-gpu/

    makes a lot of sense that a 490 could be a dual gpu card considering we know that the current 480 gpu is the full spec chip and there is not a bigger/better model available. either way, it's a fun little read :)
    Reply to Math Geek
  6. A dual 480 I would imagine could compete to hard with Vega for them to release while a dual 470 would be lower power and could maybe be priced under a 1070, either would be interesting. Or it could be Vega is an absolute monster priced well above the 1080 and a dual 480 makes sense against the 1080 though this 490 would leave a big gap between it and the 480. Does anyone have any idea what HBM2 would add to the price and performance of a 1080 (assuming they could get it now). Is HBM2 likely to come to mid range cards soon after Vega or is that years away?
    Reply to simon12
  7. The problem of a dual 480 is of course the power consumption (~300w+), and on top of that dealing with all the issues of Crossfire (which now that I'm done with it, I say again, sucks). IMO its a waste of resources, put them into getting Vega out sooner.
    Reply to Rogue Leader
  8. simon12 said:
    A dual 480 I would imagine could compete to hard with Vega for them to release while a dual 470 would be lower power and could maybe be priced under a 1070, either would be interesting. Or it could be Vega is an absolute monster priced well above the 1080 and a dual 480 makes sense against the 1080 though this 490 would leave a big gap between it and the 480. Does anyone have any idea what HBM2 would add to the price and performance of a 1080 (assuming they could get it now). Is HBM2 likely to come to mid range cards soon after Vega or is that years away?


    I doubt nVidia will redesign the 1080 to accommodate HBM2, it would mean a huge undertaking. Same with AMD cards, it would just be impractical to change he entire design of the memory system. Now, future cards will likely have it, i.e. 1080ti, titan successor and possibly the 490, Fury successor.

    Until production costs lower and GPU's in the mid range being powerful enough to benefit from it, there is no reason or need for HBM2 below the top end. Yes, the Fury cards were powerful, but the HBM didn't give it much of an advantage. I doubt even the 1080 would get much of a boost from it at this point.
    Reply to Martell1977
  9. Rogue Leader said:
    The problem of a dual 480 is of course the power consumption (~300w+), and on top of that dealing with all the issues of Crossfire (which now that I'm done with it, I say again, sucks). IMO its a waste of resources, put them into getting Vega out sooner.


    Yeah, seems a bit premature to have a dual GPU card. The 490 and Fury replacement hasn't even come out yet. Besides, if they did release a dual 480, I'd expect it to be named something along the lines of RX 480x2, since having the 490 be a dual GPU card then Vega as single GPU's would be confusing to say the least.
    Reply to Martell1977
  10. I know nvidia will not rerelease the 1080 on HBM2 just wanted to speculate what difference it wold make. Anyway the most comprehensive 480 crossfire test I can find is here https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480_CrossFire/
    If you don't want to read it all this is the best summary

    Reply to simon12
  11. AMD will have nothing new in the upper range until 2017. Furthermore, their current upper range cards were just obsoleted by the GTX 1060. It's not too outlandish that they would come out with a dual 480 card to fill that space as a stopgap measure. It wouldn't be a very compelling card, but conceding the upper range for the better part of a year is not a good strategy.
    Reply to 17seconds
  12. Maybe a dual water-cooled RX 480 with 16GB vram and lots of overclocking potential. But they'll need to make sure those crossfire drivers are up to date to tempt me.
    Reply to BurgerandChips66
  13. 17seconds said:
    AMD will have nothing new in the upper range until 2017. Furthermore, their current upper range cards were just obsoleted by the GTX 1060. It's not too outlandish that they would come out with a dual 480 card to fill that space as a stopgap measure. It wouldn't be a very compelling card, but conceding the upper range for the better part of a year is not a good strategy.


    kind of what i was thinking. since vega not supposed to be out until next year, a dual 480 would be an interesting stop gap. even if it is called a 490 or 480x2. since amd has already stated this is the full polaris gpu and not a cut down version. if they are to do anything above a 480 before vega it would almost have to be a dual gpu card, unless they have some more optimization they can do to the fury gpu to get one last release out of it.
    Reply to Math Geek
  14. I think your jumping the gun saying " their current upper range cards were just obsoleted by the GTX 1060" when we don't know the performance for sure or if there will be enough on the shelves for months, though it will likely happen sooner rather than later. I would say their current upper range cards were just obsoleted by the RX480 would be more accurate based on price performance.
    Reply to simon12
  15. Problem is, it would be twice the power consumption of the Pascal cards In it's performance range. Also it would only work about 75% of the time, and will introduce frame time stuttering another 25% of the time when it does work, not to mention the noise/heat factor.
    Reply to 17seconds
  16. 17seconds said:
    Problem is, it would be twice the power consumption of the Pascal cards In it's performance range. Also it would only work about 75% of the time, and will introduce frame time stuttering another 25% of the time when it does work, not to mention the noise/heat factor.


    100% agree, using it as a stopgap would be a step backwards. Relying on Crossfire (or SLI for that matter) to make up or a performance deficiency would only bring out a card that in benchmarks performs as well as competitors, but in real life does not nearly. In addition the heat, power needs, and compatibility are all issues.

    My RX 480's best 3dmark score is 800 points lower than my overclocked Crossfired R9 280's best score. And yet in terms of (my opinion of course) "rated" FPS etc its lower, it performs FAR better, everything is smoother. Heck watching the 3Dmark tests I was sure based on how it performed the score would be the same or higher and I was extremely surprised it wasn't.
    Reply to Rogue Leader
  17. Rogue Leader said:
    17seconds said:
    Problem is, it would be twice the power consumption of the Pascal cards In it's performance range. Also it would only work about 75% of the time, and will introduce frame time stuttering another 25% of the time when it does work, not to mention the noise/heat factor.


    100% agree, using it as a stopgap would be a step backwards. Relying on Crossfire (or SLI for that matter) to make up or a performance deficiency would only bring out a card that in benchmarks performs as well as competitors, but in real life does not nearly. In addition the heat, power needs, and compatibility are all issues.

    My RX 480's best 3dmark score is 800 points lower than my overclocked Crossfired R9 280's best score. And yet in terms of (my opinion of course) "rated" FPS etc its lower, it performs FAR better, everything is smoother. Heck watching the 3Dmark tests I was sure based on how it performed the score would be the same or higher and I was extremely surprised it wasn't.


    Agree with all of this, but that didn't stop them from creating the 295x2, right? :)

    I believe they are releasing Polaris as the first product out of the new node, with an upgraded-but-same architecture (GCN). Then, with a more mature process, and probably a redesigned architecture, they can improve power efficiency enough to create a card with double (or more) shaders without being an industrial oven. After all, the 1080 does 180% of the performance of the 480, but only ~130% more power. They can't release a top card to compete that uses +250W again.
    Reply to salgado18
  18. the custom 1080 cards regularly use 250w+ depending on the model. some spike easily past 300w!! with 225w being pretty normal for the low end custom cards. so not like a 250w 480x2 would be WAY out there beyond the 1080 power usage. it's not like anyone is going to want to test it against an FE card where it might actually be pretty comparable :P
    Reply to Math Geek
  19. 17seconds said:
    AMD will have nothing new in the upper range until 2017. Furthermore, their current upper range cards were just obsoleted by the GTX 1060. It's not too outlandish that they would come out with a dual 480 card to fill that space as a stopgap measure. It wouldn't be a very compelling card, but conceding the upper range for the better part of a year is not a good strategy.


    Nvidia claims the GTX 1060 is 15% faster than the RX 480, and the price is 25% higher. How is that making the RX 480 obsolete?
    Reply to Sakkura
  20. Sakkura said:
    17seconds said:
    AMD will have nothing new in the upper range until 2017. Furthermore, their current upper range cards were just obsoleted by the GTX 1060. It's not too outlandish that they would come out with a dual 480 card to fill that space as a stopgap measure. It wouldn't be a very compelling card, but conceding the upper range for the better part of a year is not a good strategy.


    Nvidia claims the GTX 1060 is 15% faster than the RX 480, and the price is 25% higher. How is that making the RX 480 obsolete?


    They said "upper range", The 480 is a mid-range card. The 480 all but killed the market for the 390 and 970, the 1060 (assuming nVidia didn't fudge the numbers) is going to do the same to the 390X, Fury and 980.
    Reply to Martell1977
  21. ^Exactly.

    Based on the claims that the GTX 1060 is "faster than the GTX 980", that puts it in the range of the Fury/FuryX. Those cards cost $400-$500 compared to their new competitor in that performance range at $250-$300. And then there's the GTX 1070 also right there in that price range. There's not much reason to go AMD above the RX480 level, and even those are a tough sell.
    Reply to 17seconds
  22. Keyword being "claims".

    Leave room for doubt, please.

    Plus, that article from Semiaccurate left me cold... I mean, Corporations do cut each others throats, so I *can* imagine it being possible, but I don't want to believe it. Anyone with some insight or update?

    Cheers!
    Reply to Yuka
  23. RX480 has more VRAM, more bandwidth and better DX12 than GTX1060. Because of the power fiasco and inadequate cooling in the RX480 reference we still don't know how well it will OC. I am getting the RX480 for VR and I'm wondering - does the high bandwidth of the RX give it an edge over the GTX when it come to the high frame rates needed in VR? Also with VR being a new area, isn't DX12 disproportionately important as there is no back catalog of DX11 games to think about.
    Reply to Ags1
  24. what insight on if nvidia is trying to pull a very public joke on the world??? i can some that one up real easy. NOT A CHANCE IN HELL THE 1060 IS A JOKE AND NOT ACTUALLY BEING RELEASED.

    hope that clears it up for you :D that and reviewers have already said they have cards in hand and most brands have started teasing cards. i very highly doubt this is some kind of global multi-brand joke.
    Reply to Math Geek
  25. Math Geek said:
    what insight on if nvidia is trying to pull a very public joke on the world??? i can some that one up real easy. NOT A CHANCE IN HELL THE 1060 IS A JOKE AND NOT ACTUALLY BEING RELEASED.

    hope that clears it up for you :D that and reviewers have already said they have cards in hand and most brands have started teasing cards. i very highly doubt this is some kind of global multi-brand joke.


    That is precisely why I think there is a *very* little chance of it being true. It's so backhanded and cheap that it might as well be one of those "it was so obvious no one saw it coming".

    If nVidia just made reference cards with some partner under NDA to distribute and just sample like 200 GPUs for the world. They are indeed not making false claims, but the reality is that the 1060 will not be "out there" for everyone. That is what Charlie started saying that actually caught my attention. It is not *illegal*. As long as it's not *illegal*, Companies will do it right away; specially when they can deny it. Tinfoil material, but ugh...

    Cheers!
    Reply to Yuka
  26. The cost to develop a 1060 is very high. I don't think they would do that without actually planning on selling a few. They pushed the release forward so they may not have volume, but perhaps they hope having a product on the market will make the buyers wait for availability rather than going for the RX480.
    Reply to Ags1
  27. Can someone provide a link regarding SemiAccurate and the GTX 1060? Not sure what's being referred to here.
    Reply to TJ Hooker
  28. it's from the old discussion thread. think it was posted this morning there. not even sure the thread is still there. may have already been deleted.

    edit: quick google search and this is it http://semiaccurate.com/2016/07/06/nvidias-gp104-based-gt1060-real/
    Reply to Math Geek
  29. So it looks like AMD will need to make a 485 or 480X to go head to head with the (Supposed performance) 1060 and keep things from getting confusing in the performance tiers. It's always been pretty clear, 960 vs 380, 970 vs 390, 980 vs 390X & Fury, 980ti vs FuryX.

    Now it seems we might be look at 1060 vs 485 or 480X or 490? But, with the 480 a complete Polaris 10 chip, I'd have to assume the next tier up for AMD would be a cut down Vega?
    Reply to Martell1977
  30. i noted before that for once it is nice and easy to make suggestions. got the 460, 470, 480, 1060, 1070, then 1080. all nicely in a row. can't get any easier than that right now :D prices steadily go up as performance does. why muddle it with random cards just to be even with another card?

    i answer way more "what card can i get for $100-150" questions than "what can i buy for $500". under $250-275 will be the amd cards, over that will be the nvidia ones. easy as pie

    if the 1060 performs lower than nvidia says, then it will be equal to the 480 more or less and that would be the only "which way do i go?" performance level.
    Reply to Math Geek
  31. Martell1977 said:
    So it looks like AMD will need to make a 485 or 480X to go head to head with the (Supposed performance) 1060 and keep things from getting confusing in the performance tiers. It's always been pretty clear, 960 vs 380, 970 vs 390, 980 vs 390X & Fury, 980ti vs FuryX.

    Now it seems we might be look at 1060 vs 485 or 480X or 490? But, with the 480 a complete Polaris 10 chip, I'd have to assume the next tier up for AMD would be a cut down Vega?


    Not necessarily. 380X had no direct competitor.
    Reply to Sakkura
  32. Martell1977 said:
    So it looks like AMD will need to make a 485 or 480X to go head to head with the (Supposed performance) 1060 and keep things from getting confusing in the performance tiers. It's always been pretty clear, 960 vs 380, 970 vs 390, 980 vs 390X & Fury, 980ti vs FuryX.

    Now it seems we might be look at 1060 vs 485 or 480X or 490? But, with the 480 a complete Polaris 10 chip, I'd have to assume the next tier up for AMD would be a cut down Vega?

    Except where would these GPUs come from? The RX480 is the full maxed out Polaris 10 chip. No where to go but down from there until Vega arrives 1H 2017.
    Reply to 17seconds
  33. Sakkura said:
    Not necessarily. 380X had no direct competitor.


    True, but I don't think AMD will want to leave the 1060 unopposed. But they may not have a choice.


    17seconds said:
    Except where would these GPUs come from? The RX480 is the full maxed out Polaris 10 chip. No where to go but down from there until Vega arrives 1H 2017.


    Exactly, they will be in kind of a hard spot. The naming conventions and tiers we have seen the last several generations will be turned on it's head if the 1060 is as powerful as nVidia boasts. Having a 490 Vega GPU against the 1060 will be confusing. The 490 and higher are supposed to be AMD's top tier GPU's, like the 1070 and 1080 are for nVidia. Without a 485/480X, the whole system we know will be confusing, at least with the addition of this tier will will straighten out the top end as we know and expect it.
    Reply to Martell1977
  34. Math Geek said:
    the custom 1080 cards regularly use 250w+ depending on the model. some spike easily past 300w!! with 225w being pretty normal for the low end custom cards. so not like a 250w 480x2 would be WAY out there beyond the 1080 power usage. it's not like anyone is going to want to test it against an FE card where it might actually be pretty comparable :P


    My sources are telling me that's not the case.

    Maximum: We use Furmark Stability Test at 1280x1024, 0xAA. This results in a very high no-game power-consumption reading that can typically only be reached with stress-testing applications. We report the highest single reading after a short startup period. Initial bursts during startup are not included as they are too short to be relevant.

    https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_1080_STRIX/22.html
    Reply to 17seconds
  35. Math Geek said:
    i noted before that for once it is nice and easy to make suggestions. got the 460, 470, 480, 1060, 1070, then 1080. all nicely in a row. can't get any easier than that right now :D prices steadily go up as performance does. why muddle it with random cards just to be even with another card?

    i answer way more "what card can i get for $100-150" questions than "what can i buy for $500". under $250-275 will be the amd cards, over that will be the nvidia ones. easy as pie

    if the 1060 performs lower than nvidia says, then it will be equal to the 480 more or less and that would be the only "which way do i go?" performance level.

    So you like to keep it simple with a basic FPS/price ratio? Do you ever discuss features of one card over the other, or any of the multiple other factors that distinguish cards from within the same price-performance tier?
    Reply to 17seconds
  36. ^Exactly, who cares about a matching performance offering, obviously Nvidia doesn't. If AMD can come out with a vega based 490, maybe without HBM2 for $300 that kicks the 1060's ass (hits 1070 level maybe) then thats that They have a card at $200 (the 480) $250 (the 480 8gb), and $300. Then the next vegas can go from there.

    Maybe they won't line up exactly, but they can catch the crowd that can "throw a few more dollars at it" Its the same crowd the 1060 is going to grab from the 480.
    Reply to Rogue Leader
  37. Rogue Leader said:
    ^Exactly, who cares about a matching performance offering, obviously Nvidia doesn't. If AMD can come out with a vega based 490, maybe without HBM2 for $300 that kicks the 1060's ass (hits 1070 level maybe) then thats that They have a card at $200 (the 480) $250 (the 480 8gb), and $300. Then the next vegas can go from there.

    Maybe they won't line up exactly, but they can catch the crowd that can "throw a few more dollars at it" Its the same crowd the 1060 is going to grab from the 480.


    Why has everyone decided the RX480 cannot tackle the 1060 all of a sudden? So the reff design of the 1060 is (theoretically) going to be 15% ahead (in NV sponsored titles with GW enabled, in DX11 mode I'll bet). We've already been hearing that partner RX480 boards will have some pretty hefty out of the factory OC on them, which will easily make up for the 15%. Yeah the 1060 will OC as well of course, but I don't necessarily think it's a case that one will end up categorically faster than the other overall. I mean as usual nVidia have kept the memory bus a bit narrow on the 'x60' card (at least it's not 128 bit this time).

    Also @17 seconds- when talking features AMD offer some good features, just as nVidia do. I also don't really get your position of 'RX480 is a tough sell'? Why? It's fast and cheap, and uses modest amounts of power (yeah more than Pascal but we're at a level where it's really not an issue imo). It can be paired with an inexpensive freesync display, supports crossfire, supports AMD's superior DX12 implementation and so on. What does it actually lack? The new VR stuff in Pascal looks interested (but is so far totally unproven), you've got GamesWorks I guess, but in my experience those features tend to offer minimal gains for a big performance loss even on NV hardware- and strikes me as NV leveling the playing field due to AMD having the full collectors edition of consoles at the moment (and for the foreseeable future) meaning AMD are the initial target platform for most of the big games.
    Reply to cdrkf
  38. Well, AMD did release the 7970 to later release the 7970Ghz.

    Cheers!
    Reply to Yuka
  39. Yuka said:
    Well, AMD did release the 7970 to later release the 7970Ghz.

    Cheers!


    What would it be this time... gigahertz-and-a-half edition? :heink:
    Reply to Sakkura
  40. cdrkf said:
    Rogue Leader said:
    ^Exactly, who cares about a matching performance offering, obviously Nvidia doesn't. If AMD can come out with a vega based 490, maybe without HBM2 for $300 that kicks the 1060's ass (hits 1070 level maybe) then thats that They have a card at $200 (the 480) $250 (the 480 8gb), and $300. Then the next vegas can go from there.

    Maybe they won't line up exactly, but they can catch the crowd that can "throw a few more dollars at it" Its the same crowd the 1060 is going to grab from the 480.


    Why has everyone decided the RX480 cannot tackle the 1060 all of a sudden? So the reff design of the 1060 is (theoretically) going to be 15% ahead (in NV sponsored titles with GW enabled, in DX11 mode I'll bet). We've already been hearing that partner RX480 boards will have some pretty hefty out of the factory OC on them, which will easily make up for the 15%. Yeah the 1060 will OC as well of course, but I don't necessarily think it's a case that one will end up categorically faster than the other overall. I mean as usual nVidia have kept the memory bus a bit narrow on the 'x60' card (at least it's not 128 bit this time).

    Also @17 seconds- when talking features AMD offer some good features, just as nVidia do. I also don't really get your position of 'RX480 is a tough sell'? Why? It's fast and cheap, and uses modest amounts of power (yeah more than Pascal but we're at a level where it's really not an issue imo). It can be paired with an inexpensive freesync display, supports crossfire, supports AMD's superior DX12 implementation and so on. What does it actually lack? The new VR stuff in Pascal looks interested (but is so far totally unproven), you've got GamesWorks I guess, but in my experience those features tend to offer minimal gains for a big performance loss even on NV hardware- and strikes me as NV leveling the playing field due to AMD having the full collectors edition of consoles at the moment (and for the foreseeable future) meaning AMD are the initial target platform for most of the big games.


    I wasn't (and I don't think 17 seconds was) saying that. My point was if the 1060 does somehow beat out the RX 480 on average, it doesn't mean AMD has to go tit-for-tat and pop out a "480X" or something like that. Instead of having a complicated set of 20 different cards like the past few generations, they can just release something Vega based at a price point in between that beats the 1060 handily and even reaches 1070 levels (maybe even undercutting it on price). So while their offerings won't line up one to one, who cares.
    Reply to Rogue Leader
  41. Sakkura said:
    Yuka said:
    Well, AMD did release the 7970 to later release the 7970Ghz.

    Cheers!


    What would it be this time... gigahertz-and-a-half edition? :heink:


    RX 480 MAXX... ? :D

    I miss the Rage naming, though.
    Reply to salgado18
  42. Math Geek said:
    it's from the old discussion thread. think it was posted this morning there. not even sure the thread is still there. may have already been deleted.

    edit: quick google search and this is it http://semiaccurate.com/2016/07/06/nvidias-gp104-based-gt1060-real/


    That site is in the same league as http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ only not as funny or accurate! :lol:
    Reply to Mousemonkey
  43. Mousemonkey said:
    Math Geek said:
    it's from the old discussion thread. think it was posted this morning there. not even sure the thread is still there. may have already been deleted.

    edit: quick google search and this is it http://semiaccurate.com/2016/07/06/nvidias-gp104-based-gt1060-real/


    That site is in the same league as http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ only not as funny or accurate! :lol:


    was not an endorsement of the site in any way. i don't watch/read tmz for the same reasons. it's all click bait trash. i only linked it since it was asked about during the discussion, to bring him up to speed on what folks were going on about.

    and i'll leave the 1080 discussion to the nvidia thread.
    Reply to Math Geek
  44. Math Geek said:
    Mousemonkey said:
    Math Geek said:
    it's from the old discussion thread. think it was posted this morning there. not even sure the thread is still there. may have already been deleted.

    edit: quick google search and this is it http://semiaccurate.com/2016/07/06/nvidias-gp104-based-gt1060-real/


    That site is in the same league as http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ only not as funny or accurate! :lol:


    was not an endorsement of the site in any way. i don't watch/read tmz for the same reasons. it's all click bait trash. i only linked it since it was asked about during the discussion, to bring him up to speed on what folks were going on about.

    and i'll leave the 1080 discussion to the nvidia thread.


    The sad thing is though that there are a couple of posters on this thread who actually believe the crap that Charlie spews!
    Reply to Mousemonkey
  45. I hope AMD sticks to few card models, like Nvidia does.

    Something like:
    Fury X
    Fury
    RX 490
    RX 480
    RX 470
    RX 460

    Unlike the old model:
    Fury X
    Fury
    Fury Nano
    R9 390X
    R9 390
    R9 380X
    R9 385
    R9 380
    R9 370X
    R9 370
    R9 360X
    R9 360

    Both go from the same low to the same high, but so many models make it look so confusing.

    That said, if they do it, I don't think there's space for a Polaris card to compete with the 1060, since next step up would be Vega. Making a next tier Polaris would add more to confusion.
    Reply to salgado18
  46. that's my whole point of why a dual 480 would be an interesting card. there is nothing else amd can use since the 480 is the top of the line for now. i am not even saying the want to compete with nvidia at the 1070 or 1080 level at all. they seem pretty happy with themselves where they are now at mainstream levels. they may not even care that they can't match the top end nvidia cards. it only really seems to matter to nvidia fans who are looking for any reason to try and trash the 480 card.

    but IF amd wants to throw something out there before vega, a dual 480 would be an interesting way to do it, with all the normal sli/xfire pitfalls considered. that's all my comment was saying :)
    Reply to Math Geek
  47. Quote:
    Would I wish to have a chest-beating Polaris that went along with it (Polaris 10) right now? Of course, but I don't have an engineering team that can produce four chips in one shot - Raja Koduri
    http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/93932-amd-radeon-rx-480-14nm-polaris/
    Reply to 17seconds
  48. here is a second 480 xfire test. this one from gamer's nexus http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2507-crossfire-rx-480-benchmark-vs-1070-and-1080-power-temperatures-fps

    show about the same. negative scaling in some games and great scaling in others.
    Reply to Math Geek
  49. Are there any rumored or confirmed clockspeeds on the non-reference RX480s?
    Reply to Ags1
Ask a new question Answer

Read More

AMD Graphics GPUs Polaris Graphics Cards Radeon