50 replies to this topic

[Lord Letto]

I Wonder how Benchmarks will be when the Time Comes to See how it stacks up to the more Expensive Nvidia Offerings:
RX 480: $200
GTX 1070: $379/449
GTX 1080: $599/$699

[xWiredx]

I seem to recall a leaked benchmark on videocardz showing the 480 around the Radeon Fury (not Fury X), and two of them in crossfire being slower than GTX 1080. I'm guessing crossfire 480 will be slightly faster than the 1070. The decision for some people will likely come down to using less energy and spending a few dollars less for a 1070 or get that little bit of extra performance at the expense of hoping multi-GPU support is in place and works well.

[Flapdrol]

There are 2 polaris cards on that bench, the C4 and C7.

I'm expecting the $200 card to be the lower of the 2, slightly below 390x. Still, 390 performance for $200 is fantastic.

[Chimera_]

Flapdrol, on 01 June 2016 - 08:41 AM, said:

There are 2 polaris cards on that bench, the C4 and C7.

I'm expecting the $200 card to be the lower of the 2, slightly below 390x. Still, 390 performance for $200 is fantastic.

This image is pretty interesting, check it out.

Notice the C7 chipset mark?

I don't know the source for this picture, so bear that in mind. It's also possible this is a 480X.


Regardless the 480 looks to be an amazing card; Most people (especially if using 1080p monitors) will have no use of the performance of the 1070, it'd be complete overkill and a waste of money. The 480 -even if only 970/390 performance- should be simply the perfect sweet spot card for 1080p.

Edited by Chimera11, 01 June 2016 - 10:45 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Chimera11, on 01 June 2016 - 10:42 AM, said:

This image is pretty interesting, check it out.

Notice the C7 chipset mark?

I don't know the source for this picture, so bear that in mind. It's also possible this is a 480X.


Regardless the 480 looks to be an amazing card; Most people (especially if using 1080p monitors) will have no use of the performance of the 1070

Unless you like to play with DSR cranked up that is.

[Chimera_]

Oderint dum Metuant, on 01 June 2016 - 01:09 PM, said:

Unless you like to play with DSR cranked up that is.

I don't think most people would be willing to spend $180 extra to get marginal increases in visual quality. I've run games at 1440p on my 1080p monitor, the difference is noticeable but absolutely not worth that much money to me. I'd say running 1080p games with higher framerates is probably better than virtual resolution anyway, since that gives some input improvement even if visuals are the same.

Either way, I think both playing beyond your monitor's refresh rate and virtual resolution are bonuses; not a card seller, IMO.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Chimera11, on 01 June 2016 - 01:59 PM, said:

I don't think most people would be willing to spend $180 extra to get marginal increases in visual quality. I've run games at 1440p on my 1080p monitor, the difference is noticeable but absolutely not worth that much money to me. I'd say running 1080p games with higher framerates is probably better than virtual resolution anyway, since that gives some input improvement even if visuals are the same.

Either way, I think both playing beyond your monitor's refresh rate and virtual resolution are bonuses; not a card seller, IMO.

I play with DSR cranked up as far as it will go. Because that's my personal choice, as it is for many others.

Don't fall for the usual AMD hype train into nopeville.

Wait for actual testing.

[Flapdrol]

Oderint dum Metuant, on 02 June 2016 - 01:17 AM, said:

I play with DSR cranked up as far as it will go.

How's the mechlab?

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Flapdrol, on 02 June 2016 - 02:44 AM, said:

How's the mechlab?

In MWO,i keep to 1440P DSR although i did experiment with higher, the mechlab itself is fine i don't have any issues building mechs.(i've played long enough i don't need to read any fluff)

I've yet to encounter any issues with DSR is other (better programmed) games.

[xWiredx]

I think he's talking about the lack of UI scaling making it hard to read+interact with things. For some people, the UI at 4K is apparently very hard to use (and considering how DSR sometimes makes things a little blurry, I'm thinking at some point it could be problematic).

Then again, the DSR conversation is off-topic I suppose. AMD should be providing an equally simple system, though, even if some people don't like it.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

xWiredx, on 02 June 2016 - 04:28 AM, said:

I think he's talking about the lack of UI scaling making it hard to read+interact with things. For some people, the UI at 4K is apparently very hard to use (and considering how DSR sometimes makes things a little blurry, I'm thinking at some point it could be problematic).

Then again, the DSR conversation is off-topic I suppose. AMD should be providing an equally simple system, though, even if some people don't like it.

Which is what i addressed in my post, building and interacting isn't an issue at 1440P or above.
Reading is - But i can live without reading play the game enough and you realize that you barely read anything anyway

The overriding point however is that i don't make a GPU purchase decision based on a single games behaviour/poor quality.

[Chimera_]

Oderint dum Metuant, on 02 June 2016 - 01:17 AM, said:

I play with DSR cranked up as far as it will go. Because that's my personal choice, as it is for many others.

Don't fall for the usual AMD hype train into nopeville.

Wait for actual testing.

Fall for what? Both AMD and Nvidia cards have virtual resolution capabilities, so I have no idea where you're coming from. Don't copy/paste irrelevant arguments that have no value in this situation.

As I said, I don't believe most people are willing to spend nearly double the money to get marginal visual quality increases. Your personal preference =/= the larger majority. Unless you're saying the 480 won't be capable of maxing out 1080p games (despite evidence to the contrary) and thus the 1070 will be a significant improvement for 1080p gaming, I once again don't get your point.

The GTX 1070 isn't a 1080p card and the 480 is, that much is simple.

Edited by Chimera11, 02 June 2016 - 04:23 PM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Chimera11, on 02 June 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

Fall for what? Both AMD and Nvidia cards have virtual resolution capabilities, so I have no idea where you're coming from. Don't copy/paste irrelevant arguments that have no value in this situation.

As I said, I don't believe most people are willing to spend nearly double the money to get marginal visual quality increases. Your personal preference =/= the larger majority. Unless you're saying the 480 won't be capable of maxing out 1080p games (despite evidence to the contrary) and thus the 1070 will be a significant improvement for 1080p gaming, I once again don't get your point.

The GTX 1070 isn't a 1080p card and the 480 is, that much is simple.

Im not sure why you've picked the DSR comment as your argument point, so learn to read and understand before debating.

As to what people will spend, there are subsets of people who will pay nearly double because it's not AMD or AMD's drivers, there are subsets of people who will pay less and in the past deal with higher power/heat because it's not Nvidia, people's choices aren't always black and white as just the price/performance.

Fall for what? Simple every release for AMD for the past 5+ years is hyped to oblivion to then actually not deliver, FX series chips? Fury? (infact the only one that was impressive was the nano).
Wait for the actual benchmarks, not leaked maybe code name card benches because they are quite often completely different (and cherry picked by AMD just like every other vendor).

Now consider this point (sort of a case in point) AMD are marketing this as a VR card for the masses, at 970 levels of performance which is just the entry requirement, if you actually want a VR experience that is good you'll need 2.
Hello crossfire issues for any game not using liquid VR, and twice the cost (and £75/$86(minus UK VAT 20%) away from 1080)

NDA lifts june 29th? so we should see some actual numbers around then.

Because by those in house tests the 480=970 so unless your not already in the 300 series, or 900 series, the 480 means little and even if your in the 200 series of AMD cards especially at the 290 levels it still wouldn't be worth buying the 480.

Complete new builds are again, a different entity because this is where the 480 will be right at home at that price level for the budget conscious, at least until we see where the 1060 sits.

Now the 490/X is a different beast, im at least hoping we see 980ti performance at a significant reduction in cost, because that's where things would really get interesting.

Now if only crossfire/SLI were not such a ball ache... 2x480's would be an easy win.

Edited by Oderint dum Metuant, 03 June 2016 - 01:53 AM.

[Catamount]

Quote

Simple every release for AMD for the past 5+ years is hyped to oblivion to then actually not deliver

It's comments like this that make me realize that people on the Internet just have to be communicating with each other from alternate universes, because there's simply no possible way, following the 970's abysmal performance (not just the 4GB stutter issue, but the fact that the 290x maintained a superior pricepoint for a more consistent version of the same performance for the 970's entire existence), or the abysmal run that Kepler gave at actually being competent cards for gaming anything, requiring Nvidia to gut out VRAM and compute performance vs AMD cards just to get something approaching similar gaming performance at similar pricepoints, or even Nvidia's inability to topple the 7970 in any meaningful way as it casually rendered the 680 market-irrelevant for probably 85% of its life (everything after Catalyst 12.11 was released) - all with no response from Nvidia but marketing, marketing, and more marketing to pass this crap off on people, there is just no way any person living in the same corporeal reality as I do would actually think the above statement reconcilable with anything approaching what actually tangibly occurred in the real world.

But please, I want to hear more about this fascinating world in which every AMD release, ever, failed to deliver a good product, at any point in the last five years.


Anyways, at this point the question of "VR for the masses" is moot. The VR sets themselves cost serious money, at this point more than the GPU required to run them. It'll simply come down to what price/performance AMD can deliver at the $200 pricepoint, for people with builds that aren't going to be touching VR for a long while anyways. With these cards, there is no other consideration, because AMD simply can't convince people who won't buy them due to prejudice, or actually think Nvidia drivers and interfaces are good (seriously, there are people who like dealing with Geforce Experience?), or actually screw with DSR to try to justify their card purchase (in fairness, I did find it worked wonderfully on Alien Isolation... before going back to simple anti-aliasing). Despite one or two dud GPUs in literally years of lineup, AMD has a history of hitting the market pretty hard, every generation, with some damn good releases that set them up to handily rule multiple price points, pretty much going all the way back to the 4870 ($300, and, what, 80% of the then-$600 280x?). It's their game, and we'll just have to see if they continue to own it. I have felt for a long time that weighing themselves down with Zen is probably not helping free up the budgets needed for GPU development, but we'll see if that anchors them down or not, or conversely, by some miracle, some day actually turns a profit.

Edited by Catamount, 03 June 2016 - 06:13 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Catamount, on 03 June 2016 - 06:07 AM, said:

It's comments like this that make me realize that people on the Internet just have to be communicating with each other from alternate universes, because there's simply no possible way, following the 970's abysmal performance (not just the 4GB stutter issue, but the fact that the 290x maintained a superior pricepoint for a more consistent version of the same performance for the 970's entire existence), or the abysmal run that Kepler gave at actually being competent cards for gaming anything, requiring Nvidia to gut out VRAM and compute performance vs AMD cards just to get something approaching similar gaming performance at similar pricepoints, or even Nvidia's inability to topple the 7970 in any meaningful way as it casually rendered the 680 market-irrelevant for probably 85% of its life (everything after Catalyst 12.11 was released) - all with no response from Nvidia but marketing, marketing, and more marketing to pass this crap off on people, there is just no way any person living in the same corporeal reality as I do would actually think the above statement reconcilable with anything approaching what actually tangibly occurred in the real world.

But please, I want to hear more about this fascinating world in which every AMD release, ever, failed to deliver a good product, at any point in the last five years.


Anyways, at this point the question of "VR for the masses" is moot. The VR sets themselves cost serious money, at this point more than the GPU required to run them. It'll simply come down to what price/performance AMD can deliver at the $200 pricepoint, for people with builds that aren't going to be touching VR for a long while anyways. With these cards, there is no other consideration, because AMD simply can't convince people who won't buy them due to prejudice, or actually think Nvidia drivers and interfaces are good (seriously, there are people who like dealing with Geforce Experience?), or actually screw with DSR to try to justify their card purchase (in fairness, I did find it worked wonderfully on Alien Isolation... before going back to simple anti-aliasing). Despite one or two dud GPUs in literally years of lineup, AMD has a history of hitting the market pretty hard, every generation, with some damn good releases that set them up to handily rule multiple price points, pretty much going all the way back to the 4870 ($300, and, what, 80% of the then-$600 280x?). It's their game, and we'll just have to see if they continue to own it. I have felt for a long time that weighing themselves down with Zen is probably not helping free up the budgets needed for GPU development, but we'll see if that anchors them down or not, or conversely, by some miracle, some day actually turns a profit.

Ah your back to your old self, now all we need is Vulps back and team red is back together and we can continue as we did from the outset of these boards very existence.
Everything AMD has put out, has been over hyped on it's internal slides, and when it's actually reviewed it's not quite where AMD put it, That is a fact, The fury was going to go toe-toe with the 980ti and Titan was it not.

To keep this short i shall take a bullet point approach.

• following the 970's abysmal performance - On what planet? Aside from the .5gb being slower and no reviewer able to replicate that single shadows of mordor video even playing the same game did one of the worlds most sold GPU become abysmal?

• 290x maintained a superior pricepoint for a more consistent version of the same performance for the 970's entire existence - Except it didn't, well it held the lower price point for sure, but the 970 out performed it largely due to better drivers at the time, that will however fade once Nvidia do the usual driver butchering - Speaking as someone who had a 290x and swapped to a 970 and got better performance.

​


There is a reason AMD's market share has evaporated, and it's not all down to marketing, it's down to the fact they are slow to the table and always behind, The Fury and X....the next big thing with HBM....whimpered and has barely even seen a mention since it's release.
Bulldozer and the subsequent iterations (except for the latest that is passable) that you used to argue on these forums was acceptable and better than what intel put out, wasn't at all acceptable it was an outright failure.
The 300 series (which i saw you forgot mention) that was just a better silicon version of the 200 series before it and the 7000 series before it.

AMD has been drowning, which is terrible for us as a consumer but in the world of big business they so far just haven't managed to compete.

I mean this 480 that people are getting wet over, is effectively an AMD badged 970 at a lower price point on a 14nm process whilst Nvidia are on 16nm, so effectively we have already had this since the 970 was put to market.
The 490/X is going to be the one that i want to see, as that is the one that could potentially be a game changer if it delivers 980ti performance at a decent discount compared to the current versions (and will improve the outlook for AMD no end)

DV^Mckenna.

Edited by Oderint dum Metuant, 03 June 2016 - 08:13 AM.

[Catamount]

Quote

Ah your back to your old self

The neutral observer? My primary rig's GPU is a 980TI. I don't even own an AMD card right now.

Quote

Everything AMD has put out, has been over hyped on it's internal slides

You can show my hyped slides for every product, next to humble and conservative slides by Nvidia?

Quote

On what planet?

Well clearly not whatever alternate Earth you hail from, but here's about where things stand in our universe

The 970 ended up failing entirely to outperform the 290x, to the point that differences there are so far within margin of error that they trade blows as resolution goes up. The 970 was a year newer, and the 290x has always been consistently cheaper (usually $30 or so), followed up by the 390, which did the same thing, only with twice the VRAM available, this while the 970 was literally hyped to death. That review was, of course, before we found out that Nvidia literally lied through their teeth on the memory setup.

But I guess AMD was the hyping company there, huh? Tell me more.

Quote

There is a reason AMD's market share has evaporated

Does "evaporated" mean "increase" where you come from?

http://wccftech.com/...nvidia-q1-2016/

Quote

it's down to the fact they are slow to the table and always behind

at least on the single GPU you like to cherry pick for your narrative, while ignoring literally the entire rest of the market for the past three or four years.


Certainly their CPU business has suffered and I've thought for awhile that it's been little more than an anchor around their feet that they should sell off, but we're not discussing CPUs. Well, you are, in a GPU thread, but I don't see much point since I think there's universal agreement on their failure to out-do Intel. That has no bearing on their GPU business.

There was literally no tangible advantage to Maxwell over the R9 200 and 300 series at most price points; in fact the reverse was often the case. The 900 series was just hyped as being better, and where I come from, that pretty much qualifies as being "all down to marketing".

Edited by Catamount, 03 June 2016 - 08:28 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Catamount, on 03 June 2016 - 08:22 AM, said:

The neutral observer? My primary rig's GPU is a 980TI. I don't even own an AMD card right now.

Your about as neutral as sixth gear.

Quote

[You can show my hyped slides for every product, next to humble and conservative slides by Nvidia?

Nvidia's slides tend to be more accurate as to the pure performance of the cards.
Lets take VR for the masses, 480 forgetting you will need 2 to deliver a playable experience if it only stacks up to the failure 970.

Or look how our card beats a 1080 in crossfire, ignoring the fact that Crossfire support has been as bad as SLI in the majority of games on the market, people spend more time with one card disabled than playing with both.

Quote

Well clearly not whatever alternate Earth you hail from, but here's about where things stand in our universe

The 970 ended up failing entirely to outperform the 290x, to the point that differences there are so far within margin of error that they trade blows as resolution goes up. The 970 was a [i]year newer, and the 290x has always been consistently cheaper (usually $30 or so), followed up by the 390, which did the same thing, only with twice the VRAM available, this while the 970 was literally hyped to death. That review was, of course, before we found out that Nvidia literally lied through their teeth on the memory setup.

The earth im from, has these benchmarks all over the place,
http://www.anandtech...iew-feat-evga/4

Pro tip - If you look at the actual numbers in the benchmarks, you'll see they trade blows in a variety of games with a good number the 970 coming out on top....so "failing entirely to outperform the 290X" is just a self evident AMD type of hype claim.

Nvidia lied through their teeth, they were definitely very liberal with the information, card still has 4GB and can use it however, at least until the incoming driver side magic stops working.

Quote

Does "evaporated" mean "increase" where you come from?

Does falling to a near non existent 20% mean a good thing to you?
AMD's market share tumbling year after year prior to Q1 16 mean a good thing?

Quote

Certainly their CPU business has suffered and I've thought for awhile that it's been little more than an anchor around their feet that they should sell off, but we're not discussing CPUs. Well, you are, in a GPU thread, but I don't see much point since I think there's universal agreement on their failure to out-do Intel. That has no bearing on their GPU business.

Uh of course it does, you and vulp used to be in here parroting that AMD didn't have the budgets for the RnD, well if the dropped their failing CPU business years back they wouldn't be sucking up the losses that prevent the budgets for the graphics side, the spin off will help.
And who knows maybe Zen will be a resounding success, but im not so convinced it'll compete with Intels lineup.

Quote

There was literally no tangible advantage to Maxwell over the R9 200 and 300 series at most price points; in fact the reverse was often the case. The 900 series was just hyped as being better, and where I come from, that pretty much qualifies as being "all down to marketing"

And you think I and almost every professional outfit on the planet live in another dimension...


As i said earlier, im more inclined to be hopeful on the 490/X delivering something worth discussing and hyping.

Edited by Oderint dum Metuant, 03 June 2016 - 09:30 AM.

[Chimera_]

Oderint dum Metuant, on 03 June 2016 - 01:00 AM, said:

Im not sure why you've picked the DSR comment as your argument point, so learn to read and understand before debating.

As to what people will spend, there are subsets of people who will pay nearly double because it's not AMD or AMD's drivers, there are subsets of people who will pay less and in the past deal with higher power/heat because it's not Nvidia, people's choices aren't always black and white as just the price/performance.

Fall for what? Simple every release for AMD for the past 5+ years is hyped to oblivion to then actually not deliver, FX series chips? Fury? (infact the only one that was impressive was the nano).
Wait for the actual benchmarks, not leaked maybe code name card benches because they are quite often completely different (and cherry picked by AMD just like every other vendor).

*snip*

Now the 490/X is a different beast, im at least hoping we see 980ti performance at a significant reduction in cost, because that's where things would really get interesting.

Now if only crossfire/SLI were not such a ball ache... 2x480's would be an easy win.

So...you bring up super resolution then make a childish remark about how I responded in regard to it? Perhaps you should read your own previous post.

Hyped to oblivion? Just like...people were taking the 1080's 2x Titan X perf to heart and spreading it around the internet? Every company on earth that wants to sell products will showcase the best possible scenario, that's called marketing. Also, bear in mind that arguments against AMD drivers are years old and irrelevant at this point. They've seriously stepped up their driver game and are well placed now vs. Nvidia driver quality.

You're also completely missing my point. A large reason PC gaming isn't as huge as it could be is cost and added complexity. The 480 has the potential to be the go-to price/perf card and have the capabilities to run games perfectly at 1080p, no strings attached. At $199 that opens it up to a massive audience, much more so than $300+ cards like the 970, 390 and 1070. Most people buying graphics cards buy in the $100-250 range.

Something you have to get is that most people aren't buying the larger cards, so having a cheap option that is fully capable to run any game very well could open up pc gaming even further. Current cards in this pricepoint like the R9 380 are good, but aren't quite good enough to get much more than high settings if you want to sustain 60 fps.

I don't really have anything else to add to this. If you're so excessively unaware at how big of a deal the 480 is and don't care to understand, then I'll leave you in your bubble.

And anyway, even if the 480 doesn't end up being what basically everyone expects it to be, we would still have a chance with the 1060.

Edited by Chimera11, 03 June 2016 - 10:28 AM.

[Catamount]

Oderint dum Metuant, on 03 June 2016 - 09:21 AM, said:

Your about as neutral as sixth gear.

Well if that's the standard of argument we're accepting, then you're as neutral as 13th gear (as in, we have to go to tractor trailer transmissions to show how not-neutral you are), because, like, I say so!

Quote

Nvidia's slides tend to be more accurate as to the pure performance of the cards.
Lets take VR for the masses, 480 forgetting you will need 2 to deliver a playable experience if it only stacks up to the failure 970.

Or look how our card beats a 1080 in crossfire, ignoring the fact that Crossfire support has been as bad as SLI in the majority of games on the market, people spend more time with one card disabled than playing with both.

Quote

The earth im from, has these benchmarks all over the place,
http://www.anandtech...iew-feat-evga/4

Pro tip - If you look at the actual numbers in the benchmarks, you'll see they trade blows in a variety of games with a good number the 970 coming out on top....so "failing entirely to outperform the 290X" is just a self evident AMD type of hype claim.

In other words, if you take the games you like, throw out the games you don't like, and claim it's a representative average then... you know what? I'm not even sure where this line of reasoning is going, so you'll have to explain to me how that one works. I'm afraid here on "wrong world" we didn't learn that one in college statistics.

Where I'm from, if the mean advantage, across a large sample of games that aren't hand-picked, doesn't strongly land in favor of the 970, then the 970 isn't outperforming the 290x - it's just outperforming it in certain games, and likewise being beaten in others, which is no net advantage, but hey, I get it, "net" and "mean" refer to something entirely different in Nvidia world than a science or math classroom. Some day someone will have to sit down and explain that one to me.

Quote

Does falling to a near non existent 20% mean a good thing to you?
AMD's market share tumbling year after year prior to Q1 16 mean a good thing?

AMD's market share had a single bad year, 2014. Thus far, you've been unable to offer a single reason when their GPUs in this year were better, sans marketing.

Quote

Uh of course it does, you and vulp used to be in here parroting that AMD didn't have the budgets for the RnD, well if the dropped their failing CPU business years back they wouldn't be sucking up the losses that prevent the budgets for the graphics side, the spin off will help.
And who knows maybe Zen will be a resounding success, but im not so convinced it'll compete with Intels lineup.

I'm sure, somewhere in here, there is a point that has something to do with the claim of AMD uniquely over-hyping their GPUs, but I haven't dug far enough to find it and I'm starting to hit granite.

Quote

And you think I and almost every professional outfit on the planet live in another dimension...

No, just you.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Chimera11, on 03 June 2016 - 10:28 AM, said:

So...you bring up super resolution then make a childish remark about how I responded in regard to it? Perhaps you should read your own previous post.

You merged my use of DSR and falling for the AMD hype train into a single focus point, DSR/VSR wasn't the falling aspect i was referring too, it was the believing internal AMD slides about performance, because like that hasn't burnt us before.

Also as to AMD drivers, lots of people had issues with the new repackaged drivers released earlier this year.
But it has improved since then.

Edited by Oderint dum Metuant, 03 June 2016 - 11:47 AM.