Anyone have 480x benchmarks ?
I'm predicting : 480x > 980/390x
There are none yet, likely won't be either. If AMD actually produced a 40CU die and is only showcasing a cut down version as the RX480 then Apple probably bought the cream of the crop again like they did with Tonga.
Nvidia won
The 480 is better than the 980 and 390X. 480X is probably just under the 980Ti.
>>54884011
Only one.
My tip hurts when i lay it into the amd fan
>>54884092
Source besides the announcement even? Oh shit that's right you don't have any source. Fuck off with your hype bullshit.
>>54884200
Stay on funnyjunk retard
>>54884158
TEAM RED WON !!
>>54884011
has anyone else started to read it as Poolaris?
>>54884158
> Angry birds benchmarking
>>54884011
970 < 480 < 980
you're also probably right.
I'm really curious what the FP64 will be. For some reason I think it's 1/16, which is kind of lame.
>>54884011
I'm curious to know the frametimes since they have not released shit. They are keeping so much behind the curtains it's a little suspicious. I mean the pro duo was a fucking failure, who even bought one?
>>54884209
http://videocardz.com/60253/amd-radeon-r9-480-3dmark11-benchmarks
http://videocardz.com/60819/amd-radeon-rx-480-confirmed-as-polaris-67dfc7
Will there be anything else?
>>54884307
That would be if it's a 390x
It's supposed to be a Fury
>>54884395
Not him but you do know the rx 480x will have marginal performance over a standard 480 (if the 480x even exists). We can see this by looking a performance difference between previous gen 280,380 -> 280,380x. We already know amd aren't going to be competing with the gtx 1070 till vega so there's no way they can have a 980 ti equivalent performance card.
>>54884454
280x*
>>54884454
This was just my source showing.
>The 480 is better than the 980 and 390X.
I make no claims to be an expert on any of this but that much is clear. If the difference between the 480X (if it exists, the RX thing gives me doubts) and the 480 is similar to the difference between the 380X and the 380 then that's going to put it just below the 980Ti. Purely from a numbers standpoint of course.
>>54884032
They said at the presentation that they'll have cards in the $200-300 range, and the 8gb RX 480 supposedly only costs $229. AMD has a presentation at the PC Gaming Show at E3 in a couple weeks, they might announce something then.
>>54884523
Thats probably the price for 3rd party cards with gaymer fan shrouds and LEDs.
>>54884356
Pro duo is a workstation card not a gaymur card. Had the highest compute performance of any card under $3500
>>54884549
AMD nor Nvidia have ever done such thing.
AIBs is AIBs, how much they priced their custom card is none of their concern.
>>54884522
You're way off with those numbers. There's an 8-10% performance gap between a 380 and a 380x going by techpowerup's relative performance chart and by a techspots review so if the the 480 is around 390x level then the 480x and it's marginally better performance over the 480 wouldn't put it even close to the 980 ti because there is a 35% difference between a 390x and a 980 ti.
95/70= 1.35
>>54884620
Here's my sources btw
http://www.techspot.com/review/1093-amd-radeon-380x/page8.html
>As expected, in the dozen games tested the R9 380X was never more than 14% faster than the R9 380 and on average was ~10% faster.
Also pic related.
>mfw I can throw my GTX 770 in the garbage
just 1 month until I can trash this nvidia meme I fell for
>>54884356
>it's more than okay when nvidia does it.
>>54884704
funny this is you can probably sell it for $200
some people are retarded
>>54884620
>8-10% performance gap between a 380 and a 380x
Yeah, I just took that 10% (perhaps a generous estimate on my part) and as such multiplied the 480's 3DM11 score by 1.1. This puts it just below the 980Ti's score in that chart. I really didn't pour a lot of effort into this, but as a result it's really easy to see that it's perfectly sound with no room for error.
>>54884011
>june 29
It's won't best a 980ti but it will be miles cheaper and will come close. AMD did good.
>>54884789
You also have to take into consideration that the benchmark was done with 1260 MHz clock and early drivers.
Higher clocks and mature drivers could put the RX 480 closer to FuryX in performance.
>>54884898
The RX 480 has an advertised 5.2TFLOPS compute power. 36CU means that the card is clocked at 1130-1150mhz.
GCN is far too high IPC with too short a pipeline to target excessively high clocks.
>>54884877
>come close
Sorry but this has already been disproven. A 30-35% performance difference between it and the 980 ti is no where near close. It'll be just above a 980 at absolute best but realistically everyone knows it'll be about 390x performance in real world gaming, so just under a 980.
>>54884032
wait what? what's the story?
>>54884941
390x is pretty much as fast as the 980
>>54884726
You should see what a lot of Nvidia owners think their card is worth. At 200 burgers polaris is going to basically gut the second hand market for 970's and 980's (as well as anything slower than them).
Prices are already starting to crash.
>>54885023
>>Prices are already starting to crash.
They'll rebound when the card actually comes out though.
Or rather, when actual benchmarks come out
>>54884011
The 480X doesn't exist yet
>>54885060
How so? Even the worst case rumours put the 480 at 970 to 980 levels of performance - that is going to instantly invalidate the high(er) price these cards sell for.
>>54885168
Gamer children will buy them because Nvidia.
>>54885168
>rumours
Rumours are always 0% accurate.
If you believe any of them, you're choosing which ones to believe and which ones not to believe on purely arbitrary grounds.
>>54884395
>"Leaked benchmarks"
>Way before the announcement
Moron
>>54884077
this
>>54885358
Yeah, they just guessed what AMD named it. Get out of here you mindless shill.
>>54885372
>Hey why aren't you defending this GPU from a company that has been proven to lie about their hardware yields before the product is even released or out of NDA you mindless shill
Grow up you fucking idiot
>>54885391
Are you talking about AMD or Nvidia or both?
Lying about their shit before it's available isn't anything that's exclusive to either company.
>>54885391
>>54885391
The third party got an engineering sample and benched it, AMD didn't distribute it. Unless you mean to suggest AMD owns them, which is... autistic at best.
>>54885404
No it isn't, that's why I don't defend any fucking company until the product is release.
Nvidia lies, AMD lies, every company lies.
>>54885414
No they didn't you fucking idiot the benchmarks were on the futuremark site. Nobody got an "Engineering sample and benched it" stop spewing bullshit.
>>54885427
Mate that's literally what they do for a living.
>>54885439
If you think Futuremark got a sample to benchmark other, you're actually retarded.
What? Do you think AMD couldn't bench their own card? Lol retard.
>>54885439
You are fucking stupid
I think there is no 480X
>>54884940
Why are their GPU so high IPC compared to the competition but the exact opposite for their CPU?
>>54885657
Because Bulldozer was machine designed and half the problem with it was GloFo fucking up target power and clock goals.
The other was that nobody knows how to write code which doesn't take a dumb on core 0 and the rest kinda stand there.
>>54884011
Anyone take a guess why the clockspeeds on the 480 are so low, and why the TDP was relatively high for a 14nm chip?
I would have expected much more from a die shrink
>>54885657
GCN was a sound arch from inception, the concept behind it was already proven.
The Bulldozer family was based on a whitepaper from a rookie, and though it works in theory, the execution was nothing like the concept.
>>54885712
AMD has a wider design so clocks are low.
What's wrong with the TDP? 150W is its maximum load, gaming won't even be at 120W
>>54884011
fuck me dude i am so ready for the rx480 and ZEN. Swear to god Im buying that shit day 1. Keep my 800 dollar PC strong.
>>54885657
Because the GPU and CPU guys got nothing to do with eachother outside of memory management and interconnects/buses
>>54885751
>GCN was a sound arch from inception, the concept behind it was already proven.
GCN hasn't lived up to the hype at all if you compare it to the last few VLIW architectures it replaced. 4000 series and 5000 series literally destroy NVIDIA, AMD hasn't been able to replicate that with GCN and has instead just been second wheel since.
>>54885752
>AMD has a wider design so clocks are low.
That makes no sense
>What's wrong with the TDP? 150W is its maximum load, gaming won't even be at 120W
It's not wrong, but it's not very low either for the level of performance it offers. Nvidia already had that last generation with the 970.
Judging from the low clock speeds and relatively high tdp I'm guessing that they haven't changed much about the architecture (except for the die shrink) and it's yet another iteration of GCN instead of a branw new architecture that many fanboys were touting
Two RX 480's barely beat a GTX 1080. The RX 480 basically has the horsepower of an R5 340,
>>54885774
Good god.
>>54885774
>>54885752
>>54885712
Are low clock speeds a massive issue considering that overclocking is a thing anyway?
>>54885712
GCN isn't a high clocking arch. Never has been and never will be.
The sweet spot is going to be right around 800-850mhz no matter what specific GPU in the family you're looking at. Even the Polaris 11 demo showed this with an 850mhz core clock and 0.8375v vcore.
Polaris 10 is a somewhat small die comparatively, and AMD chose to push clocks as high as reasonably possible. The alternative would have been to fab a larger die, but yields would have decreased, and Polaris 10 was made to be a cheap mid range.
If it were clocked lower it would likely be 100w or lower under load. Seeing how they undervolt and underclock is going to be amazing. Winning the silicon lottery with Polaris is going to net fucking astounding power savings.
>>54885774
>Judging from the low clock speeds and relatively high tdp I'm guessing that they haven't changed much about the architecture
it's even worse than before. the 480 has the same TDP as a 1080 yet is 70% slower than the 1080.
>>54885792
Yet also more than half the price.
Most people genuinely do not care about power draw.
>>54885792
Exactly, it seems Nvidia still is miles ahead in terms of performance per watt
Just like in the past, AMD is competing on price point again and not on performance or efficiency
>>54885803
>Most people genuinely do not care about power draw.
I do not care much about it either, but it does say alot about the architecture used.
Look at the difference in performance per watt between keppler and maxwell, it was huge even without a die shrink because it was a brand new architecture.
>>54885803
>Most people genuinely do not care about power draw.
most people do care about heat and noise, however
>>54885819
I guess some people do, yeah. Personally, I'm not that fussed, but I know that some people do like silent rigs.
I use headphones, so I'm not bothered by noise unless it's actually like jet-engine-tier.
>>54885792
1080 is 180W TDP but it's closer to 190-200W in usage.
480 is 150W TDP but it won't be close to that outside of furmark, did you even see that it's a single 6piin? It can't draw more than 150W at any time without breaching ATX spec and no OEM would ever buy such a card.
>>54885836
>480 is 150W TDP but it won't be close to that outside of furmark, did you even see that it's a single 6piin? It can't draw more than 150W at any time without breaching ATX spec and no OEM would ever buy such a card.
thank you anonymous AMD employee, i never would have known this before the NDA lifted and reviews were out without your help
>>54885842
There are better ways of dealing with getting told, like not responding and further embarrassing yourself.
>>54885836
>did you even see that it's a single 6piin? It can't draw more than 150W at any time without breaching ATX spec and no OEM would ever buy such a card.
6 pin and 8 pin connectors allow the same current to flow through them, 8 pin just has two extra ground wires. so the 480 can draw 75w (from the pcie bus) and 150w from the connector in total. AMD also has a history of egregiously lying about TDP (like the 290x and it's supposed 275w TDP, despite it drawing 400w under moderate load).
>>54885836
The GTX 1080 draws about 175w nominal. Even if you "overclock" it, it'll hit around 200w because the GPU is absolutely incapable of sustaining its clock speeds under a heavy load. That and line variability is absolutely worse in Pascal vs Maxwell.
Also for the record, this stuff everyone keeps repeating about ATX specs and how much power can be pulled via PCI-E and 6pin or 8pin connectors. All of it is 100% wrong. Boards can deliver absurd amounts of power over PCI-E, they just shouldn't do it for sustained periods. The reality is that if I wanted to design a peripheral ASIC which pulled 120w with no external power connector, I could do it entirely over PCI-E. Some boards might fry after a while, or some might fail to deliver that target power consistently leading to component instability, but they'd still do it.
Links show the most in depth analysis of power consumption for the cards in question on the web. Only Tom's is doing this. No one else has picked up on it despite being thoroughly embarrassed for lacking technical prowess.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-pascal,4572-10.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-970-maxwell,3941-12.html
28nm Maxwell shows better stability in line draw than 16nm Pascal. Pascal's dynamic power is out of control. The only saving grace for the architecture is how it handles workloads in sporadic bursts. If you were to measure real time clock rate with the same resolution(likely impossible since you can't see inside of the shader core) you'd see true clock speeds and pstates bounding around nonstop.
>>54885905
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-390x-r9-380-r7-370,4178-9.html
Factory overclocked R9 390X 8GB card draws just under 300w in gaming workloads. It'll pull over 360 during a Furmark stress test. The reference model draws 53w less in the same bench.
Don't pull things out of your ass, anon.
>>54885955
>Factory overclocked R9 390X 8GB card draws just under 300w in gaming workloads.
> Maximum: 492W
>>54885908
Doesn't really matter when the power draw of the competition is still vastly inferior.
And lets be honest, it is
>>54885990
>I don't understand literally anything
>all I do is shitpost
The millisecond variations in power consumption don't matter for accumulative power draw, the average is what matters. Or are you now claiming that the GTX 1080 is a 300w+ card under a normal gaming workload?
>>54885771
On the upside, GCN can do >muh async compute because that was the point of its design.
>>54886047
The only games it has actualy seen benefits of that are games that nobody plays though.
>it's another "AMD targets midrange and Nvidia high end" episode
>>54886036
>millisecond variation
nice try
>>54886062
>>54885771
GCN was a straight uplift in IPC vs VLIW4. GCN has better performance per clock, and per transistor.
Your comparison is totally irrelevant.
>>54886064
guys we already have it
The 480 is stronger than the 980 but not near 980ti strength. Not that it matters since you are getting 980 strength for 200
>>54886070
You're still just shitposting.
The average draw there is only 250w. That is all that matters for accumulative power consumption.That graph is showing the 8GB 390X drawing 250w in a gaming workload.
Are you legitimately retarded or do you honestly think you're being clever right now?
>>54886071
> GCN has better performance per clock, and per transistor.
But still shit compared to the competition, the 390 has about thousand more transistors than the 970 yet they perform on par.
And how is having benefits in games that nobody plays irrelevant? You guys keep bringing up async like it matters, I will agree it matters to me when I start seeing it in games that I actualy play
>>54886083
>you are getting 980 strength for 200
Well, you think that until you actually use it and realize the drivers are shit.
>>54886083
>"leaked" benchmarks from 3 months before card release
Lol.
>>54886071
>GCN has better performance per clock, and per transistor.
only for artifical compute applications that can fully utilize the GPU, GCN is an inferior design for >gaymes, which is the only place AMD even has any customers these days.
>>54886099
those exact leaks of the 1070 turned out pretty accurate
The three Fiji owners probably killed themselves by now lol
>>54886093
HOLY SHIT HE'S SO POOR HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
>>54886090
Because you're comparing a old architecture to a new one, Maxwell is one generation newer.
Compare the Nano, which is GCN at its sweet spot and you won't see any difference in perf/watt from AMD and Nvidia
>>54886135
Nano is top binned
You'd need something like the laptop full 980
>>54886093
HOW COULD YOU GET SO POOR! LET ME KNOW SO IT NEVER HAPPENS TO ME HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAGAGGAG
>>54886112
HOLY SHIT HIS DAD IS SO RICH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
>>54886135
390 and 970 were the same generation of cards
>>54886149
It's a better bin, but underclocking Fiji results in a very similar power curve as well.
>>54886164
Also fiji was AMD's top line, it was not the competition for the 970.
The only reason it was more power efficient than the 300~ cards was HBM
>>54886135
>Compare the Nano, which is GCN at its sweet spot and you won't see any difference in perf/watt from AMD and Nvidia
that has nothing to do with architectural improvement, gcn 1.2 is nearly identical to gcn 1.1. the nano has considerably lower power draw it aggressively throttles thanks to the terrible power delivery and the cooler
>>54886164
So are the 970 and the 350, you stupid twat.
What does that have to do with architecture.
>nvidigoys defends their $700 1080 by calling others poor.
suicide watch
>>54886166
I bet top binned Maxwell like the laptop 980 is more efficient than Polaris lol
>>54886184
That you are moving the goalpost by saying I shouldn't compare the 390 with the 970.
They were direct competitors to one another and in the same price range. Obviously those are the two cards you should compare
Daily reminder that Raja paid his last respects
>>54886181
>gcn 1.2 is nearly identical to gcn 1.1.
Stop saying things.
http://amd-dev.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/media/2013/07/AMD_GCN3_Instruction_Set_Architecture.pdf
http://amd-dev.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/media/2013/07/AMD_Sea_Islands_Instruction_Set_Architecture1.pdf
>>54886205
And you're acting like it's something surprising for a new generation GPU to be more efficient than a rebrand, I gave you a same generation GPU to compare, you said no because reasons.
You can't compare P10 to GP104 either I guess, half the cost, 50% smaller GPU and all
>>54886209
That's pretty great news for people who play Asots exclusively
>>54886218
I'm not acting suprised, I have stated all along that AMD's architecture is vastly outdated compared to Nvidia's
Which is why they need cards with more transistors, more cores, much wider memory busses and much higher power draw to tie with on paper much weaker cards of Nvidia
>>54886238
How long did it take you to go through the entire thread and click on all of them, out of interest?
>>54886181
Apart from the amdgpu driver, which is why I got a 380X.
>>54886242
I just pulled all the post numbers, ain't nobody got time for that.
>>54886234
Their old architecture is inferior, yes, not surprising, their new one is not.
As for the following, it's half wrong, transistors do more than add performance, core count is irrelevant because at gaming you're more reliant on ROPs than shaders, and cores can be very different in size, wider memory and more bandwidth AMD usually has, but Nvidia has bigger caches to offset that advantage, which sip plenty of memory as well, power draw only applies to older architectures.
>>54886252
amdgpu has supported gcn 1.0 and 1.1 for months now
>>54886272
>their new one is not.
And you base this on what?
>>54886234
More advanced hw schedulers, so more registers, async computer so more complexity and more registers and you can read The status of Every operation in Evert stadium of The pipeline so more registers. Higher bus so more registers. What else...More registers too
>>54886225
Yeah it's pretty obvious that they ran a million tests and that was the only one where the 480s came out on top.
I mean really, 50% utilization and on lower settings of 2x 150w cards vs a 150w card running on higher settings?
They're trying to give off the illusion of it actually being able to compete with the 1080 and amd users eat it right up.
You just fucking know if the cards ACTUALLY competes with the 1080 amd would let you know it without escape. They would've locked the place down and wouldn't let the press leave until they can prove to know how good the 2x480 will be.
Instead we get silly shit like this which is an insult to the community.
>>54886272
>their new one is not.
everything we've seen so far indicates polaris will just be another rehash of gcn with minor tweaks like 1.1 (hawaii) and 1.2 (tonga/fiji) were. there's pretty much nothing that indicates a massive improvement except for statements by AMD marketing staff
>>54884011
C7 is 36 CU AKA RX 480 running at 1266MHz.
980/Fury performance confirmed for all you homosexuals out there.
C4 will likely be RX 375 at 970/390x performance.
There are rumors of a C9 that didn't fully tape out due to yield issues with 40 CU's that could have hit 980 Ti/Titan X levels. We'll see on June 29th.
As you can see RX 480 crossfire is holding its own against GTX 1080 but I would advise against anyone thinking of going crossfire OR SLI, microstutter is annoying and shitty.
>>54886298
What have you seen, fool?
>>54886225
It's great for 70% of the market who buy around $100-400, and you're forgetting that most users like to take gap leaps in GPU upgrades, so from around HD5000/GTX600 era or even earlier, so this bargain is a goldmine. And this card is 'rumoured' to be around the 390x mark, that's a good 2-4x performance easily, even on DX11 Games
>>54886301
FAKE AND GAY
A
K
E
A
N
D
G
A
Y
ALL MICRO DICKS LOST AGAIN.
>>54886309
>it's great for 70% of the market who buy around $100-400
Except you don't know that, since we have not seen other benchmarks than the one of Asots.
The performance is likely much lower in other games as Asots is heavily AMD favored
It could well be that the 1060 ends up being much better value for your money than the 480.
>>54886301
Poolaris is 750ti performance this is just a lie
>>54886323
So what you're saying is we should wait and see until it's released and see objective benchmarks on a variety of games from a variety of testers?
I don't think so!
>>54886340
I know, crazy right
>>54886238
I was thinking of getting a 480 to upgrade from my 280x but my build is not really that good. i5 4460 and 8gb of RAM.
>>54886297
>"how dare AMD use a $200 Mid tier card against a top end Pascal, and the fuckers used 2 of them?!!"
>"DELETE THIS"
It's ok anon, they have suicide prevention hotline numbers for you too use
>>54886297
They literally can't afford to run a million tests and they brag about ~50% GPU utilization when previously they were bragging about how Mantel vaporware used 100% of the GPU. Its fucking opposite day in AMD land, this announcement was more like a death knell for their dGPU market.
>>54886323
>It could well be that the 1060 ends up being much better value for your money than the 480.
it doesn't even need to. NVIDIA only needs to release a 1060ti that's 80% of the performance of a 1070 for $50-100 more than a 480 and goyim will lap it up.
>>54886349
I'm sure alot of crossfire and sli users call those lines since we all know how garbage they are compared to a single gpu setup
>>54886301
Really hoping this is the case. I was thinking C7 was fatter Polaris 10 while C4 is cut down Polaris10 aka the RX480. If your claim is true, then why didn't Raja capitalize on it? A $200 that competes with last generation's high end would be insanely amazing. Literally no reason to buy anything that isn't the RX 480 or the 1070.
>>54886365
> a single mid-tier card cannot beat a single high-tier card
Stop the fucking presses
>>54886362
If it beats the 480 by a wide enough margin, the 100$ is justified
>>54886298
Clearly you are a fucking shill.
Architectural improvements account for a 29% improvement in performance over GCN 1.2 going off information we have. That's without taking into account that a 14nm card should allow clock speeds to reach a much higher delta than previously attainable at 28nm.
In short, the changes made in GCN 1.3 v 1.2 are massive when compared to the changes made between pascal and maxwell, which actually lowered IPC overall (pathetic)
>>54886257
How long have you been shitposting that you've developed programs to assist you?
>>54886323
I think you missed the part where I said that users with ancient GPUs will be more than pleased and hyped for the 480, maybe reread it again and absorb that in for a minute.
And maybe the 1060 might come out and be utter shit like the 960 was, we will have to wait.
But you're forgetting that users now have the option to have 390x/Fury levels of performance for 1/3rd the price. Like how can anyone NOT be hyped for this? Unless the frequent shitposters on here run 980ti's/Fury and demand 2x the performance every launch? If so, wait for Vega to compete, or buy your throttle card if you lack the waiting power
>Anyone on /g/ has the capacity to wait while suffering with ADHD
>>54886376
No its not. Because for an extra $100 after that you can blew it the fuck out by getting 2
>>54886375
AMD BANKRUPT AND FINISHED!!!
Did you really expect him to understand simple logic, anon?
Is Vega really coming October?
>>54886410
I don't expect anyone to, in any GPU-related thread.
It's almost literally impossible to have an objective discussion about any of them.
>>54886401
1060 uses GP104 it won't be shit it'll be 80% of the performance of 1070 it'll cost $200 and still be 40% faster and more efficient than Poolaris 10
>>54886422
>1060 uses GP104
lolyields, It's Fermi all over again.
>>54886414
AMD moved Vega up from 2017 to late this year.
They just confirmed showing Summit Ridge at HotChips too.
>>54886349
They used battlefront and hitman on previous Polaris previews. Couldn't they have cut the bullshit and used it this time around as well instead of it trying obfuscate the performance of the cards with the 50% utilization bullshit?
>inb4 more pajeet deposit regurgitated /v/ memes because you got nothing
>>54886414
Only the shitty cards. Flagship is still early 2017.
>>54886422
Oh like how the 960 was better than the 380? Oh shit anon, it wasn't.
Or how 'gaymers' could get a 4gb version and never ever need it?
>>54886370
During AMD press event they announced the RX 480 to have 36 CU's which is the C7.
As for why didn't he capitalize on it? He did. He mentioned that this card will have the performance of 500$ cards of last generation. He actually says that quite a few times.
As far as CFX and SLI scaling go, the RX 480 CFX operates like dual 980's. As 2x RX 480s are able to compete with the 1080.
This is pretty simple to calculate, because Nvidia themselves had marketed the 1080 as the same speed as 2 980's in SLI.
newer games take advantage of dual GPU solutions almost identically, with scaling between CFX and SLI being nearly identical.
>DEAD
>BANKRUPT
>FINISHED
>POO
>LOO
>GOY
>Nvidiot
>NoVideo
>AMDrone
>suicide watch
>poorfag
According to my research your opinion is worthless if you use any of these terms to justify or express it, even ironically. Prove me wrong, if you can. Protip: You can't.
>>54886466
I skim over those posts as well.
>>54886414
Vega 10 will compete and win against the 1080/1070.
Nvidia already has 1080 Ti and Titan 3 taped out though, they're actually just waiting on AMD to announce the RX 490(Vega 10) before striking.
Vega 11 will most likely not be announced for another year, which will be a competetor to GP100 (Titan 4, 1180 Ti). Too early to tell who would have better performance.
AMD needs 150W to get 980 performance
Nvidia needs 50W to get 980 perforamnce
>>54886473
Nvidiot poo dead bankrpt goy
>>54886476
This is true.
Amd literally cannot compete
>>54886476
source?
>>54886375
Actualy two of them can't even beat it.
Seeing how close it was even in Asots, and you can bet your ass AMD cherrypicked the most favorable settings/scenes etc.
No way you are going to see those kind of results in your average gaming session
>>54886404
>No its not
eeuh, yes it is?
If it's 50% faster for a
Looking at some of the stuff AMD has put out... there's no way the 480 is twice as good as the 960. That's retarded. Tell me I'm reading this wrong.
>>54886476
Nvidia needs a $700 card to get 1080 performance
AMD needs two $250 cards to get 1080 performance
Even if it's a tad under, you're still saving $250.
>>54886496
Then I guess we'll just need to wait and see until it's released, huh?
>>54886431
Maybe, maybe not. Let me start with this:
>Nvidia Event
Dudebros and Press all "WOOOOOO, Hell yeah" when ching chong shows the 1080
>AMD
Full on spaghetti mode, and poor presentation, had to read between the lines.
So now I pointed that out it makes explaining the 'between the lines' a bit easier.
I think the reason he used Aots, was of course it being a AMD title, but also the fact it is a DX12 title, and they want to push a better API, a API that uses all the assets of a card, not just clock speed, so this means that even CF/SLi would be amazing and not a hindrance.
They should have used one card I agree, but then look how autistic this forum alone has got by a few numbers.. "OMG 2x 480, not fair" or "1080 still top"
The point he was trying to make was that for "the 700$ experience, what else could you do?.... well this" - cut to cheaper card that can match a 1080, for less - and something else some anons noted, 51% usage...... some anons said that this suggests that only one card with no drivers was being used and the other a tiny bit, now I'm skeptical, but what if?
Best of waiting for Benchmarks, rather than hype and speculation
>>54886404
>No its not
It might very well be.
>>54886510
>Nvidia needs a $700 card to get 1080 performance
AMD needs two $250 cards to get 1080 performance
Can this meme fucking end?
>>54886496
>Most favorable settings
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4m692q/concerning_the_aots_image_quality_controversy/
Consider Suicide, you got caught shilling
>>54886530
How does that counter anything I said?
Read what you post dumbass
>>54886530
>posts literal shilling thread as proof
>calls someone a shill
![NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-1070_Power-Consumption-635x401[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Cuwh5Np.jpg "NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-1070_Power-Consumption-635x401[1].jpg")
>>54886491
>>54886476
There is no source because no such chip exists.
1080 draws 274w
1070 draws 224w
RX 480 has a max TDP of 150w....
So basically what he's basing his opinion on is complete bullshit
Facts:
>>54886522
>facts, when not in my favor, are a meme
>memes, when in my favor, are facts
Time and time again Nvidiots has shown this to be their philosophy. Face it, you guys lost and the 490 isn't even here yet.
>>54886522
> facts are memes
Until we get third-party benchmarks, this is all we have to go on.
>>54886491
Source.
rx480 = 150W+
gtx1070 = 150W
Yes 1070 is at least 50% faster without overclocking
>>54886547
>>54886537
>you fell for the 1070 being 150w meme
>>54886538
>facts, when not in my favor, are a meme
Okay so let me get this straight.
AMD showing 1 result , yes 1 result of 1 game, of which we know is heavily favored towards AMD cards and extrapolates this to the entire sample of games is a fact to you that two 480's will beat a 1080?
Do you understand the concept of selection bias, do you understand the concept of outliers, and extrapolating based on outliers to your entire sample is basically the most disengenious thing you can do?
>>54886522
Crossfire never works too. That or you need to wait at least 3 months to get working drivers.
DOOM is still broken and it's been a month already. Search every/any/your favorite AAA game ever and 90% of the titles had issues running on amd which were only fixed months to years after release.
>>54886466
You forgot `meme`.
>>54886563
1080 is 150w
1070 is most likely lower
Just took a poo lads
>>54886547
480 uses even more as AMD always lies about TDP, Nvidia usually undermines their TDP so a 150W card uses less than 150w
>>54886564
Do you even understand that your flagship got dicked on by a pair of autistic kids with floaties and pool noodles?
No excuse.
>>54886571
Yeah, like the 980 was 140W, right?
>>54886564
>Selection Bias from a company
Fuck me anon, maybe you might be on to something?? Do you think Nvidia ever do it?
>>54886581
Are you 12?
>>54886509
Just wait for the gimps to roll out. You'll be lucky if you can run desktop over 720p.
>>54886595
kek
>>54886547
>implying Nvidia never lies about TDP
Please, name one generation where the TDP = Power draw under load, and of course cite your source.
>>54886592
Anonymous-sama I think you might be taking the bait a little too eagerly.
>>54886571
>>54886577
>When you are literally so far up Nvidia's ass I can smell AMD's semen
>>54886609
Only professional cards stick to average power draw= TDP
For a reason.
>>54886595
No, seriously. What the fuck is this shit? It's only one year old.
>the exact same faggot who got blown the fuck out on GPU power consumption is still shitposting about GPU power draw
Wow, must be a sad life to shitpost like that after you got demonstrably wrecked so bad you had no recourse.
>>54886618
So I guess all of AMD's cards are professional, right?
>>54886616
>system power
>>54886609
>meme
>>54886624
290X is 275 TDP but it uses almost 360W average
>>54886619
We warned you about Nvidia. R9 380 is still going strong.
>>54884704
That is just an old card, is not a meme
Are you really that stupid?
I have to 770 and they work so fucking good in SLi
>>54886591
No shit Nvidia does it too.
That's why their claim of the 1080 being faster than 980's in sli was a 'best case' scenario and not representative of your average performance.
Same go's for amd's benchmark of the 480's beating a 1080, that's literally the best scenario they could find under the most optimal settings for those cards. And the difference was still minimal.
Shave off a good 20% of performance claims in marketing graphs and you have a much better expectation of what the card will do in your average game
>>54886639
>still lying after being fucking wrecked
How do you just not commit suicide since your life is so laughably pathetic?
>>54886652
You realize it's literally impossible for him to believe what he's saying at this point with being religiously fervorous, right? It's clearly his job to lie to your face hoping someone else will read it and believe it.
>>54886638
>392 Watts from 1080
>>54884307
They rated the 480 for 1070 level tdp, and at 1.5Ghz is capable of 6.2 Tflops
Let's hope AMD went soft on the clocks and we have another Pitcairn, >30% possible OC
(850mhz * 1.4 = 1190, 1266 * 1.4 = 1770 or 7.25 Tflop)
Are Nvidiots the Apple users of GPUs?
Seems like it.
>>54886713
amd users are amd users
>>54886713
No it's more like AMD users are the gentoo users of OS's
>>54886724
Everyone knows Matrox is the Gentoo of GPUs.
>>54886652
He'll be doing the exact same shit tomorrow, hoping more easy influenced anons are reading.
>>54886733
I don't care, install gentoo
>>54886719
>>54886724
"AMD?! YOU'RE POOR! YOU'RE SO POOR, POORFAG"
"NOT APPLE? YOU'RE POOR! YOU'RE SO POOR. POORFAG"
hmm...
>>54886713
Nvidia turned to Apple the moment they released the first Titan. People who didn't know shit about computer parts knew about the Titan, it's a scary thing.
>>54886734
Did IN elite stop using a trip?
>>54886673
>no load on the 3.3V rail
What the fuck is Pascal
>>54884158
>graph difference is 0.2
Nice try
>>54886785
that's the joke
>>54886755
>>54886771
Shocking truth!
Haha, AMD once again prove how pathetic they are
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/05/27/from_ati_to_amd_back_journey_in_futility
>>54886851
It's known that that guy has a massive hate-boner for AMD and everything he writes about them is hardcore biased.
>>54886851
Still mad that no Nano?
>>54886869
>>54886872
Judging from the power draw and low clock speeds of the 480 I think he actualy has a point
>>54886878
What's the power draw of the 480?
Why do you think high clock speeds are good?
>>54886878
Do we know how well it'll overclock?
I know that's a bad reference, since you shouldn't need to touch up your own card if you don't want to, but it's nice to know.
>>54886755
Naw Apple has no drivers just like AMD and they both have like 10% market share and 90% pajeet.
>>54886898
>What's the power draw of the 480?
High for its performance, looks like 970 levels of performance per watt, but on a much smaller node
>Why do you think high clock speeds are good?
Because higher clock speeds mean extra performance, obviously
What do you think overclocking does?
>>54886919
You're back? I thought you got paid by the thread, not the post.
>>54886935
Can you go be retarded somewhere else?
>>54886951
Fantastic rebuttal
>>54886878
>>54886935
>2016
>still believing the GHz myth
>>54886961
There's no need to respond different to someone who doesn't know the absolute basics of IC design and silicon.
>>54886974
Then I guess I won't have to respond to you anymore
>>54886951
>Can you go be retarded somewhere else?
>he said in the designated GPU retardation thread
Are you stupid or something?
>150W
>slower than 970
>14nm comapred to Nvidia 16nm
Can AMD ever recover from the biggest blunder of the century?
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/05/27/from_ati_to_amd_back_journey_in_futility
>>54886851
What he claimed was that Polaris will be significantly slower and less efficient than Pascal.
Seeing as the 1070 and the 480 both have a tdp of 150w, while the first outputs 980ti levels of performance and the second 390/390x performance I'd say he was correct
>>54887024
Not even that, 480 is slower than a 970.
>>54887033
that's bullshit though
>>54887041
It's true though
>>54887046
Based on what?
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3977446-advanced-micro-devices-amd-44th-annual-jpmorgan-global-technology-media-telecom-conference
>Polaris will ramp over a series of quarters, as we nail that performance and mainstream portion of the market...". They also said, "...and the things we want to achieve in the near-term for this product launch to go to mainstream first, and then proliferate product upwards and downwards, up into enthusiast and down into value..."
Uhh... So Polaris has bigger chips in store?
>>54887055
> asking for facts in a GPU thread
Come on, anon
>>54886309
>90% between $100-400
ftfy
>>54887060
No, he's absolutely lying, AMD has nothing to compete with GP106, GP104, GP102 and GP100 until next generation when Nvidia will destroy them with Volta
>>54887090
t. AMD insider
I mean, I guess. It's the only way you'd know that for certain
>>54887098
My Wife's son works at Nintendo he knows
BUY 10XX SERIES PEOPLE
TITAN TIER PERFORMANCE
DON'T FALL FOR THE RED CHEAP-DEVIL
>>54884454
shipping manifests have been seen with 2560 shader count and benchmarks with 1350mhz baseclock
480 gives 5.8 teraflops
480X would give 6.9 teraflops with that spec. Notably this is within spitting distance of the 7.1 teraflops the Fury generates.
Not accounting for any improvements in architecture, 480X would perform pretty close to the Fury. Remember they claim a 25% improvement per core however, with that number a 480X should outperform a Fury X. Probably gonna be bandwidth limited is my guess however.
>>54887372
Maybe the X in 480X stands for gddr5x, who knows.
The system looks bandwidth constrained already, at 2048 shaders
>>54887060
Vega is launching later this year as well.
>>54887491
There's not a generation of GPU that doesn't include the shaders needing less bandwidth to do more work, AMD's GPUs are barely ever bandwidth starved, they had plenty of options to increase the bandwidth but they didn't, maybe they didn't need it?
Anyhow, you'll easily see if it needs more bandwidth once overclocking results are out.
>>54887552
It might be good at stock but what if it OCs twenty five percent and the memory only getting a 5% boost limits things?
>>54887595
Memory always overclocks decently unless the memory controller is absolute junk or you're getting bottom barrel Elpida modules.
AyyyMD just barely released a card to surpass the 980 which was released in 2014!
AyyyMD is 2 years behind nvidia
uuuhhahahahahahahahahah
>>54887802
>implying they hadn't surpassed the 980 back in 2013
>>54885771
4000 was barely equal to the 2xx cards and 5000 was only destroying Nvidia because it was up against Fermi, which was half a year late, too hot, and under performing.
>>54888026
Fermi was faster than HD5000
