Not sure really. Depends how much the stock one takes to make I guess. Looking at the prices of 380s they start at £158 with the majority being £169 and reach £199 for the Strix card. I guess it all depends on how much the stock cooler affects the overclocking? and whether partner cards are even necessary.
Actually it isn't fella. It's looking as bad as it always has. In fact, the more noise I heard about DX12 mGPU the more I am beginning to think that Crossfire itself may be gone for good at some point in the near future. It's all about DX12 and Vulkan and Liquid VR, where AMD are making the GPUs work in different ways. Instead of splitting a frame for example and rendering it with both GPUs or doing AFR (alternative) in Liquid VR at least all of the GPUs can all work on the same frame. This is why they made and released the Pro Duo thing, so that devs could get used to it. Also bear in mind that future consoles could use two GPU cores and yeah, it will all make sense eventually. But Nvidia pretty much killing off triple and four way SLI is the start of the end of how more than one GPU will work for a game. But it's still very exciting, especially at $199 I would imagine AMD made an awful lot of people very very happy today ! It's also got me thinking about the 1060. Quite a bit actually. We already know that 1080 is X size and 1070 are X size. OK just checked. 1080 is 316mm² and apparently the 1070 is the same. OK, so I would assume that Nvidia had a die size lined up for the 1060 and I would imagine like all previous '60 cards it was a good chunk smaller than the 'big' cards (so the 960 was smaller than the 970 and 980) and so on. So, if Polaris is as good as we are being led to believe for $199 that means that Nvidia are going to have to do something about it, unless they want to abandon that sector of the market completely. And to truly beat this Polaris core (if it's as good as we are being told) then that means that their only option may be to produce the 1060 core as large as the 1070. However, Nvidia are not going to want to then have to sell that for $199. The 980 was 398 mm² and the 970 used the same one unless I'm wrong? I can't find the actual size. However, the 960's die size was 227mm2 so a fair bit smaller. However, where AMD could have them here is the fact that Polaris is 14nm compared to Nvidia's 16nm. That means they can cram more onto a smaller die than Nvidia can with Pascal. So, in order to match the performance of the Polaris Nvidia could end up having to use bigger dies, meaning more manufacturing costs just to launch a card for the same price. And they're really, really not going to like doing that. I would imagine they had ideals of £250 for their 1060, not £169. And if they go too far and make it too expensive it will end up being a white elephant because it will offer too much performance for 1080p or 1440p and cost too much to be viable. So yeah, what AMD did today was pretty massive.
I'd await benches before making wild claims based on where we think it might show up in truth. Ignoring ashes which scales remarkably well. Runs fine on a single 680 at 1080p medium / high settings for me 30-50 fps according to in game bench batch tests. They need to get wins in dx11 which is where the majority of releases will still be based around. AMDs biggest issue is dx12 been Windows 10 only. People in the cheap segment are likely still on Windows 7 or before unless they took the free upgrade. OS usage suggests this is not the case with Windows 7 still dominating steam charts. Means how well it performs in dx11 is a major thing for many. Don't personally think we will see a PlayStation 5 or another Xbox. Smaller versions of current stuff maybe VR capable boxes. Duel gpu in a console size box how would they cool it ? And build it cheap enough to get buyers. Think the console market will head to stream boxes long term. Both Microsoft and Sony have there own streaming services. Die size is irelivent really. A question that was put forward how can Nvidia get 1600mhz on a 150tdp card and AMD get 1ghz on same tdp. People are assuming similar power draw. Will see how well it sells in future months see if they claw back some market share. If a $199 gpu can not get them some market share nothing will especially if it hits these figures. Anyone tempted to buy one ? Not me personally would prefer something quicker.
Why? no one waited for the 1080 to launch before declaring it the new king. No one waited to say that the 1070 was faster than a Titan X without seeing the TX overclocked or real world figures. We've been told by AMD that this new card performs around the same as a 970 or R9 390. We've been shown it running so why would they lie? And that's stock figures too. OK, so maybe people are getting a little excited by saying that if it can overclock 20% then it will be as fast as a 980 OC or Fury but it really doesn't need to, not at $199 (or £160 or so). I wouldn't ignore it. I personally don't like it myself but it's the only DX12 game that works with multi adapter so far and if you watched the AMD launch video you would see that a pair of 480s beat a 1080 very easily whilst using it. Now sure, could be a while before every DX12 game does that (works properly like, actually using DX12) but I think we will get there eventually. Sooner or later DX11 will be phased out. Just like DX10 and DX9 before it. Any way I think we can agree that if it performs the same as a 970 in DX11 it will still be a massive hit. We've already seen that both console manufacturers (not Nintendo, they'll do their own quirky thing as usual) are not going to change. Not the software they run or the architecture. However, we are hearing rumblings about a upgraded PS4 which will near on probably be just for VR. The consoles we have are simply not powerful enough to run it properly. Not unless they do it at a clown resolution that looks like Minecraft. If and when Steam boxes are powerful and cheap enough to offer a decent VR experience? yeah, you could be right. But up until recently they offered cack performance and were quite expensive. Polaris being as cheap as it is could change that though. Not when it comes to cost it isn't irrelevant. And the % of success of actual usable cores it isn't. The smaller they are the more you get from a wafer and that means the more product you can make from them. Failure on something like Titan X usually means the bin. I might get one I've got a rig with no GPU in it now that I was going to split up and sell, but it didn't sell so I may aswell toss a GPU in there and can use it on the TV.
http://videocardz.com/60253/amd-radeon-r9-480-3dmark11-benchmarks look at the 3dmark score now http://www.eteknix.com/amd-rx-480-clock-speed-shown-first-time/ look at the card ID is that GTX 980 performance for GTX 750ti money??
We can agree on that if they can sort out dx11 performance they have a sure fire winner. Dx12 means Windows 10 people hate Windows 10 think long term success off dx12 will be based on if Windows 10 is successful. Usage figures are not great which is all people have to base it off 5-10% vs 50% Windows 7. Vulcan is the big one for AMD and Nvidia long term I feel.
If that's true then AMD are actually down playing the expectations. That would probably be one of the first times I have ever seen them do that. Having said that they definitely seem to have changed for the better recently. Edit. I knew I had seen that before it was posted ages ago now. However, what wasn't posted ages ago now was that the 1266mhz clock was confirmed today. And it has been, a picture of Crimson confirming a 1266mhz clock was posted today. So yeah, those Firestrike scores could actually be for real. Edit again. OK, the bottom AMD product is probably the Polaris talked about today and sits between the 970 and 390x in terms of performance in Firestrike and will cost $199. The card above that beating the 980 is probably the 480x and I have a feeling that it will be the $300 card AMD loosely referred to when saying "We will be offering Polaris products between $100 and $300". Now obviously at $100 more the value isn't quite as good but when you consider than today as I type this the 980 still costs £370 or more and this card could drop in at £100 less at a minimum that's still pretty bloody good. It basically covers everything but the 1070 and 1080 and that could be what Vega is for. So AMD have clearly put a lot of thought into this launch and where they wanted their cards to sit.
Lets play the positive game then. Assuming it launches between the 970 and 980 not that unrealistic yes? Fury is basically EOL at that point. I do not know the stocks of Fury but id assume they are still good. $199 4gb card will be what £180 in the uk? we be probably looking at the £230-£250 for 8gb custom editions. 2 for £500 in Cfx should be faster than the 1080 in games that work with cfx like firestrike / Ashes for example. Thats a pretty cracking bargin. Where does that leave Vega? If your 2 480s are faster and cheaper than Vega whats the point of it? Single card performance? Dx12 is meant to fix all CFX SLI problems acording to microsoft. Question is will it be enough to save AMD, Will they pick up the market share. They need at least 40-45% to survive long term you would feel. This is not Apple in Smartphones where they survive with 10-15%. 480 looks crazy quick for the cash in firestrike at least. Nvidia 980 like fury is EOL. Nvidia 970 will likely continue till a 1060 launches around september you would feel. Can AMD aquire enough market share before a 1060 launches?. Will they convince Nvidia fans its a card worth buying? I think they need older hardware users to see it as a big upgrade and Nvidia fans to consider it worth buying and not wait for the 1060 to launch. My feeling is at least on these sites the Nvidia 970 and 980 will drop to very cheap second hand prices and be the cards to buy. If 480 is really £180 whats the point of a second hand nvidia 970 at £200 + thats slower than it?
It then becomes margins. NVIDIA are making a killing on the 1070/1080, and I'd imagine AMD are not for that price. AMD are going to have to shift a vast number of cards to keep their profits up. Low end has always been volume, but the issue has been they can't actually sell said volume.
I like the commitment AMD are making to VR. I've never been an AMD fan before but I'm impressed with their commitment now. I will be ditching my 970 soon perhaps for a 1070 but I'm wondering if ATI have comparable features for VR? 900 series does the image warping in a single pass compared to previous gen. 1000 series has multi-projection which when implemented would boost performance. I guess I need to learn what Liquid VR brings... Does crossfire rely on game developers? SLI is really a failure overall because it relies on game developers to implement on a per-game basis.
Actually there are several articles a couple of weeks back that stated windows 10 had overtaken windows 7 on steam, and you commented about making claims http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey Now significantly above windows 7! AMD were pushing dx12 for a reason!
Didn't know that can't load flash on phone. Seems like they went ahead in Feb time. Great news for Microsoft and AMD then.
They are but they seem to be OoS on Scan and OCUK, do we have any sales numbers for Pascal? They could be flying off the shelves, they might not have much stock to sell or a mixture of the two. IIRC the vast majority of GPU buyers seem to buy in the price range AMD is targeting, which at a guess NVidia's answer will more than likely be the 1060. When that appears is anybodies guess, AMD might be the only game in town at it's price point. Maxwell has something to do with this as well, doubt it's exactly the same, but multi-projection crops up on their maxwell slides IIRC.
Sorry, by killing I mean that NVIDIA are making a very large profit off each card sold. AMD will be making significantly less per card, meaning they have to sell a lot more of them.
I really hope it drags down the price what is generally considered a "mid-range" card. I think mid-range is often thought of as a card that can play all current and near future games well at fairly typical resolutions but lacking cutting edge performance. For a long time that has been at a a £200+ price point, which I think has hurt a lot of PC gamers and PC gaming in general.
4890 is still the best performance per pound card that I owned. It was super quick I got a vapor X edition that was cool and quiet for under £150 at the time. 5870 had just launched which was double the price for at best 10-15% more performance.
last dual cards i had was two 5850's, defo getting the same vibe, but at 1080p, not sure it will be worth it for me. perfect for 1440p tho
