AMD: Speculation, Rumors, and Discussion (Archive)
- Thread starter iMacmatician
- Start date
- Status
Well, that was pretty poor, I was hoping it would at least come between the 390 and the 390x, oh well...
I almost picked up a 390 for £199 from Overclockers this morning but decided not to, looks like that was a bad decision. I made the same mistake when the 290X's were heavily discounted the day before the 390X reviews went live
I almost picked up a 390 for £199 from Overclockers this morning but decided not to, looks like that was a bad decision. I made the same mistake when the 290X's were heavily discounted the day before the 390X reviews went live
Last edited:
DavidGraham
Veteran
Power consumption and performance fail, it's sad really, how did that happen?
Global Foundries?
The power distribution with consumption is more than any of us expected IMO and maybe a consideration with budget cheap boards, also I guess we need to wait and see how much further this is compounded by custom OC AIBs, including from a thermal and voltage to clocking performance perspective.
TPU who also measure the rails show it exceeding generally 150W and up to 167W for gaming (distribution is also important but not covered in TPU reviews).
That aside still a solid card for consumers to consider for its price IMO, at least until we get to see performance data and prices for the 1060 that may be competitive or not
Cheers
Last edited:
Love_In_Rio
Veteran
Polaris makes Pascal architecture look like 2 times brighter... almost same power consumption (20 watts difference) as a 1070 and 50% less performance...
No wonder Neo is rumored to be at 911 Mhz... that could be the only way this chip could be in the 100 watts area.
No wonder Neo is rumored to be at 911 Mhz... that could be the only way this chip could be in the 100 watts area.
Last edited:
Orion
Regular
Well, that was pretty poor, I was hoping it would at least come between the 390 and the 390x, oh well...
I almost picked up a 390X for £199 from Overclockers this morning but decided not to, looks like that was a bad decision. I made the same mistake when the 290X's were heavily discounted the day before the 390X reviews went live
Will look at more reviews, but it seems it depends on the application and resolution, settings. Judging from the following review:
https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2016/06/amd-radeon-rx-480-review/5/
At 1080p it seems for several apps the performance is reasonable.
It gets within 2-5fps from a 390x, in some cases it matches it, and in some it's even above the fury. In some games it is also within 25% of a gtx1080
e.g. at 1080p:
Tomb Raider Ultimate 92fps for 480 vs 96fps for 390x,
Witcher 3 Ultra 50.4fps for 480 vs 49.6fps for 390x
Far Cry 4 Ultra 84fps for 480 vs 103fps for gtx 1080(about 25% difference, for 300-400% price difference, at 1080p seems like the better buy at least for some apps.)
The price : performance ratio just doesn't look that good compared to the previous generation for a node change. I remember when the 7870 came out it was up there and beating the GTX580. The 7870 cost a bit more at £260 (vs £220 for the RX480), but it was a whole performance tier above.
EDIT: I guess the strength of the £ against the $ then and now has some bearing on the comparison.
EDIT: I guess the strength of the £ against the $ then and now has some bearing on the comparison.
A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y
Veteran
What happened to the 110 watt
So those earlier reports about Polaris power/process problems were basically true.
So those earlier reports about Polaris power/process problems were basically true.
Love_In_Rio
Veteran
Yes, 14/16 nm is strange because has been a long time since last node change and people see as a great thing improvements in performance for a same price point, which has always been the rule with new nodes in the past. In fact Polaris looks as one of the worse node transitions in years, it performs similar/worse than the chip with similar number of transistors in the previous node.
Love_In_Rio
Veteran
Kyle was on point.
Rurouni
Veteran
Yeah, I must admit that the power consumption is disappointing. Much better vs AMD 2xx/3xx series, kinda comparable to Nvidia 9xx series, but obviously I expected more, especially looking at Pascal power consumption.
But it is still very attractive in terms of performance/price pov. Also looking at the architecture improvement, it does have more potential for future proofing.
But it is still very attractive in terms of performance/price pov. Also looking at the architecture improvement, it does have more potential for future proofing.
Love_In_Rio
Veteran
Is like AMD at last reached Maxwell power efficiency. The problem is it was at 28nm and Nvidia improved it a 60% with Pascal at 16nm.
A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y
Veteran
With AMD it seems that a correlation exists between the amount of hype before a product is released and what the product actually is when released. The more hype before seems to result in a poorer product when released. Bulldozer was a prime example.
- Status
