AMD RX480 Confirmed at $199

[Valdas]

Concerning the AOTS image quality controversy

Makes more sense than the initial explanation of procedural textures, considering that there numerous benchmarks on youtube showing multiple gpus side by side without any obviously noticeable difference regarding terrain.
None the less, if 480 performance is between 970 and 980 it makes sense for dual 480 to beat 1080 in AotS, since dual 980 outperform 1080 in most cases and this is a game that runs better on AMD cards.

 

[zargana]

I would say something about the price of the card. Looks like the survey from techpowerup didnt pass unoticed from AMD eyes.
If want to check the link.

 

[Fluffmeister]

About the image quality:

"At present the GTX 1080 is incorrectly executing the terrain shaders responsible for populating the environment with the appropriate amount of snow. The GTX 1080 is doing less work to render AOTS than it otherwise would if the shader were being run properly."

http://videocardz.com/60860/amd-exp...ts-radeon-rx-480-cf-vs-gtx-1080-demonstration

Yet it looks better? The damn game is a joke.

Also, I assume AMD knew this already yet they insist on using the game that isn't a true apples to apples comparison? ok.

 

[Kanan]

I expect 480(5.84 TFLOPS)'s real world performance to be around R9-390X(5.9 TFLOPS) to Fury Pro.

From 3DMarks 11 scores, AMD GPUs follows their SKU levels e.g. Fury Pro > R9-390X > R9-390 > R9-380X > R9-380.

Also don't forget that GCN 4 has a better utilization of it's shaders because of the new frontend of the GPU compared to GCN 2 and 3, so "TFLOPs" is pure theory, in fact, every shader of Polaris is not only better, but better utilized too. That + the higher clocks is why RX 480 is most likely faster than 390X even on high util games like Tomb Raider (that is in favor of 390X's 2816 shaders).

Also, I assume AMD knew this already yet they insist on using the game that isn't a true apples to apples comparison? ok.

It's normal that a company uses for marketing what's good for them. Nvidia and every other company does the same, they would be crazy if not.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Boohoo AMD's $200 card doesn't match up with the $650 card from Nvidia OMG stop the press....... if this card is somewhere at 390x/Fury level and for $200 as all the speculation seems to point towards, I couldn't give a fiddlers elbow if the AOTS was rigged or not (however as many have pointed out no run of AOTS is ever the same and you will see more/different textures with every run... but hey, why listen to reason when you can spout a load of nonsense) but if this is going to be THE go-to mid-range GPU like it is possibly shaping up to be then NV need to come back with something damn special being as they are selling the 980 and 970 successors at at 980 and 980ti prices, let's not even contemplate the next Titan card. AMD have the right idea, flood the mid range market with fast affordable cards, I for one will be buying a 480 and they haven't even been released or showcased yet, that right there is marketing

 

[R-T-B]

Didn't the IQ debate die half a decade ago?

Not with procedural generation exposing supposed minute differences...

Never mind the fact that procedural generation will differ every fucking run... guys, trust me. I'm a developer who does a lot of procedural generation. It's a fully legit point. There is no IQ difference. There has not been for several generations of cards. Mark my words.

Boohoo AMD's $200 card doesn't match up with the $650 card from Nvidia OMG stop the press.......

True, but IQ should never differ. It should just run slower. That said, I really doubt it does. Could you pick a worse possible title to compare on than one with frickin' procedural textures?

 

[Fluffmeister]

It's normal that a company uses for marketing what's good for them. Nvidia and every other company does the same, they would be crazy if not.

I don't disagree at all, it makes perfect sense they focus on the one game that shows them in the best light.

But as R-T-B mentioned above, a game that randomly generates sounds like a pretty poor baseline to start with, but hey AMD choose it.

The fact that many think the game looks better when it's apparently being rendered wrong is just plain funny to me.

I guess the 267 people that currently play the game (or is that just benchmark?) care so maybe AMD are on to something:

http://steamcharts.com/app/228880

 

[Kanan]

I don't disagree at all, it makes perfect sense they focus on the one game that shows them in the best light.

But as R-T-B mentioned above, a game that randomly generates sounds like a pretty poor baseline to start with, but hey AMD choose it.

The fact that many think the game looks better when it's apparently being rendered wrong is just plain funny to me.

I guess the 267 people that currently play the game (or is that just benchmark?) care so maybe AMD are on to something:

http://steamcharts.com/app/228880

It's not really important either, just nerds are raging about it - I think AMD wanted a game to show off their Asynch Compute, something Nvidia isn't good at. We still have to wait for proper reviews and benchmarks, then we know. That said the leaked 3Dmark bench was better, but with that high utilization on GPU it's only comparable to games like Tomb Raider. Worst case, if that bench is not a fake, real world gaming is -20% perf on that, but could very well also be the real performance of that GPU, depends if they closed the bottlenecks on the frontend of GCN (shader utilization).

 

[Fluffmeister]

It's not really important either, just nerds are raging about it - I think AMD wanted a game to show off their Asynch Compute, something Nvidia isn't good at. We still have to wait for proper reviews and benchmarks, then we know. That said the leaked 3Dmark bench was better, but with that high utilization on GPU it's only comparable to games like Tomb Raider. Worst case, if that bench is not a fake, real world gaming is -20% perf on that, but could very well also be the real performance of that GPU, depends if they closed the bottlenecks on the frontend of GCN (shader utilization).

That's also the problem, AotS is a known quantity, we all know already AMD do well in it, they didn't show us anything we haven't seen already.

I'm not knocking the card at all, the price is clearly great, but numbers from one game directly from horses mouth leaves me wanting more. Roll on the end of the month.

 

[Mussels]

not sure if this quote was shown in the previous pages:

 

[TRWOV]

Two things I'm expecting:

- RX 480X... let's say, $250-$300?
- ITX version of RX 480

 

[RejZoR]

I want to see what RX 490X can offer. Or even RX Fury. But We'll have to wait till autumn for that afaik.

 

[medi01]

I want to see what RX 490X can offer. Or even RX Fury. But We'll have to wait till autumn for that afaik.

Fury in autumn is rather unlikely. (400mm2 Vega10 chip will likely be marketed as 490/490x) although with those chips, AMD should easily take on 1080.

Fury should be Vega11, 2017.

PS
If you wonder, why 11 is sometimes smaller chip and sometimes the bigger: number is not related to the size of the chip at all, it only reflects start date of the project.

 

[Pehla]

LOL, Crossfire?

I'd much rather pay $400 for a more powerful single GPU card, because quite frankly, Crossfire can be a pain. Plus they happened to pick the one game Dx12 works well on. Most games would likely run better on one 1070, and for $20 less.

AMD's marketing is still as dysfunctional as ever.

i gues you didnt watch that video a guy made about "amd master plan"
as wierd as it sound it all developing exactly as the guy described...there is a reason why they make smaller gpu´s
the crosfire that everybody fears amd is going to fix that also..,just give them some more time ,they aint going to bother with it ...,they will handle it to game developers to do it for them!!acording to the "AMD MASTER PLAN"

 

[HD64G]

Guys, let's make it simple.

RX480 is a GPU of great value targeting to flood the market ok?

Now, about its performance. If it lands just in 390 lvl it will be great. If it surpasses it, it will be the bargain of the century in GPU history imho. $200 is almost half than the previous gen GPUs in FPS/$. And please do not compare to any used GPU prices...

In conclusion, as nVidia chose to release performance GPUs and AMD bargain GPUs first, we have no direct competition for the next few months. We will have that until next spring. So, anyone ready and willing to buy a GPU now, pick up the best for your wallet's depth but don't start flame wars. We will have time for that in 2017.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

i gues you didnt watch that video a guy made about "amd master plan"
as wierd as it sound it all developing exactly as the guy described...there is a reason why they make smaller gpu´s
the crosfire that everybody fears amd is going to fix that also..,just give them some more time ,they aint going to bother with it ...,they will handle it to game developers to do it for them!!acording to the "AMD MASTER PLAN"

No, actually I watched that vid, and I also noted at the end of the 2nd one, the vid author correctly states, "...but if anyone can screw it up, it's AMD."

THAT was the most telling part of the videos. Look at how customer satisfaction of SLI compares to that of Crossfire. Look at customer reviews on AMD GPUs, vs that of Nvidia ones. Also, note that the entire premise of his assuming AMD will eventually dominate gaming, lies on his assumption Nvidia will back out of gaming and go entirely industrial.

It's all predilected on what Nvidia decides, because that is the only way AMD will get a decent share of game endorsements back. It would literally take Nvidia giving up on gaming for that to happen, and honestly, I don't see that happening, especially with the huge success they've had at it lately.

Currently, AMD has a very small percentage of game endorsements, and that also has a lot to do with why they're so far behind on that Crossfire support you admit will take some time. In fact, if Nvidia stays strong in gaming, they're pretty much in the driver's seat, because AMD can't afford to spend the money it would take to catch up, and they're simply too mistake prone even if they did.

Have you not noticed on threads about multi GPU topics, that most prefer not to use Crossfire? I think you should also take a look at how the red vs green reviews compare. Nvidia isn't going anywhere. Those vids were nothing but a very AMD biased dream.

 

[RejZoR]

Except AMD owns the console segment entirely. And we all know consoles are where everything starts these days.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Except AMD owns the console segment entirely. And we all know consoles are where everything starts these days.

1. The console market has extremely small profits on the hardware end

2. Devs are voicing their discontent on how consoles are stagnating the evolution of gaming

3. There's been a lot of growth in new dev teams writing for PC

4. Players are getting fed up with the mediocre quality of AAA titles developed on console

5. There are quite a few former console players switching over to PC

6. Digital distribution has drastically increased overall PC game sales

The above all spells an eventual shift in market share to larger PC growth in players and developed games. In fact it's been going on for some time. Pretty much ever since digital distribution. Consoles are FAR from where "everything" starts. More correctly, it's where most AAA titles start, and a decreasing number of exclusives. As I said though, the AAA game market is becoming unacceptably shoddy, repetitious, and boring to many players.

 

[RejZoR]

It's not about making money through console hardware, it's how AMD dictates the standards used as a whole. It's where everything begins. It's NVIDIA that needs to beg developers to do exclusive stuff for their hardware. And that reflects on PC as well. And numbers don't lie, console segment is way ahead of PC whether you like it or not. It may change in the future, but as things stand now, that's how it is.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

It's not about making money through console hardware, it's how AMD dictates the standards used as a whole. It's where everything begins. It's NVIDIA that needs to beg developers to do exclusive stuff for their hardware. And that reflects on PC as well. And numbers don't lie, console segment is way ahead of PC whether you like it or not. It may change in the future, but as things stand now, that's how it is.

LOL, "dictate"? Look at AMD's woeful market share. They're in no position to "dictate" anything. The funny thing is, YOU yourself are part of that equation. One of many whom defend AMD in an argument, but when it comes time to shell out the money, goes Intel and Nvidia (Yeah that's right, I can read your spec chart). Hell, having an AMD 7970, I'm more pro AMD than YOU are. I'm just not inclined to deny the facts. Part of the reason I bought my 7970, is AMD had VERY strong game endorsement at the time, and I got a solid 3 game bundle when purchasing it. That's not the case anymore, anyone can see that. And AMD has controlled the console market for some time, yet Nvidia's game endorsement is still growing, while AMD's is declining.

Nvidia don't need to "beg" devs to get game endorsement. Devs are glad to because they know what a huge market of Nvidia GPU owners exists, especially since the 900 series. They're also glad to because Nvidia spend more time with them, and listen to them FAR better than AMD does.

Again, you need to look at the game market holistically, vs a handful of hyped up AAA titles that are being shoddily developed, with many getting less than expected sales. AAA titles cost a lot more to make, so when they don't sell well, entire series get canned. It's been happening increasingly for some time. . The PC game sales are still fine, and if anything, increasing in share overall. Even Cliff Bleszinski has recently admitted he was wrong about the PC platform, and that it's the best to develop for.

 

[Xzibit]

PC Market is bigger but they generate 1/3rd of the revenue consoles do in the US.

Worldwide PC MMOs account for about 3/4th of total PC gaming revenue.

 

[medi01]

Sony sold 40 million consoles so far. (PS4's I mean)
XBone about 25 I guess.
So 65 million chips over 3 years.

PC gaming market (including those gaming on IGPs) is about 100-200 million (depending on definition of "gaming" ), as far as I remember.

Sony has likely financed lion's share of RX 480's development.
Microsoft (Xbone) is likely involved in either 480 or Vega11 (next Xbox, "Scorpion" is rumored in 2017).
None of the cross-platform developers can ignore CGN.

Except AMD owns the console segment entirely. And we all know consoles are where everything starts these days.

nVidia is rumored to convince Nintendo to use its chips in upcoming NX console.

That's for the all the lame "they are simply not interested, cause low margin yada yada" (with Nintendo's habit of making money on hardware, margins would be even more laughable). nVidia was likely very desperate to win at least one console manufacturer.

Oh, and they have pissed off Microsoft big time last gen. (to the argument about all companies being "just about making money". It surely does mean all of them would get as low as it gets for it)

Worldwide PC MMOs account for about 3/4th of total PC gaming revenue.

Online/microtransaction games are not necessarily MMO, but yeah.

 

[RejZoR]

LOL, "dictate"? Look at AMD's woeful market share. They're in no position to "dictate" anything. The funny thing is, YOU yourself are part of that equation. One of many whom defend AMD in an argument, but when it comes time to shell out the money, goes Intel and Nvidia (Yeah that's right, I can read your spec chart). Hell, having an AMD 7970, I'm more pro AMD than YOU are. I'm just not inclined to deny the facts. Part of the reason I bought my 7970, is AMD had VERY strong game endorsement at the time, and I got a solid 3 game bundle when purchasing it. That's not the case anymore, anyone can see that. And AMD has controlled the console market for some time, yet Nvidia's game endorsement is still growing, while AMD's is declining.

Nvidia don't need to "beg" devs to get game endorsement. Devs are glad to because they know what a huge market of Nvidia GPU owners exists, especially since the 900 series. They're also glad to because Nvidia spend more time with them, and listen to them FAR better than AMD does.

Again, you need to look at the game market holistically, vs a handful of hyped up AAA titles that are being shoddily developed, with many getting less than expected sales. AAA titles cost a lot more to make, so when they don't sell well, entire series get canned. It's been happening increasingly for some time. . The PC game sales are still fine, and if anything, increasing in share overall. Even Cliff Bleszinski has recently admitted he was wrong about the PC platform, and that it's the best to develop for.

Lol, you're more pro AMD just because after several years I own 1 GeForce card. Funny man. My last GeForce before GTX 980 was 7600GT. Now go and count how many generations of AMD/ATi I had in between...

NVIDIA can have 90% of PC market, but in the end, life of nearly every single game, especially AAA game begins on consoles. Maybe that will change in the near future, but as things currently stand, that's how it is. And there, AMD owns 100% of the market. But hey, who am I to list actual statistics...

 

[medi01]

...huge market of..

Let's not buy into too much FUD here, shall we?
Whoever is selling more of things last quarter is, of course, interesting, but misleading too.
As seen on Steam's site (which is as PC gaming as it gets):
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

First, nVidia to AMD GPU market share is roughly 2 vs 1 and not 3-4 vs 1 as in Q sales reports.
Second, nVidia roughly has half of the Steam's (read "PC gaming") market.
Is that quite a lot? Yes.
But nowhere near 80% figures we saw recently.
Oh, and it also has close to zero on console market.

More interesting in this context is, what would multi-platform game developer use a as a "base". And, ups, that's Xbone, PS4. Which have what? AMD APUs.

Again, nothing stops gaming devs from eating the FUD, but woefulness of AMD's GPU market share (at the moment, sure it would suffer if Polaris fails vs Pascal, although we see no signs of that at the moment, on the opposite) is overrated, to say the least.

 

[RejZoR]

AMD has done the analysis. PC gamers spend most money on graphic cards within the $100-300 range. In the end it doesn't matter how awesome NVIDIA's top end is. A graphic card in a range of current R9-390(X) at $199 is a spectacular value. And because it is not power hungry, it can be hooked into a crappy PC with lame PSU and it'll still work. We don't know how NVIDIA will react to this with GTX 1060 or 1050, but it'll be interesting time for casual gamers.