AMD RX480 Confirmed at $199

[ZoneDymo]

Why don't AMD just slam 2x RX 480 on a single card, give it dual 6pin and call it a day? I know it's a dual GPU which I don't like, but if they push enough of these on the market, they will force the change with developers. And at least in DX12, that means same performance as GTX 1080. Or around there. It's a lot easier and cheaper for AMD and end customers. I guess they just aren't ready yet, that's why they are banking on multi GPU with Navi, 2 years down the road...

Well there might be one coming, has it not always been like this with dual cards? that it took a while for those to come out?

 

[D007]

Just search for amd (or ati) vs nvidia image quality, before posting things like this.

Best regards

There are examples "In this very topic" Showing AMD using lower grade quality...
Not going to argue about what I know is a fact and what I've seen with my own two eyes.. Nuff said, moving on..

 

[RejZoR]

Well there might be one coming, has it not always been like this with dual cards? that it took a while for those to come out?

I'm not talking about super expensive single GPU solution that comes at the end of life of one product where they extract last breath out of it. I'm talking dual GPU solution being released on day 1. They could revive the "Maxx" brand for it even.

The main issue with highest end single GPU cards is that GPU is massive and as such, waffers of it are super expensive compared to cheap small GPU's that you can stack metric tons of them on a single waffer. That's why lower end cards are so cheap and higher end are so expensive. Doing multi GPU and doing it right would end this. It would make production of GPU's significantly cheaper and since multi GPU would be such mainstream, everyone from developers to graphic vendors would have to work a lot harder on compatibility and support compared to current situationw here they need to support those 15 people owning multi-GPU setup of top of the line cards. I know AMD is aiming for that with Navi, but they could already start this revolution with Polaris.

 

[ZoneDymo]

There are examples "In this very topic" Showing AMD using lower grade quality...
Not going to argue about what I know is a fact and what I've seen with my own two eyes.. Nuff said, moving on..

aka *puts fingers in ears" and goes "lalalala I cant hear you lalalalala"

I'm not talking about super expensive single GPU solution that comes at the end of life of one product where they extract last breath out of it. I'm talking dual GPU solution being released on day 1. They could revive the "Maxx" brand for it even.

The main issue with highest end single GPU cards is that GPU is massive and as such, waffers of it are super expensive compared to cheap small GPU's that you can stack metric tons of them on a single waffer. That's why lower end cards are so cheap and higher end are so expensive. Doing multi GPU and doing it right would end this. It would make production of GPU's significantly cheaper and since multi GPU would be such mainstream, everyone from developers to graphic vendors would have to work a lot harder on compatibility and support compared to current situationw here they need to support those 15 people owning multi-GPU setup of top of the line cards. I know AMD is aiming for that with Navi, but they could already start this revolution with Polaris.

I was talking about a dual gpu solution...not sure why you thought otherwise.
The 7950 GX2, 3870X2, etc etc etc and recently the Pro Duo, did they not all come out a little while after their single gpu counterparts?
So who knows, while not announced right now maybe we will see a 480(x)X2 in the near future.

 

[AsRock]

Too me AMD are trying to say you have 2xRX480's and perform near as good as the 1080 but if there RX480 could really perform so well they would not of used 2 but actually 1. They say 51% utilization again implying 1 480 can perform as well as the 1080 which i call bullshit.

Then there is the quality difference and to me as others have said the details are lower on the 480.

Question is that if 2 RX480's could run 80-90+ utilization and give the 1080 a fight with being cheaper.

As i don't tend to buy games when they first come out crossfire is a option as most issue's are when games are new.

How ever if i was going go CF i think the best time to do that will when they are like multi core CPU's.

 

[OneMoar]

they can say 50% because we all know crossfire scaling is shit
so practice more like 70%

 

[AsRock]

they can say 50% because we all know crossfire scaling is shit
so practice more like 70%

But my point is is 2 cards get 50% due to terrible scaling surly one card would get near 100% as CF be taken out the picture, but they did not do that which makes me think only bad things and this is some game engine they have put a lot of time in to.

AMD crying wolf is only going make no one believe them when they do actually have some thing good.

Just wish they would stop the BS as it makes me not want to buy there stuff, but i guess we will find out how much BS is about sooner than enough.

 

[ValenOne]

Too me AMD are trying to say you have 2xRX480's and perform near as good as the 1080 but if there RX480 could really perform so well they would not of used 2 but actually 1. They say 51% utilization again implying 1 480 can perform as well as the 1080 which i call bullshit.

Then there is the quality difference and to me as others have said the details are lower on the 480.

Question is that if 2 RX480's could run 80-90+ utilization and give the 1080 a fight with being cheaper.

As i don't tend to buy games when they first come out crossfire is a option as most issue's are when games are new.

How ever if i was going go CF i think the best time to do that will when they are like multi core CPU's.

R9-290/290X was battling 780/780 Ti and then 970/980. Over time, 780/780 Ti wasn't able to keep up with 970/980/R9-290/290X.

 

[OneMoar]

But my point is is 2 cards get 50% due to terrible scaling surly one card would get near 100% as CF be taken out the picture, but they did not do that which makes me think only bad things and this is some game engine they have put a lot of time in to.

AMD crying wolf is only going make no one believe them when they do actually have some thing good.

Just wish they would stop the BS as it makes me not want to buy there stuff, but i guess we will find out how much BS is about sooner than enough.

I expect real world performance to be around the 390 with the 480 being 5 - 8 fps or so faster and losing in some scenarios

 

[ViperXTR]

On that demonstration...did you also notice the Nvidia rendering clearly had more detail in the game?

Ashes of the singularity uses some form of procedual generation for its texture generation ( aswell as unit composition/behavior to prevent driver cheats) which means that every game session and bench run will have various differences in some details.

You can see this quite well in the second image. Looking at the chasm like drop off in front of the mountain (top portion) you can see that on the 480 side it's actually half filled with snow, while the 1080 run is pretty much... "dry" down there. Same can be observed with various mountain ledges where any remotely flat surface is covered in thick white snow on the 480 and hardly any on the 1080. Lastly the plateau on top of the same mountain is basically all snow on the 480 with almost no rock texture retained while on the 1080 the would-be snow layer is thin enough to show some of the rock's detail beneath.

Obviously, thick layers of snow will reduce apparent detail but that does not mean the scene becomes any easier to render. It's just that one seed looks more complex than the other.

tl;dr: Procedual terrain texture generation gave the 480 a much more snowy "seed". Differences in perceived detail are due to snow being inherently "boring" and probably purely aesthetic.

 

[Fluffmeister]

That's gold, too much snow:

At the end of the day, it's a $200 card, you can't expect it to compete with the big boys (mid range Pascal).

 

[ValenOne]

I expect real world performance to be around the 390 with the 480 being 5 - 8 fps or so faster and losing in some scenarios

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.

 

[OneMoar]

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.

LOLNO

 

[ValenOne]

LOLNO

Your post is LOL.

 

[uuuaaaaaa]

There are examples "In this very topic" Showing AMD using lower grade quality...
Not going to argue about what I know is a fact and what I've seen with my own two eyes.. Nuff said, moving on..

Like the recent debacle on Titan X vs Fury X on Battlefield 4, where Titan X produced blurry washed out frames compared to Fury X? Or back in the days of the nvidia FX series when they purposely did not render part of the frames in 3Dmark to get higher scores?Even recently I have seen some guys in the World of Tanks forums complaining about the image quality produced by nvidia (after "upgrading" from amd) cards at the same settings, blatantly being worse on his shinny new nvidia GTX 970.

There is always that guy that listens to flac's compressed to 128kB/s mp3's and claims that the later sound better...

Best regards

 

[medi01]

Cool would it be if Vega 10 (400mm chip, 1080 is 300-ish, 480 200-ish) arrives this fall.

But to me here, just stepping back and looking at both pictures the right just looks much better

Anyhow, from AotS site itself, C7 in CF:
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...-details/ac88258f-4541-408e-8234-f9e96febe303

1080:
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...-details/a957db0f-59b3-4394-84cc-2ba0170ab699

Game versions are different though, but both run 1440p "crazy".

Yea they always try to compete FPS/consumption wise but they just never look the same.

Dude.
I'll assume you are neither trolling nor on a NV payrol ("chizow" and company).

If you'd check sites going deeper, such as anandtech, you'd realize AMD is the best of 3 major GPU manufacturer in that regard, with nVidia being somewhat worse and Intel simply terrible in that regard. (things such as anisotropic filtering). And for quite a while.

Makes me realize that $200 isn't so great overseas, when the conversion isn't arranged fairly.

That's not how AMD handled things, at least in the past.
Heck, even nGreedia didn't do 699$ => 789€ last gen.

But my point is is 2 cards get 50% due to terrible scaling surly one card would get near 100% as CF be taken out the picture, but they did not do that which makes me think only bad things and this is some game engine they have put a lot of time in to.

Come on.
There could be other bottlnecks.
Like CPU, for instance.

CF vs 1080 comparison is just PR for lols anyhow.
480 being between 970 and 980 or even 980 and Fury at 199$/229$ is real news.

Why don't AMD just slam 2x RX 480 on a single card, give it dual 6pin and call it a day?

I think they could use single 8pin. (225w)
And yeah, why not, provided there are enough chips to satisfy demand.

Timing is crucial, they must pump out as much as they can before 1060 (which, given nVidia's arrogance, won't be priced too competitively) arrives, so if they simply can't produce



PS
A case for multi-GPU (for dudes who are into VR):

Moving on, we have AMD’s compelling content goal, which is backed by their Affinity Multi-GPU technology. Short and to the point, Affinity Multi-GPU allows for each eye in a VR headset to be rendered in parallel by a GPU, as opposed to taking the traditional PC route of alternate frame rendering (AFR), which has the GPUs alternate on frames and in the process can introduce quite a bit of lag. Though multi-GPU setups are not absolutely necessary for VR, the performance requirements for high quality VR combined with the simplicity of this solution make it a easy way to improve performance (reduce latency) just by adding in a second GPU

At a lower level, Affinity Multi-GPU also implements some rendering pipeline optimizations to get rid of some of the CPU overhead that would come from dispatching two jobs to render two frames. With each eye being nearly identical, it’s possible to cut down on some of this work by dispatching a single job and then using masking to hide from each eye what it can’t actually see.

Marked bold is what nVidia's "simultaneous multi-projection" is likely about.​

 

[Mr McC]

A lot of posters drinking Jen-jizz trying to pass it off as milk... Benchmarks will be here soon enough.

 

[F-Zero]

Concerning the AOTS image quality controversy

 

[the54thvoid]

Concerning the AOTS image quality controversy

I'm sorry but a Reddit post from the guy who is AMD Technical Marketing isn't proof.

Let's wait on benchmarks for neutral interpretation.

 

[RejZoR]

Concerning the AOTS image quality controversy

The rocks/rocky ridges on GTX 1080 still looked a bit more detailed to me, despite having "less" snow.

 

[Frick]

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

 

[medi01]

Concerning the AOTS image quality controversy

Cheers.

a bit more detailed to me

I tried hard to see that, zoomed in buildings. No difference in them. The rest looks like "more fog vs less fog" to me.

http://imgur.com/a/pyC3r

PS
Choosing specs that favor your card is one thing, pretty much standard for marketing people.
But outright lies with something THAT CAN BE EASILY VERIFIED 4 WEEKS FROM NOW, would not only be the newest low, but would be crystallized idiotism... Why, on planet Earth, would they do it???

 

[uuuaaaaaa]

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

 

[AsRock]

I expect real world performance to be around the 390 with the 480 being 5 - 8 fps or so faster and losing in some scenarios

Which would be nice for a $200-$230 card.

That's gold, too much snow:

At the end of the day, it's a $200 card, you can't expect it to compete with the big boys (mid range Pascal).

Bad pic in the case except for the lack of tree's the AMD side looks better, unless if you were playing and all that other shit started to pop up haha.

But in the end it is a $200 card, i just don't like the deceitfulness.

 

[vega22]

PS
A case for multi-GPU (for dudes who are into VR):

Moving on, we have AMD’s compelling content goal, which is backed by their Affinity Multi-GPU technology. Short and to the point, Affinity Multi-GPU allows for each eye in a VR headset to be rendered in parallel by a GPU, as opposed to taking the traditional PC route of alternate frame rendering (AFR), which has the GPUs alternate on frames and in the process can introduce quite a bit of lag. Though multi-GPU setups are not absolutely necessary for VR, the performance requirements for high quality VR combined with the simplicity of this solution make it a easy way to improve performance (reduce latency) just by adding in a second GPU

At a lower level, Affinity Multi-GPU also implements some rendering pipeline optimizations to get rid of some of the CPU overhead that would come from dispatching two jobs to render two frames. With each eye being nearly identical, it’s possible to cut down on some of this work by dispatching a single job and then using masking to hide from each eye what it can’t actually see.

Marked bold is what nVidia's "simultaneous multi-projection" is likely about.​

i think dx12 and vulcan also build on this allowing for the 1 "screen" to be rendered by upto 4 gpu with each taking a quarter.