Leaked slide Shows AMD Radeon RX 480 at 5.5 TFLOPs and 8GB GDDR5

alanm

2016-05-31 23:43

how did you figure that's where "the real money is"? i would argue that demand for low to mid range dGPU is rapidly decreasing with iGPU becoming ever more powerful. casual people can already play pretty much any indie game on iGPU with decent performance, and even well optimized games like ones from Blizzard or Valve. and if you don't game then iGPU is perfect for every single consumer task you can think of - browsing, youtube, htpc, office apps, etc. soon low-mid range dGPU will be obsolete.

iGPU is a looong way from ever matching the midrange segments of the dGPU manufacturers.

#5282325

Szaby59

2016-05-31 23:45

Its funny how you say a different process but has 'more cores' as if they're directly comparable.

Transistor numbers are comparable - much more than the die example because of the different process and because the 1070 has 30% less units enabled than the full GP-104.

#5282327

alanm

2016-05-31 23:47

Transistor numbers are comparable.

Well your clue as to how thats going to turn out is the $199 price. 😀

#5282371

Redemption80

2016-06-01 01:39

It doesn't look good for the resale value of current AMD cards. $199 seems a little low and abit too good to be true, but if true they would definitely sell well.

#5282373

leszy

2016-06-01 01:41

In CF 11TFLOPS. For $398

#5282374

Fender178

2016-06-01 01:43

Not bad specs, however I think we need to see some benchmarks before jumping to a conclusion. Besides we do not know the clock speeds yet.

#5282376

PrMinisterGR

2016-06-01 01:44

In CF 11TFLOPS. For $398

MultiGPU that way is a bit suicidal. You'll be after profiles half of the time, and the other half you'll be cursing developers who patch frequently.

#5282387

leszy

2016-06-01 02:13

MultiGPU that way is a bit suicidal. You'll be after profiles half of the time, and the other half you'll be cursing developers who patch frequently.

You mean that all the guys who bought 4K monitors, made a mistake, because still everyone single card is insufficient?

#5282388

scipio

2016-06-01 02:21

Another question is what is Nvidia releasing mid June? And will it beat AMD to market? 1060ti? 250?

#5282391

theoneofgod

2016-06-01 02:33

You mean that all the guys who bought 4K monitors, made a mistake, because still everyone single card is insufficient?

We knew UHD came early, and since then hardware is catching up to it. There's nothing wrong with wanting UHD gaming, but if you want the highest FPS, you're either going to have to rely on multi-GPU support, turn down some settings, or wait for better GPU's.

#5282394

PrMinisterGR

2016-06-01 02:41

You mean that all the guys who bought 4K monitors, made a mistake, because still everyone single card is insufficient?

Yup.

#5282395

Elder III

2016-06-01 02:45

If this is only $199 it's looking like a really good deal for 1080P and even 1440p in some games. I think it would do very well in the mainstream segment where the vast majority of gamers are at (or below even). Even at $249.99 it looks like a nice option, theoretically at least.

#5282396

Musouka

2016-06-01 02:54

Maybe AMD should update their presentation to compare against the 1070/1080 instead. Get on with the times, Team Red 😉

#5282400

Denial

2016-06-01 03:18

You mean that all the guys who bought 4K monitors, made a mistake, because still everyone single card is insufficient?

Yup.

I disagree. For starters people just assume everyone plays the latest, most demanding games. I know two people with 4K monitors, both have single 980Ti's. Both play games like Overwatch/Fortnite/SC2/Dota 2/League and stuff just fine at max graphics. When we all played the Division, they turned down a few settings and played at the ~40-45fps area, which is more than enough if you have a G-Sync/Freesync display. And even in Division, the difference in image quality between Medium/Ultra is like barely relevant and at medium you can play 60fps/4K on a 980Ti. In fact I'd argue that in a majority of games, the image quality/detail gain going to 4K is often better than going from High -->Ultra. Like out of the top 20 most played games today on steam, 14 of them are playable at 4K at Max settings at 60fps on a 980Ti, let alone a 1080.

#5282401

zzzaac

2016-06-01 03:19

Question, if this slide is true, does everyone think I should sell my 390 to get this?

#5282403

Reardan

2016-06-01 03:26

I disagree. For starters people just assume everyone plays the latest, most demanding games. I know two people with 4K monitors, both have single 980Ti's. Both play games like Overwatch/Fortnite/SC2/Dota 2/League and stuff just fine at max graphics. When we all played the Division, they turned down a few settings and played at the ~40-45fps area, which is more than enough if you have a G-Sync/Freesync display. And even in Division, the difference in image quality between Medium/Ultra is like barely relevant and at medium you can play 60fps/4K on a 980Ti. In fact I'd argue that in a majority of games, the image quality/detail gain going to 4K is often better than going from High -->Ultra. Like out of the top 20 most played games today on steam, 14 of them are playable at 4K at Max settings at 60fps on a 980Ti, let alone a 1080.

I don't know how else to say it...people who say 4k is useless or that there arent cards that can run it just have no idea what they're talking about. It really isn't significantly different from running 1440p with AA.

#5282405

eclap

2016-06-01 03:32

4k gives you 50-60% of 1440p fps. It's pretty demanding.

#5282419

mcfart

2016-06-01 04:15

amd and their async compute... they need a better way to market. Consumers arent going to run ashes of the singularity benchmarks all day.

It's given AMD better results in DX12 then they otherwise would've had. Even if it's only 5% better.

how did you figure that's where "the real money is"? i would argue that demand for low to mid range dGPU is rapidly decreasing with iGPU becoming ever more powerful. casual people can already play pretty much any indie game on iGPU with decent performance, and even well optimized games like ones from Blizzard or Valve. and if you don't game then iGPU is perfect for every single consumer task you can think of - browsing, youtube, htpc, office apps, etc. low end dGPU is already made obsolete by iGPU and soon low-mid range dGPU will also be made obsolete.

Lol, a $200 (CDN) R9 285 is waaaaaaaaaaaay better than any integrated solution. $200-~$350 is the sweet spot. But people will buy a solid $200 card if it's availible. AMD don't need to compete with the 1080, but they DO need a 1070 competitor ASAP.

#5282446

0blivious

2016-06-01 05:12

4K is indeed demanding, but it is so pretty. The other nice thing is a 1080p image scales perfectly on 2160p at 4:1 (just like running a native 1080p). 1440p also seems to look/scale pretty nice. Main issue I face is some game interfaces aren't scaling up with the resolution (causing really tiny text) Older or less demanding titles play/look amazing at 3840x2160. Lately I'm, hooked on Rimworld, a boring looking game that looks much better @4K, just like everything else. :thumbup: The 480 looks like a nice mid-range offering and a solid upgrade for many.

#5282470

evilkiller650

2016-06-01 05:55

Why are people complaining about its performance? This is the 480. Still the 480X > 490 > 490X. For it's price, it'll be a solid card.