Polaris 10 benchmarks...

[Bacon1]

Absolutely nothing points to this. In the leaked 3Dmark scores, 1070 is ~27% over the highest Polaris 10 bin.

Also its the 4GB version being 199$.

It's only 27% faster but over 85% more expensive, and that's for "MSRP" not "FE". Yikes

 

[zentan]

It's not the only 3DMark score present, there are lot others in some it's a bit below r9 390 and in some it's higher. Same with 1070. It's better if we wait and watch for reviews and then judge,synthetics and a single game benchmarks(AoTS) doesn't necessarily tell the whole picture. It could be lot more impressive or may be a bit less than expected but we will know.

 

[Thinker_145]

I find this so funny. We now have confirmed announcements of $600 GTX 1080s and yet people are acting like giving the 1070 a price of $380 for price performance is doing it a favour.

And yet they are touting the $200 number left and right even though that card is only 4GB which means it is NOT in the same league as 1070 no matter how close it is in performance of current games.

When we have the confirmed price of the 8GB version and its performance then we can talk. Right now as it stands the $380 1070 is the best value for money card to get in a couple of weeks time.

The 1070 is not $400 and the AMD competitor to it will not be $200. Anybody who says that is clearly trying desperately hard to make the 1070 look bad for no reason.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[Vesku]

I find this so funny. We now have confirmed announcements of $600 GTX 1080s and yet people are acting like giving the 1070 a price of $380 for price performance is doing it a favour.

And yet they are touting the $200 number left and right even though that card is only 4GB which means it is NOT in the same league as 1070 no matter how close it is in performance of current games.

When we have the confirmed price of the 8GB version and its performance then we can talk. Right now as it stands the $380 1070 is the best value for money card to get in a couple of weeks time.

The 1070 is not $400 and the AMD competitor to it will not be $200. Anybody who says that is clearly trying desperately hard to make the 1070 look bad for no reason.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

Unless someone is really committed to running intense 3rd party graphics mods 4GB shouldn't be a major concern for 1080P at least. If someone really wants 8GB it should be $30-50 more, still well below 1070 stated MSRP. For the giant pool of 1080P users the performance of 480 will be pretty solid.

 

[Thinker_145]

Unless someone is really committed to running intense 3rd party graphics mods 4GB shouldn't be a major concern for 1080P at least. If someone really wants 8GB it should be $30-50 more, still well below 1070 stated MSRP. For the giant pool of 1080P users the performance of 480 will be pretty solid.

I have heard the same story since the last decade in gaming. Not that long ago 2GB was sufficient for 1080p gaming. People who opt for lower VRAM variants always suffer big time in the long term.

Rememeber 1GB vs 2GB era? Or even 512MB vs 1GB?

It is still well below but totally changes the equation. At $250 the 1070 will only be 55% more expensive not the "double" that is being portrayed by the exaggerations.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[ShintaiDK]

It's only 27% faster but over 85% more expensive, and that's for "MSRP" not "FE". Yikes

The only yikes is that you compare 4GB to 8GB and ignore the rest. Plus lets see how this Polaris 10 actually performs. Real world seems to be below 3Dmark so far.

Its also quite clear that perf/watt is completely lost for AMD with Polaris. So now we wait for Vega to perhaps fix this.

 

[antihelten]

It is still well below but totally changes the equation. At $250 the 1070 will only be 55% more expensive not the "double" that is being portrayed by the exaggerations.

The 8GB version of the RX 480 is rumoured to be $230, so that would make the 1070 65% more expensive.

Regarding what is a sufficient amount of RAM, we probably all agree that 2GB isn't enough these days, and the GTX 680 caught quite a lot of flack for it back in the days, but the important thing to note here is that the various 3GB Tahiti GPUs are still trucking along just fine at 1080P, so 4GB should be fine for the foreseeable future.

 

[Riek]

Absolutely nothing points to this. In the leaked 3Dmark scores, 1070 is ~27% over the highest Polaris 10 bin.

Also its the 4GB version being 199$.

Rx480 3dmark: 18060
980ti 3dmark : 20507

--> 980ti is 13.549% faster

Say whut about 27%?

(and yes i'm comparing against the 980ti because that performance is inline with fury x and all the other cards, where ass titanx is not).

About real world performance we don't have a clue... we only have this ''leaked'' 3dmark result and nothing else.

 

[Ancalagon44]

You know, I was going to say buy an 8GB card because people said that the Fury X with 4GB was cutting it close for 4K resolutions.

But then I realized, a 480 could never do 4K anyway. At least, not well enough. Better to buy a 4GB 480 now and then buy an 8GB 580 in 3 years time.

 

[Thinker_145]

Correct me if I am wrong but don't you need more than 4GB to max out textures in tomb raider? That alone is enough reason for me to not even consider a 4GB card in 2016.

Secondly the R9 390 butchered the 980Ti in price performance, didn't mean people didn't buy the latter. Lower end GPUs are SUPPOSED to have better price/perf than the upper tiers its just that the last gen was different.

The 1070 is 50% faster than the 390. The 480 will have to comfortably beat the 390 to make its claim at being the best deal its touted to be. Merely winning the price/perf no. isnt enough at this price point because even a $230 390 would beat the 1070. But I am sure you will agree that if the 480 is barely better than the 390 then its nothing to write home about at all.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[showb1z]

What happened to 8GB being useless?
390 and 980 shouldn't be compared either?

Its also quite clear that perf/watt is completely lost for AMD with Polaris.

I'd put this in my signature if I was into that sort of thing.

 

[R0H1T]

You know, I was going to say buy an 8GB card because people said that the Fury X with 4GB was cutting it close for 4K resolutions.

But then I realized, a 480 could never do 4K anyway. At least, not well enough. Better to buy a 4GB 480 now and then buy an 8GB 580 in 3 years time.

At that point in time 16GB HBM3, or whatever Navi will be smoking, should be standard (entry point) for gaming enthusiasts :awe:

I'd put this in my signature if I was into that sort of thing.

There's always a first time

 

[ShintaiDK]

You know, I was going to say buy an 8GB card because people said that the Fury X with 4GB was cutting it close for 4K resolutions.

But then I realized, a 480 could never do 4K anyway. At least, not well enough. Better to buy a 4GB 480 now and then buy an 8GB 580 in 3 years time.

4GB is falling apart fast. If we look on gaming cards.

GP104 is 8GB.
GP106 is 6GB.
Polaris 10 is 4/8GB.

GP102 will most likely be 12GB or even 24GB for a Titan.
Vega will have 8GB, with possibility for 16GB.

Plus you already have cards with 6, 8 and 12GB in the market.

Game developers will use the VRAM. So expect inflation in the usage.

If you want a RX 480 card, use the extra money and get 8GB at least.

 

[flopper]

game developers design normally for the smallest cards like 3.5gb 970
so 4gb 480 are well ahead.

1080p and 4gb 480 are like, Godlike.

 

[Thinker_145]

What happened to 8GB being useless?
390 and 980 shouldn't be compared either?



I'd put this in my signature if I was into that sort of thing.

A 980 has noticeably more raw power than 390.

A 390 and 970 shouldn't be compared, that is a done and dusted battle. Same goes for 390X and 980.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[Ancalagon44]

I guess it depends on your target resolution.

I personally think a 4GB card will be fine at 1080P for a while.

However, if you want to use 4K, then a 480 is not going to have the grunt for smooth framerates, even if you have 8GB of VRAM.

 

[Thinker_145]

game developers design normally for the smallest cards like 3.5gb 970
so 4gb 480 are well ahead.

1080p and 4gb 480 are like, Godlike.

There is a thing called settings, developers can accommodate the smallest cards in that. Nobody suggested that 4GB would outright not meet minimum requirements anytime soon.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[antihelten]

Rx480 3dmark: 18060
980ti 3dmark : 20507

--> 980ti is 13.549% faster

Say whut about 27%?

(and yes i'm comparing against the 980ti because that performance is inline with fury x and all the other cards, where ass titanx is not).

About real world performance we don't have a clue... we only have this ''leaked'' 3dmark result and nothing else.

A 1070 is on average 6.8% faster than a 980 Ti.

So that would put it at a total of 21.3% faster than the RX 480.

So a theoretical RX 480 that was 20% faster wouldn't beat the 1070, but they would be all but indistinguishable in performance.

 

[maddie]

Welcome to the Gigabyte wars. A new battleground appears when all others appear lost. Perf/W = lost. Perf/$ = lost. Quick guys, memory.

 

[showb1z]

A 980 has noticeably more raw power than 390.

A 390 and 970 shouldn't be compared, that is a done and dusted battle. Same goes for 390X and 980.

Huh? I'm not sure what you're saying. Why shouldn't cards in similar price brackets with similar performance be compared?

With DX12 the battle is far from over.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-page...-graphics-performance-benchmark-review,1.html

 

[Thinker_145]

Huh? I'm not sure what you're saying. Why shouldn't cards in similar price brackets with similar performance be compared?

With DX12 the battle is far from over.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-page...-graphics-performance-benchmark-review,1.html

What I actually meant was that 390 vs 970 is a no contest, any well informed non fanboy would choose the 390.

The 980 is quite a bit more expensive than the 390 so they are not in the same price.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[beginner99]

Absolutely nothing points to this. In the leaked 3Dmark scores, 1070 is ~27% over the highest Polaris 10 bin.

Also its the 4GB version being 199$.

It's funny that when AMD had more vram, nv fanboys called it useless and a waste. And now when the opposite happen like with Fury or you here, vram suddenly is a huge deal. Personally in that performance segment I would save the cash for a earlier upgrade and choose a 4 GB model. As seen with Fury 4 GB isn't really an issue.

 

[beginner99]

What happened to 8GB being useless?
390 and 980 shouldn't be compared either?


I'd put this in my signature if I was into that sort of thing.

Remember, there will be no APUs in consoles!

 

[littleg]

It's funny that when AMD had more vram, nv fanboys called it useless and a waste. And now when the opposite happen like with Fury or you here, vram suddenly is a huge deal. Personally in that performance segment I would save the cash for a earlier upgrade and choose a 4 GB model. As seen with Fury 4 GB isn't really an issue.

There's a bit of a difference there though in that the 4GB in Fury was HBM and had specific driver optimisations in order to get the best out of it.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It's funny that when AMD had more vram, nv fanboys called it useless and a waste. And now when the opposite happen like with Fury or you here, vram suddenly is a huge deal. Personally in that performance segment I would save the cash for a earlier upgrade and choose a 4 GB model. As seen with Fury 4 GB isn't really an issue.

You are comparing different timelines. Do you think 4GB is enough 2-3 years from now? 4GB was fine, 2 years ago. 4GB is unlikely to be fine 2 years from now.

AMD sold 8GB 390/390X next to 4GB Fiji. 2 tunges