AMD Launching Polaris 10 400 Series GPU June 1st At Computex. $299 (rumor)

harmattan said:
And remember Vega, which is now rumoured to be coming in October, is their real competitor to 1080.
Click to expand...

By the time Vega is out everyone who wanted a new video card will have 1080.

Notebooks... I don't see many people playing games on them. And who is the main target for powerful video cards? Gamers. And developers, but I doubt that consumer Polaris is targeted at developers.
We need real competition to Nvidia. But I guess it's just not possible for AMD to stay competitive.
 
The halo effect is real; NV having the best top-end hardware leads to them being a more liked brand, which then leads consumers to purchase GTX970s over the objectively superior R9 390s. That's why the steam survey has the 970 ranked #1 and the R9 200/300 series at #13.
 
Nebell said:
By the time Vega is out everyone who wanted a new video card will have 1080.

Notebooks... I don't see many people playing games on them. And who is the main target for powerful video cards? Gamers. And developers, but I doubt that consumer Polaris is targeted at developers.
We need real competition to Nvidia. But I guess it's just not possible for AMD to stay competitive.
Click to expand...

AMD has no control over foundry partner's inibilties to fulfill obligations and tech on time. That is why HBM2 is not on the cards releasing soon from both vendor's. You're anger at AMD is misguided at best.
 
cageymaru said:
Sale prices are irrelevant. Used prices are irrelevant. MSRP of 390 is $329. MSRP of 380x is $250. MSRP of 390x is $429. Polaris 10 is supposed to be as fast as a 390 / 390x. So you get $429 MSRP speed for $299.

Why is this a bad thing?
Click to expand...

because the 390X its way overpriced in comparison to the 390, and even if I have one R9 390X I still think is overpriced, so 100$ between 390 and 390X its a huge deal breaking and bad thing, because isn't the same if anyone say "Polaris 10 will offer R9 390 Performance for 300$" hell that performance it's already at that price. the difference in performance from the R9 380X to the R9 390 its massive but the price difference in MSRP its just 70$, but the performance difference from R9 390 to 390X its about 10%-15% and the price difference its 120$, and that's just because the 390X have higher clocks and not anything else that can't be achieved by adding extra 100mhz to the 390, isn't that overpriced?. hell yes it is and its a bad thing.. so at the end of things 390/390X performance 300$ already exist..

IDK man, I don't really know why you have to defend this kind of things so badly from AMD, I understand your.. hmm.. "passion" for AMD, but polaris 10 if its really 390X performance at 300$ is just bad, at least tell me you are getting paid by AMD to defend every time AMD and everything its fine, but defending this for your own and for free isn't anything good...
 
Nebell said:
By the time Vega is out everyone who wanted a new video card will have 1080.

Notebooks... I don't see many people playing games on them. And who is the main target for powerful video cards? Gamers. And developers, but I doubt that consumer Polaris is targeted at developers.
We need real competition to Nvidia. But I guess it's just not possible for AMD to stay competitive.
Click to expand...

Vega will destroy the 1080. Vega is a full blown chip with 4k sharers. If we see Polaris getting close to 980ti or fury. Vega will be competing against gp100
 
Araxie said:
because the 390X its way overpriced in comparison to the 390, and even if I have one R9 390X I still think is overpriced, so 100$ between 390 and 390X its a huge deal breaking and bad thing, because isn't the same if anyone say "Polaris 10 will offer R9 390 Performance for 300$" hell that performance it's already at that price. the difference in performance from the R9 380X to the R9 390 its massive but the price difference in MSRP its just 70$, but the performance difference from R9 390 to 390X its about 10%-15% and the price difference its 120$, and that's just because the 390X have higher clocks and not anything else that can't be achieved by adding extra 100mhz to the 390, isn't that overpriced?. hell yes it is and its a bad thing.. so at the end of things 390/390X performance 300$ already exist..

IDK man, I don't really know why you have to defend this kind of things so badly from AMD, I understand your.. hmm.. "passion" for AMD, but polaris 10 if its really 390X performance at 300$ is just bad, at least tell me you are getting paid by AMD to defend every time AMD and everything its fine, but defending this for your own and for free isn't anything good...
Click to expand...

Cool story bro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zuul
like this
Araxie said:
because the 390X its way overpriced in comparison to the 390, and even if I have one R9 390X I still think is overpriced, so 100$ between 390 and 390X its a huge deal breaking and bad thing, because isn't the same if anyone say "Polaris 10 will offer R9 390 Performance for 300$" hell that performance it's already at that price. the difference in performance from the R9 380X to the R9 390 its massive but the price difference in MSRP its just 70$, but the performance difference from R9 390 to 390X its about 10%-15% and the price difference its 120$, and that's just because the 390X have higher clocks and not anything else that can't be achieved by adding extra 100mhz to the 390, isn't that overpriced?. hell yes it is and its a bad thing.. so at the end of things 390/390X performance 300$ already exist..

IDK man, I don't really know why you have to defend this kind of things so badly from AMD, I understand your.. hmm.. "passion" for AMD, but polaris 10 if its really 390X performance at 300$ is just bad, at least tell me you are getting paid by AMD to defend every time AMD and everything its fine, but defending this for your own and for free isn't anything good...
Click to expand...
Man you are bitching at rumors. Why can't you wait until reviews and use your energy somewhere else. No one even knows the exact specs on Polaris. It's all over the place. Chill, relax. We will all find out soon.
 
NKD said:
hahaha So true. Been saying that the whole time but people are literally believing that the 1070 is already the king and everything has to compare to that. We have no reviews, no specs for the 1070 from nvidia and no release date other than the founders edition being at june 10th. Nicely said though. Said it like it is, lol!
Click to expand...

Brett said, "Wow" about nVidia's new cards.

To be honest nothing else peaked my interest until Brett said that. Haha.
 
Araxie said:
because the 390X its way overpriced in comparison to the 390, and even if I have one R9 390X I still think is overpriced, so 100$ between 390 and 390X its a huge deal breaking and bad thing, because isn't the same if anyone say "Polaris 10 will offer R9 390 Performance for 300$" hell that performance it's already at that price. the difference in performance from the R9 380X to the R9 390 its massive but the price difference in MSRP its just 70$, but the performance difference from R9 390 to 390X its about 10%-15% and the price difference its 120$, and that's just because the 390X have higher clocks and not anything else that can't be achieved by adding extra 100mhz to the 390, isn't that overpriced?. hell yes it is and its a bad thing.. so at the end of things 390/390X performance 300$ already exist..

IDK man, I don't really know why you have to defend this kind of things so badly from AMD, I understand your.. hmm.. "passion" for AMD, but polaris 10 if its really 390X performance at 300$ is just bad, at least tell me you are getting paid by AMD to defend every time AMD and everything its fine, but defending this for your own and for free isn't anything good...
Click to expand...

Now point out on the doll where exactly AMD touched you?
 
Last edited:
DedEmbryonicCe11 said:
Two different manufacturers are making HBM2. AMD has more experience working with it because of HBM1, but that doesn't magically give them a stranglehold on availability. NVidia can afford to use HBM2 for their pro cards because they sell for $16k each.. Do you really think the yields are at the point that consumer cards with HBM2 should be out by June?:greedy:


Please link us to the reviews of Polaris 10 versus GTX 1070. Your opinion of what makes a card crappy or not has no relevance when nobody here yourself included has actually tested one.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
0.91% , 0.92%, 0.95% , 1.04% , 1.03%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
0.56% , 0.66%, 0.75% , 0.89% , 0.94%

These are the steam hardware results from December 2015 through April 2016. Can you please explain why you are so obsessed with the top 2% of the market as if that is going to make or break AMD's success for the rest of 2016?
Click to expand...

Well AMD wishes they had 2% of anything. So I'd say it IS a make or break for AMD success for 2016
 
Stoly said:
Well AMD wishes they had 2% of anything. So I'd say it IS a make or break for AMD success for 2016
Click to expand...

you might as well have said. I don't care if I am wrong but as long as I believe I am right thats all that matters. lol.
 
lol, this is actually getting funny - kinda like what AMD is doing with this - keeping it quiet on anything really meaningful for how performance will be compared to anything else. To me it sounds like the lower end Polaris 10, the under $300 cards will have 390/970+ performance as a minimum. If AMD will have higher performing cards, any using DDR5X, more shaders etc. over $300 is anyone's guess.

I do think that if AMD can knock off the 1070 it would really change the outcome this generation like the 970 did previously.
 
noko said:
lol, this is actually getting funny - kinda like what AMD is doing with this - keeping it quiet on anything really meaningful for how performance will be compared to anything else. To me it sounds like the lower end Polaris 10, the under $300 cards will have 390/970+ performance as a minimum. If AMD will have higher performing cards, any using DDR5X, more shaders etc. over $300 is anyone's guess.

I do think that if AMD can knock off the 1070 it would really change the outcome this generation like the 970 did previously.
Click to expand...

Thats what I am thinking if amd can match 1070 at 300 or little below. Man that would really be something. after all 1070 is not high end, it is geared towards mainstream below 400 so amd might compete there.
 
NKD said:
Thats what I am thinking if amd can match 1070 at 300 or little below. Man that would really be something. after all 1070 is not high end, it is geared towards mainstream below 400 so amd might compete there.
Click to expand...

That would be seriously good for us all if that was to happen.
 
I just want something to replace my 980ti at a lower price... :( gaming with IGP is awful right now.
 
NKD said:
Thats what I am thinking if amd can match 1070 at 300 or little below. Man that would really be something. after all 1070 is not high end, it is geared towards mainstream below 400 so amd might compete there.
Click to expand...

AMD knows at this point exactly how 1070 performs: they have seen samples or modelled it months ago, or both. Knowing that margins are razor thin initially for the new node, they're going to price P10 accordingly. This means we're highly, highly unlikely to see any pricing miracles. If P10 is $300 and 1070 is $380 you can bet your bottom dollar that there is a good performance gap betwixt them -- it's how much of a gap that will be interesting. My left knee tells me it's around the difference between Fury and Titan X
 
harmattan said:
AMD knows at this point exactly how 1070 performs: they have seen samples or modelled it months ago, or both. Knowing that margins are razor thin initially for the new node, they're going to price P10 accordingly. This means we're highly, highly unlikely to see any pricing miracles. If P10 is $300 and 1070 is $380 you can bet your bottom dollar that there is a good performance gap betwixt them -- it's how much of a gap that will be interesting. My left knee tells me it's around the difference between Fury and Titan X
Click to expand...
No exactly to be honest. AMD has always priced their cards lower than nvidia for similar performance. Your statement doesn't hold When we Talk about 390x vs gtx 980, similar performance But price was 429 compared to 499 for the 980. So 70 cheaper but similar performance with in range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yakk
like this
News from the linux world! The "0x67C4" name that was popping up seems to be a PCI ID for one polaris card (chip?). There are more though and they've come out through commits to the amdgpu driver.
Phoronix said:
Newly-added Polaris PCI IDs include 0x67C1, 0x67C2, 0x67C4, 0x67C7, 0x67C8, 0x67C9, 0x67CA, 0x67CC, and 0x67CF
Click to expand...
There are also some polaris 11 IDs that have been added as well.
More Polaris IDs, Golden Register Settings Added To AMDGPU - Phoronix
 
Mercury Research’s latest GPU market report, revealing that in Q1 2016 where overall graphics unit volumes declined by 10.2 per cent sequentially, AMD gained discrete GPU market share (29.4 per cent, +3.2 share points q-to-q).


According to Mercury Research, factors in this surge are the strength of the latest Radeon™ R9 Series GPUs as well as AMD’s revitalized driver development strategy, helping the company gain 1.8 share points in desktop discrete graphics (22.7 per cent, +1.8 share points q-to-q) and an impressive 7.3 share point jump in notebook discrete, moving to 38.7 per cent share of this important market.


With AMD’s next generation Polaris Architecture-based 14nm discrete graphics products expected this quarter, AMD believes it clearly has solid momentum in discrete graphics.
Click to expand...

AMD feeling cocky. :)
 
A good start for TRG getting Radeon graphics back on track! Still much work to be done. Also does a lot to explain AMD's Polaris first decision.
 
It will compete with the 1070, if maybe slightly slower. With vastly better DX12 performance and $300 price, this card is going to fly off the shelf.

AMD's "Polaris 10" GPU will feature 32 compute units (CUs) which TPU estimates – based on the assumption that each CU still contains 64 shaders on Polaris – works out to 2,048 shaders.
Click to expand...
This number keeps getting lower and lower.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
It will compete with the 1070, if maybe slightly slower. With vastly better DX12 performance and $300 price, this card is going to fly off the shelf.


This number keeps getting lower and lower.
Click to expand...

If it can compete with 1070, then that would be massive for AMD. And especially at the $300 price point.
 
If its 300 bucks don't even expect it to compete with the 1070, if it will compete with the 1070 , they would price it at 350.... even at 350 it would be a great deal. And looking at wattage numbers, 150 watts for them is not enough to get to 1070 performance levels, pcper has it at 5.5 tflops, that ain't going to get up there, just can't.......

Price for these nodes are too expensive to just cut MSRP willy nilly even to try to gain marketshare, to recover thse lost margins, from 350 to 300 lets say that is 14%, are they going to gain that 14% marketshare from doing that?
 
razor1 said:
If its 300 bucks don't even expect it to compete with the 1070, if it will compete with the 1070 , they would price it at 350.... even at 350 it would be a great deal. And looking at wattage numbers, 150 watts for them is not enough to get to 1070 performance levels, pcper has it at 5.5 tflops, that ain't going to get up there, just can't.......

Price for these nodes are too expensive to just cut MSRP willy nilly even to try to gain marketshare, to recover that lost margins, from 350 to 300 lets say that is 14%, are they going to gain that 14% marketshare from doing that?
Click to expand...
Polaris should be cheaper to produce, right? It's smaller.
No matter how it performs it should be a lot cheaper than Nvidia.
 
yeah but why would you cut margins if you don't have to and just undercut them by 30 bucks? People are already saying the 1070 is a great deal, that would make the P10 even better deal than that.

Cutting margins to get markeshare only works if

a) you can deal with the potential amount of loss vs. the gain AMD is not in a position to do this
b) if you can cover that potential amount of loss by covering it up with potential sales (marketshare gain) That is alot to gain in one quarter.

its not that much cheaper either.
 
razor1 said:
yeah but why would you cut margins if you don't have to and just undercut them by 30 bucks? People are already saying the 1070 is a great deal, that would make the P10 even better deal than that.
Click to expand...
Because AMD is a champion of the consumer.
Aside from the 390 and Fury X, AMD has a habit of under-cutting Nvidia by large margins.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Because AMD is a champion of the consumer.
Aside from the 390 and Fury X, AMD has a habit of under-cutting Nvidia by large margins.
Click to expand...


They can't just cut margins like that, it hasn't worked for them in the past, and this is why FuryX, the r3xx line came out the way they did. When they have definite under performing products in different metrics they didn't drop margins, they tried to increase margins, because they saw they couldn't do it, it wasn't helping them, it was actually hurting them.
 
Starting more rumours and replacing rumours with rumours does not do it for me.
I am looking forward to more information on AMD's Polaris architecture and the graphics cards based on it!
I will admit that I am not 100% up on all the rumors and I apologize for that. With that said, I would love to hear what your thoughts are on AMD's upcoming GPUs and what you think about these latest rumors!
Click to expand...

Somewhat puzzled by Pcper it is what it is if you want to know things why start posting rumours and then hope for what exactly ?
Maddness said:
Probably not when you have Samsung fabing half the cores.
Click to expand...
They can always release a founder edition , I heard it is fashionable this time of the year ...
 
razor1 said:
They can't just cut margins like that, it hasn't worked for them in the past, and this is why FuryX, the r3xx line came out the way they did. When they have definite under performing products in different metrics they didn't drop margins, they tried to increase margins, because they saw they couldn't do it, it wasn't helping them.
Click to expand...
The 390X launched about $100 less than the 980, though. The 380 and 960 are the SAME price but the 380 is maybe 10-20% faster.
We could go back to 290 vs 780 but like you said it was a different strategy.

If the fastest Polaris chip ends up being $300 it should be 5-10% slower than the 1070 at the most.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
The 390X launched about $100 less than the 980, though. The 380 and 960 are the SAME price but the 380 is maybe 10-20% faster.
We could go back to 290 vs 780 but like you said it was a different strategy.

If the fastest Polaris chip ends up being $300 it should be 5-10% slower than the 1070 at the most.
Click to expand...


Yes it did, but how much marketshare did it grab? not to mention it was late....

So far I think they didn't grab much at all...

If its $300 yeah I think its going to be more like Nano to FuryX level.

at 5-10% slower, I think they would put it at $325, they have room to play and still make their card look like a better buy than the 1070 if its at this kind of performance.
 
its crazy. the shader numbers keep going down. I don't understand why AMD would chose not to launch a product with 40cu's but if 2048 shaders are performing faster than 390x with half the wattage. That is even more impressive. I could easily match the 1070 or above if they have one with 2560 shaders. May be they are trying really hard to stay under a certain price. Sort of confusing but o well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top