AMD Announces The Radeon RX 480 Starting At Just $199

JustReason said:
And where did I lie? Based on the info I saw in that thread that is what I gave you. You then being hostile claimed I was lying when in fact it was because I wasn't aware of the edit which you didn't mention there being one even after I posted the post where I got my info.
Click to expand...
let it go...he just trolling you:)
 
JustReason said:
And where did I lie? Based on the info I saw in that thread that is what I gave you. You then being hostile claimed I was lying when in fact it was because I wasn't aware of the edit which you didn't mention there being one even after I posted the post where I got my info.
Click to expand...

I'm going to stop taking you seriously and wasting my time replying to you. I quote the posts by AMD_Robert myself, you denied what was written in them. I quoted them again and made the relevants parts bold and gigantic. You denied what they said. I posted a screenshot of the fucking reddit thread with the relevant post in it. You're still denying what it says.

I'm sorry justreason, but you have one of two problems I explained earlier. Either you're a sad troll, or you really have trouble with reading comprehension.
 
JustReason said:
If you look at the thread I linked there is NO edit it only says 151%. I even copied and you still claim I knew of the edit which obviously I did not. You are far too hostile and I would rather you and the rest of the Nvidia loving ilk stay out of the AMD subforum so those of us that are interested in the 480 can get info and enjoy the release.
Click to expand...

damn, man you are kinda stubborn right?... common go directly and see yourself..

"
 
primetime said:
let it go...he just trolling you:)
Click to expand...

Okay. I'm out. I'm gonna let someone else take over and make fun of this stupidity.

Araxie said:
damn, man you are kinda stubborn right?... common go directly and see yourself..

"
Click to expand...

Don't even bother man. I posted the screenshots twice. Might as well try explaining things to my cat. My cat is more intelligent than these two. This is the same genius I have quoted in my signature as Albert E Einstein

Jokes on me for getting angry and frustrated and replying to him as if he is to be taken seriously.
 
Ieldra said:
Okay. I'm out. I'm gonna let someone else take over and make fun of this stupidity.



Don't even bother man. I posted the screenshots twice. Might as well try explaining things to my cat. My cat is more intelligent than these two. This is the same genius I have quoted in my signature as Albert E Einstein
Click to expand...

yeah I was slow, noticed that later all via phone its just slower.. =).. anyway.. your numbers are right and make sense overall, no reason up to the moment to think anything contrary, and with the big record of AMD lying in announcements/presentations benchmarks I would not be so surprised at that card performing as best case scenario at 390X levels..
 
Araxie said:
yeah I was slow, noticed that later all via phone its just slower.. =).. anyway.. your numbers are right and make sense overall, no reason up to the moment to think anything contrary, and with the big record of AMD lying in announcements/presentations benchmarks I would not be so surprised at that card performing as best case scenario at 390X levels..
Click to expand...

I'm expecting 390x levels, which is why I'm so perplexed by this CF result... 34 fps at 1080p is not 390x level
 
Araxie said:
damn, man you are kinda stubborn right?... common go directly and see yourself..

"
Click to expand...
Yes I see that now but when I posted Hallock originally stated 151%, that is all I had seen, I hadn't seen an edit. The way they were talking thought they didn't know that part. So I posted a link to the thread where I saw it posted. Then I get labeled and attacked. Should be getting an apology instead still getting attacked because he is angry about something.
 
JustReason said:
Yes I see that now but when I posted Hallock originally stated 151%, that is all I had seen, I hadn't seen an edit. The way they were talking thought they didn't know that part. So I posted a link to the thread where I saw it posted. Then I get labeled and attacked. Should be getting an apology instead still getting attacked because he is angry about something.
Click to expand...

Oh yes. I should apologize to you, because you posted correct information and I challenged it, right ? Oh wait. No. It's the other way round.

JustReason said:
HERE FOR YOU since you seem to miss the whole thing spelled out in the thread I link on the convo:
Click to expand...
JustReason said:
YES HE DID.

Concerning the AOTS image quality controversy

it was posted today a convo he had after landing from flight.
Click to expand...

I feel pretty justified in getting angry when you tell me I miss the whole thing spelled out in the thread like I'm some kind of dimwit. I made the effort to read and understand before posting here. If anything, in the future, before accusing me of shit, GO READ THE DAMNED THREAD.

How many superfluous posts did I have to make, pointing out the obvious, hm? How many times did I post the same damn quote, in bold and underlined, font size 7, hm ?
How many times did I post the screenshot of the reply ?

Why did it take 7 or 8 posts for you to finally concede you were wrong ?
 
Ieldra said:
I'm expecting 390x levels, which is why I'm so perplexed by this CF result... 34 fps at 1080p is not 390x level
Click to expand...

It's not standard settings, its 1080p Crazy with 8x MSAA instead of default 4x MSAA. Kinda a PITA to find comparable results.
 
bexxxxxx said:
It's not standard settings, its 1080p Crazy with 8x MSAA instead of default 4x MSAA. Kinda a PITA to find comparable results.
Click to expand...

msaa barely makes a difference, tested it myself, either way. A 390x gets around 44 fps at "standard" crazy preset 1080p

That's 33% higher than this 480. MSAA does not make up that difference at all.

image.png
 
If each GPU is working at 83% capacity at 62.5 fps in Crossfire, wouldn't each GPU outputting at 100% capacity be 36.5 fps? Assuming you expect some type of perfectly linear scaling on frame rate.

Here's the closest system I can find for a 390X which is 39 fps.

Ashes of the Singularity
 
Ieldra said:
No the phrasing wasn't wrong, they confirmed that 51% is the %time gpu bound for normal batches. Actual xfire scaling is 83%

So the performance of one card is 33.9fps, at 1080p crazy

A 390x does ~38fps in 1440p crazy

390X does ~ 45 fps in 1080p crazy

A fury does around 41-42 fps in 1440p crazy

So if this card is performing worse, at 1080p, than the 390x is at 1440p, explain to me how this is fury level performance exactly
Click to expand...


I'm shitty at maths and just woke up but from what I understood, it was 151% scaling of a single card.

I'd work it out this way: 62.x fps x 0.66 (100%) = 41 FPS in CFX with virgin drivers.

200% scaling is max possible.
 
variant said:
If each GPU is working at 83% capacity at 62.5 fps in Crossfire, wouldn't each GPU outputting at 100% capacity be 36.5 fps? Assuming you expect some type of perfectly linear scaling on frame rate.

Here's the closest system I can find for a 390X which is 39 fps.

Ashes of the Singularity
Click to expand...

Nobody said each gpu is working at 83% capacity

Nobody said anything about actual gpu utilization (which is the % time the gpu is not idle/stalled essentially)

They said 1.83x multi-gpu scaling.

That means if a single gpu does 100 fps then two get 183fps

This means given the performance (62.5fps) if you divide by 183 then multiply by 100 you get the performance of a single gpu ;

34 fps.

You posted a link to a 390 benchmark from the BETA
 
N4CR said:
I'm shitty at maths and just woke up but from what I understood, it was 151% scaling of a single card.

I'd work it out this way: 62.x fps x 0.66 (100%) = 41 FPS in CFX with virgin drivers.

200% scaling is max possible.
Click to expand...

The 51% thing is just wrong, read the last posts from last page of this thread :p it will be very clear very quickly
 
Ieldra said:
You posted a link to a 390 benchmark from the BETA
Click to expand...

AoS groups be series. If you can find a similar benchmark on that CPU, or a CPU near it, be my guest. I highly doubt someone with an i7-5930K is using a 390 instead of a 390X.
 
variant said:
AoS groups be series. If you can find a similar benchmark on that CPU, or a CPU near it, be my guest. I highly doubt someone with an i7-5930K is using a 390 instead of a 390X.
Click to expand...

It doesn't even matter because it's from the beta. A 390x does ~38fps at 1440p crazy. So there's no way in hell it's less than ~42 fps at 1080p.

If you want to do me a favor check a review. I'm 100% sure about the 1440p result though.

On the AotS benchmark browser filter by game version and you'll see most of the '390 series' results are in two distinct groups. That's the 390/390x division.

Around 44fps at 1080p
 
Ieldra said:
Interesting version 1.2 lowers avg framerates slightly, if you look at older versions there are several 390 results in the mid 40s

Alright let's call a 390x 40fps

Why is the 5.8tflop 480 getting 34
Click to expand...

Too many factors we don't know. What does 8x MSAA do to the frame rate? Is that frame rate scaling really linear?
 
variant said:
Too many factors we don't know. What does 8x MSAA do to the frame rate? Is that frame rate scaling really linear?
Click to expand...

I'll test 4x vs 8x just for you, tomorrow morning.

At 1440p crazy going from 4xMSAA (45.7fps) to no MSAA netted me one whole fps (46.8)

2.5%
 
Ieldra said:
I'll test 4x vs 8x just for you, tomorrow morning.

At 1440p crazy going from 4xMSAA (45.7fps) to no MSAA netted me one whole fps (46.8)
Click to expand...

MSAA is memory bandwidth intensive. So for example, increasing it on a 512-bit GDDR5 card should in theory hurt the frame rate less than on 256-bit card.
 
variant said:
MSAA is memory bandwidth intensive. So for example, increasing it on a 512-bit GDDR5 card should in theory hurt less to the frame rate than on 256-bit card.
Click to expand...

True, in that case though why are amd demoing their cards using a setting that will make the performance tank?

If you check the Ashes review here in H they compare 4xMSAA vs 1x, pretty sure there was a 980 there.

It still doesn't explain the performance deficit we're seeing compared to a 390x

Also all the other Polaris performance leaks on aots put the card in that ballpark of performance, we assumed it was drivers being shitty or it being the cut down die.
 
Ieldra said:
True, in that case though why are amd demoing their cards using a setting that will make the performance tank?

If you check the Ashes review here in H they compare 4xMSAA vs 1x, pretty sure there was a 980 there.

It still doesn't explain the performance deficit we're seeing compared to a 390x

Also all the other Polaris performance leaks on aots put the card in that ballpark of performance, we assumed it was drivers being shitty or it being the cut down die.
Click to expand...

God, I hope you are wrong about these figures. This does not inspire confidence.
 
Ieldra said:
Interesting version 1.2 lowers avg framerates slightly, if you look at older versions there are several 390 results in the mid 40s

Alright let's call a 390x 40fps

Why is the 5.8tflop 480 getting 34
Click to expand...

That's the thing man, we are looking at crossfire and I think AMD robert is pretty much giving regular crossfire scaling. I mean that sounds like normal average crossfire scaling cuz it scales well. But who knows what it is in this game. I think they are just shooting themselves in the foot, first you have 151% and then he changed it to 183%, it seems like they just want to brag about crossfire not realizing they are making the single card look bad. Look at it this way they were bragging about that fact and they were really trying to prove the crossfire beats 1080 for a cheaper price. They seem to be more focused on proving the crossfire fact. If they say it only scaled 51% than they would have people saying crossfire is shit, lol.

But it is hard to believe a single card with 5.8tflop is performing 30+% slower than 390x with better architecture and better dx12 support. So that is hard for me to believe. May be 4gb card is choking at crazy settings? idk but numbers don't make sense. I think it is hard to take their word and until we actually see the benchmarks. I think it is unrealistic for it to be that slow lol. So only thing i can conclude is crossfire isn't scaling at 183% because the specs are more believable than the crossfire scaling. It's more likely for scaling number to be wrong than the card performing 30% slower with better front end and same output as 390x.
 
Last edited:
NKD said:
That's the thing man, we are looking at crossfire and I think AMD robert is pretty much giving regular crossfire scaling. I mean that sounds like normal average crossfire scaling cuz it scales well. But who knows what it is in this game. I think they are just shooting themselves in the foot, first you have 151% and then he changed it to 183%, it seems like they just want to brag about crossfire not realizing they are making the single card look bad. Look at it this way they were bragging about that fact and they were really trying to prove the crossfire beats 1080 for a cheaper price. They seem to be more focused on proving the crossfire fact. If they say it only scaled 51% than they would have people saying crossfire is shit, lol.

But it is hard to believe a single card with 5.8tflop is performing 30+% slower than 390x with better architecture and better dx12 support. So that is hard for me to believe. May be 4gb card is choking at crazy settings? idk but numbers don't make sense. I think it is hard to take their word and until we actually see the benchmarks. I think it is unrealistic for it to be that slow lol. So only thing i can conclude is crossfire isn't scaling at 183% because the specs are more believable than the crossfire scaling. It's more likely for scaling number to be wrong than the card performing 30% slower with better front end and same output as 390x.
Click to expand...

I understand your confusion I don't understand how it appears to be performing so badly either. At the same time, I have trouble believing Robert hallock is a 100% buffoon.

He very clearly said 51% referred to normal batch gpu bound time, and that the two cards provided 183% the performance of a single card.

Something stinks, maybe Robert hallock is clueless and/or drunk, I dunno. I'm just using the information I've confirmed and simple arithmetic to draw horrifying conclusions

What does Polaris have better dx12 support? I would expect the architecture to at least be on par with the previous one. This appears to be performing worse at same compute throughout on paper
 
Ieldra said:
I understand your confusion I don't understand how it appears to be performing so badly either. At the same time, I have trouble believing Robert hallock is a 100% buffoon.

He very clearly said 51% referred to normal batch gpu bound time, and that the two cards provided 183% the performance of a single card.

Something stinks, maybe Robert hallock is clueless and/or drunk, I dunno. I'm just using the information I've confirmed and simple arithmetic to draw horrifying conclusions

What does Polaris have better dx12 support? I would expect the architecture to at least be on par with the previous one. This appears to be performing worse at same compute throughout on paper
Click to expand...


So has to be one of the following
1. the drivers are really bad at this point and they know it and got another month to do some optimization for this game.
2. may be they were using the 4gb cards and the 4gb memory is choking at 8x MSAA and crazy settings
3. Crossfire scaling is not 183% and they are just throwing a nice number out.
4. AMD fucked up the dx12 architecture with new front end lol. Which I highly doubt is the case.

I believe 1 to 3 are most likely than the last part.
 
NKD said:
So has to be one of the following
1. the drivers are really bad at this point and they know it and got another month to do some optimization for this game.
2. may be the 4gb memory is choking at 8x MSAA and crazy settings
3. Crossfire scaling is not 183% and they are just throwing a nice number out.
4. AMD fucked up the dx12 architecture with new front end lol. Which I highly doubt is the case.

I believe 1 to 3 are most likely than the last part.
Click to expand...

So AMD's only performance demo is in a game with bad drivers, and using settings that choke the card. Seems like AMD's marketing department is hellbent on putting the nails in the coffin
 
NKD said:
So has to be one of the following
1. the drivers are really bad at this point and they know it and got another month to do some optimization for this game.
2. may be they were using the 4gb cards and the 4gb memory is choking at 8x MSAA and crazy settings
3. Crossfire scaling is not 183% and they are just throwing a nice number out.
4. AMD fucked up the dx12 architecture with new front end lol. Which I highly doubt is the case.

I believe 1 to 3 are most likely than the last part.
Click to expand...

drivers are not a question, drivers are done well before the silicon is ready, they have emulations that are done so far ahead so the driver teams are well prepped and ready to go. outside of that, no other comments :)

PS so when ever you hear, drivers will do the trick, don't believe em hehe, and that goes for both sides, nV or AMD. Yeah you can expect some improvement but not to the point where its night and day stuff. If you see an anomaly from the norm yes, you can expect more, but otherwise no.
 
I was really confused when the initial dual 480 news story broke; dual 480s faster than a 1080! 62.5 fps vs 58.7

Wait a minute... I get 58.9!

And there's no way in hell two 390xs only get 5% higher score than me
 
trandoanhung1991 said:

He has since updated his post, just FYI.
Click to expand...

I think he is more worried about people calling crossfire scaling sucks but it is coming out as single card sucks lol. Another AMD marketing mess. they have kept their mouth shut so far, I wonder why they are trying so hard to prove the AOTS crap. Seriously they suck. Nvidia never engages in commenting on their demos. They just let it roll and people say whatever the want.
 
NKD said:
I think he is more worried about people calling crossfire scaling sucks but it is coming out as single card sucks lol. Another AMD marketing mess. they have kept their mouth shut so far, I wonder why they are trying so hard to prove the AOTS crap. Seriously they suck. Nvidia never engages in commenting on their demos. They just let it roll and people say whatever the want.
Click to expand...

At this point we should really consider the possibility that Roy Taylor is an nvidia saboteur
 
AMD Robert says "Wait let me correct the scaling from 151 to 183, oh fucking shit I just made the single card look like shit. Fuck why did I even start to prove this shit, should have ignored it like nvidia" Fuck I suck! lol
 
razor1 said:
drivers are not a question, drivers are done well before the silicon is ready, they have emulations that are done so far ahead so the driver teams are well prepped and ready to go. outside of that, no other comments :)

PS so when ever you hear, drivers will do the trick, don't believe em hehe, and that goes for both sides, nV or AMD. Yeah you can expect some improvement but not to the point where its night and day stuff. If you see an anomaly from the norm yes, you can expect more, but otherwise no.
Click to expand...

I don't think I made it clear sorry. I was talking specific to a game. We have seen AMD releasing drivers with big gains in certain games after launch and so for nvidia. Overall no, but sometimes they do fuck up when it comes to certain games.
 
ah yeah definitely, out of the norm stuff, drivers can make a huge difference.
 
NKD said:
I don't think I made it clear sorry. I was talking specific to a game. We have seen AMD releasing drivers with big gains in certain games after launch and so for nvidia. Overall no, but sometimes they do fuck up when it comes to certain games.
Click to expand...

But wouldn't it be worse if there *is* a driver issue and they chose to use this game as the only performance demo at computex, worse in terms of marketing failure.

They could have not given performance numbers at all.

They could have just said 62.5fps without specifying 51% utilization, which is just weird cause that means one gpu

It's just weird all around
 
NKD said:
I don't think I made it clear sorry. I was talking specific to a game. We have seen AMD releasing drivers with big gains in certain games after launch and so for nvidia. Overall no, but sometimes they do fuck up when it comes to certain games.
Click to expand...

They had silicon way back in April to demo. More than a month later they don't have solid driver optimizations for AotS, their poster child?
 
mGPU optimizations is done on the developer end, if I'm not mistake, AOTS uses explicit implementation, that means its 100% done on developer end. AMD drivers should have very little do with this, outside of functionality.
 
Pick your poison Mr Hallock

1. Lying about mgpu scaling
2. Lying about '390x performance'
3. Shitty AotS drivers
4. AMD is run by stoners
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top