AMD Announces The Radeon RX 480 Starting At Just $199

Araxie said:
does not matter.. it still depend of Xfire to fully performance.
Click to expand...

So does your card requires SLI and OC to really perform.....
Stop being a Dbag and go post in the forum you're fanboy of, 970 was such a highly recommended card and this just destroyed the price to performance it offered.
 
shad0w4life said:
So does your card requires SLI and OC to really perform.....
Stop being a Dbag and go post in the forum you're fanboy of, 970 was such a highly recommended card and this just destroyed the price to performance it offered.
Click to expand...

This is also releasing close to two years later...
 
Imhotep said:
You, my friend are irrelevant in this thread :D
Click to expand...

That's nice, it's not every day that someone calls me their friend. I like my friends to be literate though, so I'm afraid I'd rather we remain as acquaintances.
 
Gonna go on a limb and say most of you don't run a business and understand strategies that go beyond 3 days.

Koduri mentioned AMDs need to get the console market. Yes in the short term for sales, but long term was for software support and a better eco-system. Games on the consoles would translate better being x86 and close to metal APIs, where the devs would be more able to utilize AMD specific code to hardware. Before that highly unlikely.

Add to that a bit of recognition of the AMD label, granted small but better than none.

And remember Mantle-to-DX12 push. Same thing. Getting the concurrent ability of GCN to be recognized through an API/DX12 further helped AMD with free performance, if you will. And note that had we stayed in DX11 longer AMD would have to create a new architecture, lest be left further behind. That costs way more than tweaking an existing architecture. To be honest, knowing what we know now it is admirable AMD was able to keep up as well as they did.

Now we have AMD targeting the low cost/mainstream market. Makes sense for 2 reasons.

1: high volume. Battling an already entrenched market of Nvidia buyers is likely not going to add much to the bottom line nor increase Market share as much. However releasing low cards first when Nvidia is absent gives an advantage, for a time at least where the bulk of sales will be. (I still think that a lot of those prebuilt PCs can now have discreet GPUs because of the lower power usage and stay within those absurdly low PSUs prebuilts come with. Not the least of which because of the aforementioned point, the OEMs can move away from iGPUs and have better PCs that might actually be decent as entry level gaming PCs where most people commonly believe that will cost over $1000, thanks to those $2500 models shown on a lot of sites advertiser bars, and have them less as AMD spoke, thereby enticing more to consider getting into PC gaming. Its a possibility, just too early to tell if this is how OEMs will react.)

2: We already know HBM2 is a bit delayed or in the least not full throttle in production yet. Last thing AMD needs is to have limited supply which will decrease those profits rather quickly compared to smaller GPU cores that will only require GDDR5 or X variant at best.

Gotta think bigger than a few months here and look at the end game. I like the strategy that thus far AMD has stuck to for quite a while now. That $200 GPU looks good to me for my wife. One because it is cheap, don't have a lot of money right now, and it uses less power than my 290 and the PSU she has is my old GS600 which may or may not handle my 290 well, rather not chance it.
 
Ieldra said:
That's nice, it's not every day that someone calls me their friend. I like my friends to be literate though, so I'm afraid I'd rather we remain as acquaintances.
Click to expand...
Not even remotely close. We are too far apart intellectually to even be acquaintances. :)
 
Imhotep said:
Not even remotely close. We are too far apart intellectually to even be acquaintances. :)
Click to expand...

Judging by the quality of your posts I'm inclined to agree!
Imhotep said:
Yes it does my 5970 still mines:D. Again single card...:)

Pro Duo, 980Ti in SLI , Titans you name it can barely run 4K. 4K at 60Hz or 1080 at 60Hz is crap.
Click to expand...
Imhotep said:
There is a reason Nv is not in consoles. This alone proves your theory. The end result is always the same. AMD simply is a better value in the long run. Things are only improving with DX12.

Its kind of cool that I will be adding a Pro Duo to my single Fury X with a big % of this expense from mining. Can Nv. cards do this>?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Just to let ya know Justreason, you forgot one big thing about business, its not what you do that matters its how your competition reacts to what you do and how you react to them. Its about moves and counter moves.

Do you realize nV knows what AMD was up to? They were told as you, as I , as everyone else, AMD told us they were going for the midrange market end of April. Now for your post

JustReason said:
Gonna go on a limb and say most of you don't run a business and understand strategies that go beyond 3 days.

Koduri mentioned AMDs need to get the console market. Yes in the short term for sales, but long term was for software support and a better eco-system. Games on the consoles would translate better being x86 and close to metal APIs, where the devs would be more able to utilize AMD specific code to hardware. Before that highly unlikely.

Add to that a bit of recognition of the AMD label, granted small but better than none.
Click to expand...


Going beyond the short term is very diffcult to execute when you have limited resources vs. your competitors, planning must be done in such a fashion there is no waste. It is a risk to take long strides and you have to be able to counter move your competition quickly otherwise that risk becomes a pit fall. As getting the consoles it showed, AMD missed a few big steps and it hurt them greatly.

So far we haven't seen anything materialize from consoles to pc ports, so I don't' think we will see anything much because developers know they still have to optimize for 80% of the market on the pc.

Consoles don't bring mind share to graphic card companies lol, most people that buy consoles don't know shit about computer components, I was talking this guy about 2 years ago, the topic came to gaming somehow, and he though the the PS3 had better graphics than computer games, and cited look at the sweat from Kobie Bryant's forehead. At that point I started ignoring him and went about why I sat at that specific part of the bar to talk to the girl to the left.

And remember Mantle-to-DX12 push. Same thing. Getting the concurrent ability of GCN to be recognized through an API/DX12 further helped AMD with free performance, if you will. And note that had we stayed in DX11 longer AMD would have to create a new architecture, lest be left further behind. That costs way more than tweaking an existing architecture. To be honest, knowing what we know now it is admirable AMD was able to keep up as well as they did.
Click to expand...

Yet this hasn't materialized much either......

Now we have AMD targeting the low cost/mainstream market. Makes sense for 2 reasons.

1: high volume. Battling an already entrenched market of Nvidia buyers is likely not going to add much to the bottom line nor increase Market share as much. However releasing low cards first when Nvidia is absent gives an advantage, for a time at least where the bulk of sales will be. (I still think that a lot of those prebuilt PCs can now have discreet GPUs because of the lower power usage and stay within those absurdly low PSUs prebuilts come with. Not the least of which because of the aforementioned point, the OEMs can move away from iGPUs and have better PCs that might actually be decent as entry level gaming PCs where most people commonly believe that will cost over $1000, thanks to those $2500 models shown on a lot of sites advertiser bars, and have them less as AMD spoke, thereby enticing more to consider getting into PC gaming. Its a possibility, just too early to tell if this is how OEMs will react.)

2: We already know HBM2 is a bit delayed or in the least not full throttle in production yet. Last thing AMD needs is to have limited supply which will decrease those profits rather quickly compared to smaller GPU cores that will only require GDDR5 or X variant at best.
Click to expand...

This is a big gamble, time to market of nV competing parts, is where its at. AMD thought they had a sizable lead, they don't, 2 months or so, not even a quarter...... maybe less, if nV feels pressure.

Gotta think bigger than a few months here and look at the end game. I like the strategy that thus far AMD has stuck to for quite a while now. That $200 GPU looks good to me for my wife. One because it is cheap, don't have a lot of money right now, and it uses less power than my 290 and the PSU she has is my old GS600 which may or may not handle my 290 well, rather not chance it.
Click to expand...

Again its a gamble. There is nothing set in stone now if 2 months go by after June 29th and still no word on the 1060 I can see it being a win for AMD but until then its up in the air.
 
It does run in crossfire as a single card. No mining software has ever had any problems. Which part of this are you having difficulty understanding. >?Any res at 60Hz is terrible ones you get used to 120-144.
As simple as that.
 
Imhotep, the reason why nV left certain consoles was because of margins, everyone knows margins for consoles suck, AMD stated the same thing, they are lower than their own GPU's.

And yeah compute software can use more than one GPU fairly easily its when you need to share data between the GPU's you got issues, which is games.
 
Imhotep said:
There is a reason Nv is not in consoles. This alone proves your theory. The end result is always the same. AMD simply is a better value in the long run. Things are only improving with DX12.
Its kind of cool that I will be adding a Pro Duo to my single Fury X with a big % of this expense covered by mining. Can Nv. cards do this>? Not even when overclocked. Not when water cooled.
This $200 RX 480 simply owns. :D
Click to expand...

Gladly not everyone here it's a poor beggar who its proud to produce a very needed ~100bucks monthly to paid the hardware he use, instead of enjoy the hardware to the purposed hobbie, play games. =). funniest commentary of the week you made there, it's like buying a car and then start to use as taxi to recover some of the money spent, xD eat your shit of the burger paid last night to recover some of the money spent there too? XD LOL.
 
Yes but GCN's advantage for mining doesn't translate into games for shit, so your bringing it up is either a consquence of your not having a clue what it stems from, or you thinking it applies to games. In both of those cases you need to be reprimanded and corrected.
 
razor1 said:
Imhotep, the reason why nV left certain consoles was because of margins, everyone knows margins for consoles suck, AMD stated the same thing, they are lower than their own GPU's.

And yeah compute software can use more than one GPU fairly easily its when you need to share data between the GPU's you got issues, which is games.
Click to expand...
All major titles run both SLI and XFire. Crossfire scales better. Those
Ieldra said:
Yes but GCN's advantage for mining doesn't translate into games for shit, so your bringing it up is either a consquence of your not having a clue what it stems from, or you thinking it applies to games. In both of those cases you need to be reprimanded and corrected.
Click to expand...
How so, lol. Most of my toys run 24x7 why not make a few $ while they are on. It does not have to translate to games at all. Its where the value is for me. I like being open minded about what I do with my money.
Whats the point of owning a sports car and only use it on sundays mentality does not interest me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
SLi and Crossfire are like 1% of the enthusiast segment? You think they are all of a sudden they are going become popular for the masses now? I don't any kind of xfire solution being viable alternative to a single powerful card for years to come.
 
razor1 said:
SLi and Crossfire are like 1% of the enthusiast segment? You think they are all of a sudden they are going become popular for the masses now? I don't any kind of xfire solution being viable alternative to a single powerful card for years to come.
Click to expand...
By the time you get a single 4K card solution. 8k will be on the horizon. Tech never stops.
 
yeah neither will more powerful single GPU's its the natural progression, nothing will stop that, until developers make it a priority to make their engines use multi GPU's, multiple gpu solutions are not viable for the mainstream.

Edit, forgot to add, unless AMD gets the majority of the marketshare and gets developers to do this, its not in their hands either. Also its not in the best interest of graphics company's yet because the scale of economics is not there for it yet. Maybe it will be in 2 generations *4 years or so.
 
Imhotep said:
By the time you get a single 4K card solution. 8k will be on the horizon. Tech never stops.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I like the 980 Ti I have, more or less. I also do 4k on it any way I can and that is good enough for me. However, I cannot stand the Nvidia fanboy mentality that AMD sucks and is not capable of gaming or other such stuff. Oh well, enjoy what you are using as you see fit, let the others stomp their feet and hold their breath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
ManofGod said:
Exactly. I like the 980 Ti I have, more or less. I also do 4k on it any way I can and that is good enough for me. However, I cannot stand the Nvidia fanboy mentality that AMD sucks and is not capable of gaming or other such stuff. Oh well, enjoy what you are using as you see fit, let the others stomp their feet and hold their breath.
Click to expand...


I'm not talking about him in particular, but his view is not the same as everyone else. And that shows because everyone doesn't go out and think about SLi and Xfire as their primary goal when gaming.
 
So....

Videocardz is saying the normal 480 (not shown as 480x in slides, 480x unknown to exist) is the higher performing item # on their 3d mark benchmark.

If accurate, that puts the 480, for $200, at Fury-level performance. Better than a 980/390x. Considerably better than a 970/390. For $200.

That would put its performance pretty close to the 1070 (980ti-level vs Fury-level)... with prices of $380 vs $200
 
Last edited:
jamesgalb said:
So....

Videocardz is saying the normal 480 (not shown as 480x in slides, 480x unknown to exist) is the higher performing item # on their 3d mark benchmark.

If accurate, that puts the 480, for $200, at Fury-level performance. Better than a 980/390x. Considerably better than a 970/390. For $200.

That would put its performance pretty close to the 1070 (similar to a 980ti vs Fury)... with prices of $380 vs $200
Click to expand...


Huh? Wasn't that the crossfire results?
 
Rvenger said:
Huh? Wasn't that the crossfire results?
Click to expand...

Crossfire put it near 1080 levels..

The 480 is shown right on par with the Fury, above the 980 and 390x, far above the 970...

AMD Radeon R9 480 3DMark11 benchmarks | VideoCardz.com

I was expecting that to be the 480x, but here is the post confirming it is the normal 480... the card that was announced as $200...

AMD Radeon RX 480 confirmed as Polaris 67DF:C7 | VideoCardz.com

So yeah... $200 for something Fury-level, better than a 980 or 390x, at 150w, and seemingly 8gb of vram...
 
I have worked retail before during college for about 5 years and it was at frys electronics. I can bet every dollar in my bank that at 199 amd will sell shit load, I mean shit shit load of these things. Did I say shit load? Yea you heard that. I worked in the components department during my college years and I put together systems for people. No one I mean no one wanted to shell out major dollars for a GPU. It was almost 1 out of 12-15 people that would actually spend over 400 for a graphics card.

Everyone when looked at the price went WTF hell no, even though they wanted a gaming computer. AT 199 and giving the performance of a 500 dollar previous gen card, people will jump on it. Almost everyone's budget was below 250 and to be honest this kind of performance has never been available for 200 and thats my honest opinion. I don't like to talk much about my shit experience at frys but job was a job at that time and helped me through school.

I can't stress enough how bad these cards will sell at those prices of 199 and 229. People here can bitch and argue about AMD isn't releasing to compete with 1080, guess what I know first hand that market is shit. This is where most of the base is. Don't believe me come back here in six months and see how many of these cards have sold. This is an insane price for the performance it has. I mean this price will sell. If this thing performs anywhere close to 980, its a deal!
 
Last edited:
What the guy above said about the $250 budget max for many... nVidia hit a gold-mine with the 970 at $330... $330 was just within $250 shot, and gave performance on par with the new $550 part... They convinced people to make that reach.

the 1070 at $380 is too far outside of that reach, and the founders editions is likely to keep everything above $400 to boot. Add in that it isnt as close to the halo x80 as the 970 was, and its not going to have nearly the same reception.

If the 480 really does give fury/980+/390x+ (fully capable VR/1440) performance at $200 and 150w, then it will destroy the market in a bigger way than the 970.
 
jamesgalb said:
What the guy above said about the $250 budget max for many... nVidia hit a gold-mine with the 970 at $330... $330 was just within $250 shot, and gave performance on par with the new $550 part... They convinced people to make that reach.

the 1070 at $380 is too far outside of that reach, and the founders editions is likely to keep everything above $400 to boot. Add in that it isnt as close to the halo x80 as the 970 was, and its not going to have nearly the same reception.

If the 480 really does give fury/980+/390x+ (fully capable VR/1440) performance at $200 and 150w, then it will destroy the market in a bigger way than the 970.
Click to expand...

Its not even what I say. I am speaking from experience and all those years did nothing but help people build systems and I actually loved that part of my job and it was fun but I will always hate retail in general but never under appreciate the people that work there.

The market was 200-300 max. Very rare I saw people spend over that. I would say 1-3% over 400 and around 3-5% over 300. Rest didn't want to go above 250, very hard to stretch that to 300 but it made sense because performance cards were hard to get below 350
 
Araxie said:
may I ask why?. I still can not understand the excitement of some people with this card...
Click to expand...

primetime said:
I believe its because he to is using tahit generation gpus....yea if your rocking newer stuff, you have a legit point. If their on track for a non delayed vega in October, then some high end upgraders will wait it out.
Click to expand...

I see a few reasons to be excited, and they have nothing to do with me. I do use leftover Tahiti cards from my bigger mining days, and haven't really had a reason to upgrade them yet, heck in CF they meet Valve's Green "Premium" VR spec! My video cards have always at least paid for themselves since my 5870 days, so price isn't an issue, but I still hate to waste money.

In my view I'm liking what TRG is doing because it does looks like they are executing their plan well so far. From massively increasing their developer relations through their gaming console wins, and through the Mantle program where a lot of the major game studios signed up and participated in preparation of DX12, to giving away dozens and dozens and dozens of custom Workstations with Pro Duo cards inside to major developers and registered developers who ask for one, TRG/AMD with their long supported GCN architecture have made themselves into a gaming HUB through the consoles with Sony & Microsoft, and leveraging this to regain PC marketshare. Numbers show this is starting to work.

Then there is VR; TRG/AMD has hosted, and keeps hosting VR events continuously for at least the last year in preparation for VR uptake, they've repeated for the last couple years about bringing VR to the general public. Actually the video above which skydiver linked to dates back to 2014 and you can see for example at 2:10 & 5:10 Raja Koduri explaining what seems to be a good part of the plan AMD/TRG have now executed on. He talks about mid-range cards, and he talks about VR. Sound familiar? Yes does, doesn't it, almost 2 years ago. Looks like he saw VR as BIG opportunity and started acting on it.

So now we have Polaris rumoured to be used across the Apple line, in the PS4.5, in the new xbox add-on, we have Radeon workstations in the hands of developers for content creation, and now the RX480 on PC. TRG has effectively created a baseline of performance accross all major gaming hardware lines for developers to use instead of guess at. Can you aim for faster? Of course, but that performance baseline is IMHO much more crucial for developers to have something stable to aim for. At $199 delivers on what they've has been targeting: a good & cheap GPU for mass production and which meets the high-end VR spec. Had TRG aimed for Vega first, this probably would've been near impossible for them to stock and guarantee delivery of enough big super-high-end chips to sell to Sony, Microsoft, Apple, and AIBs on PCs almost at the same time on a new node. Smaller, cheaper, easier to make chips with lower TDPs make sense for these cases.

And so... yes I'm exited when taking a step back and looking at all this. Lots of ifs, and also lots of stated and repeated goals. I chuckle at the now standard doom & gloom on [H]. Competition can be great.

I'll be getting a RX480 or 2, and they'll probably pay for themselves in part, if not completely before their lifetime is also up. And I'll game along the way.
 
Araxie said:
may I ask why?. I still can not understand the excitement of some people with this card...
Click to expand...

This is Fury/980+/390x+ performance for $200

Anyone at or below a 970/390/780/280x/etc, will be thrilled at the idea of $200 giving them a pretty significant upgrade... The people at or below those cards, make up a majority of the market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: c3k
like this
jamesgalb said:
This is Fury/980+/390x+ performance for $200

Anyone at or below a 970/390/780/280x/etc, will be thrilled at the idea of $200 giving them a pretty significant upgrade... The people at or below those cards, make up a majority of the market.
Click to expand...

This whole thing has " I'll believe it when I see it " written all over it lol. Coming at that that price point has me concerned that it is not going to live up to the hype that it is getting. I rather stick with that mindset so at the very least, I could end up being a bit surprised if it benches well (y)
 
jamesgalb said:
Crossfire put it near 1080 levels..

The 480 is shown right on par with the Fury, above the 980 and 390x, far above the 970...

AMD Radeon R9 480 3DMark11 benchmarks | VideoCardz.com

I was expecting that to be the 480x, but here is the post confirming it is the normal 480... the card that was announced as $200...

AMD Radeon RX 480 confirmed as Polaris 67DF:C7 | VideoCardz.com

So yeah... $200 for something Fury-level, better than a 980 or 390x, at 150w, and seemingly 8gb of vram...
Click to expand...
Result You must mean worse than 390x/980. At least at first.
 
For one, a $199 card should be compared to a $199 and not a $400. That would be stupid unless the $199 is reasonably close or faster.

I not sure how the 480 will perform until real hardware is correctly evaluated and reviewed. I believe most here do not know the real performance but mostly guessing.

I suppose comparing two $200 cards against a $400 card has some merit just for the purpose that you have $400 to spend and what is the better buy argument but that is it.

I am more interested in if HardOCP will get a proper sample this time or two so us AMD buyers, enthusiast etc. get taking care of a little - as in customer service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
like this
Depending on the final benches/performance I may pick one of these up to replace my 390X, if it offers 980TI/Fury X performance I would absolutely also replace my furies with a pair of these. These have potential to be killer @ $199-249 a pop and a great "tide-me-over" until we get Big Pascal and Vega 10/11 (if two Vega's do actually exist)

This is exactly what Raja layed out at their Capsaicin event as far as pricing, market position and performance/watt goes. To anyone slating this as a failure, especially when compared to 1070/1080, they were never ever meant to compete or go head to head. AMD/Raja were very clear about this and we should of had our expectations set months ago.

This is also spells good things for Vega especially the HBM2 variants. I am SO looking forward to Zen/Polaris/HBM based APU's next year.
 
NKD said:
doesn't have the model number so doesn't hold any credibility.
Click to expand...
It has driver reported name in the info below (dropdown for graphics card), you are free to actually check it.

And yes, i am too lazy to concoct a chart based on that.
 
NKD said:
doesn't have the model number so doesn't hold any credibility.
Click to expand...

Model it's there, of course it say generic VGA on top, but if you scroll down a bit to graphics cards driver model detail 67DF:C7 which clearly is the RX 480.
 
TheBlueChanell said:
Depending on the final benches/performance I may pick one of these up to replace my 390X, if it offers 980TI/Fury X performance I would absolutely also replace my furies with a pair of these. These have potential to be killer @ $199-249 a pop and a great "tide-me-over" until we get Big Pascal and Vega 10/11 (if two Vega's do actually exist)

This is exactly what Raja layed out at their Capsaicin event as far as pricing, market position and performance/watt goes. To anyone slating this as a failure, especially when compared to 1070/1080, they were never ever meant to compete or go head to head. AMD/Raja were very clear about this and we should of had our expectations set months ago.

This is also spells good things for Vega especially the HBM2 variants. I am SO looking forward to Zen/Polaris/HBM based APU's next year.
Click to expand...

I also forgot to mention that we all pretty much can/will benefit from this in the near future. AMD has literally pretty much just raised the baseline of performance on the low-end, significantly lowered the barrier to entry of respectable/enjoyable GPU performance and enabled a very large majority of people access to VR w/ respectable performance pretty much overnight. The VR thing, imo, is especially a big deal. Now instead of having to shell out $600-800 for a Rift/Vive and then an additional $400-500+ on GPU you'll be able to score a good performing GPU+Rift for the price of a Vive and/or on the higher-end of the spectrum walk away "VR Ready" for <$1,000 which is ALOT more platable for some people even if it's still kind of expensive. That cost is only going to drop further as a) HTC/Oculus/Valve make and release revisions of their HMD's and b) The market grows and other players enter the space and offer more competition.

I'm impressed, now let's see what the 8c / 16t Zen can do. (Sorry if that is pseudo off-topic)
 
jamesgalb said:
Crossfire put it near 1080 levels..

The 480 is shown right on par with the Fury, above the 980 and 390x, far above the 970...

AMD Radeon R9 480 3DMark11 benchmarks | VideoCardz.com

I was expecting that to be the 480x, but here is the post confirming it is the normal 480... the card that was announced as $200...

AMD Radeon RX 480 confirmed as Polaris 67DF:C7 | VideoCardz.com

So yeah... $200 for something Fury-level, better than a 980 or 390x, at 150w, and seemingly 8gb of vram...
Click to expand...

"Results vary by 20% while 3DMark shows the same clock, so lower scores were either run with older, unsupported drivers, or higher scores simply show overclocked scores."

Based on that and those bars, and the specs of 5.5tf/256GB/s, it looks like the bottom of the three would be the $199 card at stock, the middle one overclocked, and the top is clearly Xfire.

So stock is a little better then 970, overclocked headroom seems to put it a little above or near equal 980, and xfire would fall between 1070/1080, but closer to the 1080.

The 1070 has the same memory bandwidth, but 1tf more at 6.5tflops. So price/performance is better, but its still not a direct competitor to 1070.

It all adds up as it should, based on the specs. I don't really see anything standing out other then this card cost starts around $50 less then it probably should have giving it a stronger value. But as far as generational increase, its right on par with what we always get. x60s becomes as fast as previous x70s, x70s become as fast as previous x80s, etc...

I'm sure we will see Nvidia counter back with a 1060 that is equal or a little slower for similar cost, and a 1060ti that is faster for a little more money. And 1070 will probably see a $30-50 price cut in the next 3 months.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
There will always be people trying to shit on this good news. If you're a pc gamer this should excite you. If it doesn't then somethings up.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agreed, can't comprehend why anyone would choose to shit on anything that moves our hobby/the industry forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top