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

$299 is horrible the cards only have (rumored) 390X levels of performance.

AMD sold people space heater GPUs while disregarding power consumption. AMD fans accepted this and repeatedly noted how little the power consumption actually matters in the end. Now their new plan is "Now you can get the same performance we've been selling for three years and save $10 a year on your power bill!" ??? They need to move the performance bar along with the efficiency bar.
 
These are effectively, looking at price, replacements for the 380(x) and below. That's my opinion. Remember that most of us don't spend $300 on a video card.
 
Hopefully there might be a bit of a nice surprise when it comes to performance of Polaris 10. You just never know.
 
Ticker305 said:
So $300 for 390x performance or $379 for Titan x performance, seems Nvidia is a no brainer for me this year.
Click to expand...

Remember that Nvidia said NOTHING about DX11 or DX12 performance. It was something like GTX 1070 is as fast as a Titan X at VR under certain situations. In short. Wait for a review. I'm hearing that the GTX 1080 is 15% - 20% faster than a GTX 980ti under DX11 and DX12. That would make the GTX 1070 10% - 15% slower than a GTX 1080.

Which also sounds weird.
 
Ticker305 said:
So $300 for 390x performance or $379 for Titan x performance, seems Nvidia is a no brainer for me this year.
Click to expand...

Wait for the reviews. Titan x performance ain't happening in games, I bet. Nvidia didn't even releas specs. They are not even releasing the standard version on june 10th, I don't know why they are hiding the specs. I bet its because they are waiting to see where polaris lands. All we have is nvidia's word, they never said anything specific and just threw it out there its faster than titan x. Probably in VR due to optimizations in architecture.

Wait for reviews to buy it on just hype. Polaris rumors are all over the place. No one even knows the exact specs. We have shader count ranging from 2k to 2.5.
 
Last edited:
cageymaru said:
Remember that Nvidia said NOTHING about DX11 or DX12 performance. It was something like GTX 1070 is as fast as a Titan X at VR under certain situations. In short. Wait for a review. I'm hearing that the GTX 1080 is 15% - 20% faster than a GTX 980ti under DX11 and DX12. That would make the GTX 1070 10% - 15% slower than a GTX 1080.

Which also sounds weird.
Click to expand...

It went something like this. 1080 was introduced as having 2x the performance and 3x the perf/w of Titan X in VR. Then they introduced the 1070 as also faster than Titan X. No specific mention of VR for the 1070 comment but it's a fair assumption given how the 1080 comparison was framed.

Is nvidia also handing out VR hardware and games/benchmarks with simultaneous multi-projection implemented? How are reviewers supposed to validate these VR claims?
 
cageymaru said:
These are effectively, looking at price, replacements for the 380(x) and below. That's my opinion. Remember that most of us don't spend $300 on a video card.
Click to expand...

If they were replacing 380x, they'd be pricing Polaris 10 at $230 and below, not $300. $300 today will get you a 390 which is close to the rumored performance level of Polaris 10. Whatever cockamaimy way AMD marketing wants to spin it, and regardless of how their line-up looks a year from now, they'll be replacing Hawaii.

So, to echo others here, we're looking at a crap price/performance jump especially since they're replacing a 2 year-old+ chip and we have a die shrink.
 
I hope AMD's marketing incompetence is just a clever ploy to set us up for a big surprise.
 
MangoSeed said:
I hope AMD's marketing incompetence is just a clever ploy to set us up for a big surprise.
Click to expand...
Well if the current rumour with that invitation is real, its incompetence is incredible.
While it mentions in the header of the invitation Polaris 10 Launch, in the details it just says:
"AMD executives and special guests will introduce new, comprehensive details on many of the 2016 products, including the official launch of the 7th Generation AMD A-Series APU".

They really are sending out confusing messages between header and the details.

Cheers
 
harmattan said:
If they were replacing 380x, they'd be pricing Polaris 10 at $230 and below, not $300. $300 today will get you a 390 which is close to the rumored performance level of Polaris 10. Whatever cockamaimy way AMD marketing wants to spin it, and regardless of how their line-up looks a year from now, they'll be replacing Hawaii.

So, to echo others here, we're looking at a crap price/performance jump especially since they're replacing a 2 year-old+ chip and we have a die shrink.
Click to expand...

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?
 
So from what I am gathering so far:

Based on the die shots, ALU counts, etc... the Polaris 10 and Polaris 11 seem to be re-constructs of the Bonaire and Tonga chips (360 & 380)...

Re-constructs, as in a lot of new stuff....


"In terms of what we’ve done at the high level, it’s our most revolutionary jump in performance so far. We’ve redesigned many blocks in our cores. We’ve redesigned the main processor, a new geometry processor, a completely new fourth-generation Graphics Core Next with a very high increase in performance. We have new multimedia cores, a new display engine."

AMD’s graphics guru describes the march to full graphics immersion with 16K screens

+

polaris-15.jpg


+

14nm power savings & clock boosts

.....

Ultimately this is going to give us a super low power Bonaire/360 that performs at 370x levels... And a super low power Tonga/380 that performs at 390x levels... Both with GCN 4....

Which leads me to wonder if we are going to see a 14nm Hawaii? What kind of performance could we see from Hawaii with the same improvements?

I would assume Vega is going to be a reworked Fiji with the same clock bumps, power gains, architecture changes, and HBM2...
 
jamesgalb said:
So from what I am gathering so far:

Based on the die shots, ALU counts, etc... the Polaris 10 and Polaris 11 seem to be re-constructs of the Bonaire and Tonga chips (360 & 380)...

Re-constructs, as in a lot of new stuff....


"In terms of what we’ve done at the high level, it’s our most revolutionary jump in performance so far. We’ve redesigned many blocks in our cores. We’ve redesigned the main processor, a new geometry processor, a completely new fourth-generation Graphics Core Next with a very high increase in performance. We have new multimedia cores, a new display engine."

AMD’s graphics guru describes the march to full graphics immersion with 16K screens

+

polaris-15.jpg


+

14nm power savings & clock boosts

.....

Ultimately this is going to give us a super low power Bonaire/360 that performs at 370x levels... And a super low power Tonga/380 that performs at 390x levels... Both with GCN 4....

Which leads me to wonder if we are going to see a 14nm Hawaii? What kind of performance could we see from Hawaii with the same improvements?

I would assume Vega is going to be a reworked Fiji with the same clock bumps, power gains, architecture changes, and HBM2...
Click to expand...

Now what new features will this bring? Geometry processor should help in reducing rendering geometry not seen - maybe on par with Nvidia designs which will save a lot of bandwidth, increase efficiency. Next gen of core next? what will that bring? Multimedia cores?

Now what is interesting is the Command Processor is new - how so? Will it allow transparent CFX where two cards act like one using something like AFR? Driver separates the alternating frames, keeps same data in the Vram etc.? In other words will AMD improve upon CFX? Just thinking ahead.

Display Engine - VR improvements? . . .?
 
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...
For those still on Tahiti this could finally be a decent new card. Especially once it goes on decent sale:) Regarding the power saving it doesn't hurt one bit
 
As an ATI fan, I'm unimpressed. It appears that ATI/AMD is going to cede the high end gpu market to Nvidia and flood the lower and mid range marked with their products.
 
polydiol said:
As an ATI fan, I'm unimpressed. It appears that ATI/AMD is going to cede the high end gpu marked to Nvidia and flood the lower and mid range marked with their products.
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily true, Vega was suppose to be out this year for enthusiast market, but it was delayed due to HBM2 issues. So they didn't really plan for this. I think they are fully focused on getting that out as soon as they can. It was always a top to bottom plan. Who knows lets wait and see.
 
schizo said:
Huge loser. Oh well.

Hopefully they can get it down to at least $250 so it offers a compelling value versus the 1070.
Click to expand...
So 60w with 1280 shaders and 120w for 2560? So it makes sense that the highest end polaris will be around 120-150w depends on how far they can clock it. How is that bad? That's actually pretty good.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Jesus wait until bechmarks. You people read some fluff piece with a bit of specs and then act like you know how it performs in every game...
Fucking wait a moment before deciding lmao. What is the god damn rush?
Click to expand...
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!
 
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...
I expect it from noobies but if you've been watching the GPU market for the last 12 years then you should know better.
 
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...


Although I think you are right, that is the card to beat, nV tends not to do over hype of their cards, if they are saying the 1070 is at Titan X levels, I believe them, and with the understanding that Pascal does have even more bandwidth saving techniques (according to nV, 1.2 times, so lets say 20% ish), that would put it in the area of Titan X bandwidth wise, just a bit lower and we know games tend to show better results with GPU overclock on Maxwell 2, so it can easily make the difference with the extra Tflops the 1070 and this should become even more apparent at 4k.....
 
razor1 said:
Although I think you are right, that is the card to beat, nV tends not to do over hype of their cards, if they are saying the 1070 is at Titan X levels, I believe them, and with the understanding that Pascal does have even more bandwidth saving techniques (according to nV, 1.2 times, so lets say 20% ish), that would put it in the area of Titan X bandwidth wise, just a bit lower and we know games tend to show better results with GPU overclock on Maxwell 2, so it can easily make the difference with the extra Tflops the 1070 and this should become even more apparent at 4k.....
Click to expand...

I agree. I have always believed nvidia has a more brute force architecture that really loves high clocks. I mean with PASCAL it shows it is literally a refined architecture not an overhaul but on 16nm it shows how it got the clocks the clock speed that really takes it up there. On the other hand I think AMD has a overall compute based architecture that doesn't depend on high clock speeds. Reason I believe they made so many changes to the front end because they know they couldn't clock it that high so I am just excited to see what improvements they made to make up the speed difference. If they can't clock polaris that high but it ends up giving us close to 980ti performance than we know the front end changes are at play. We just gotta wait and see. Be exciting to see what amd did to squeeze extra performance out of their gpu. If it beast the 390x and gets close to 980ti with less shaders and same clock speeds. I would say that is indeed impressive. and Vega is going to be a monster chip!
 
Well we will have a pretty good idea of what Vega is going to be with Polaris, those two architectures should be fairly similar.

You have to understand, the 980ti had the capabilities to overclock high too. Something then 390x wasn't capable of.

The questions is how much AMD could do in front end. This is why I have doubts on the "capabilities" of GCN's new front end to match nV's "capabilities" at least clock for clock. nV has been tweaking gen to gen, these types of changes are done because they understood after making one change, they saw they can change something else because now the bottleneck shifted. As much as you can predict things through math and emulation, you can't do it all sometimes you need to make the chip and then analyze the things that are happening thus its an evolutionary change instead of one large leap.

And now we are talking about such a shift that AMD's lower amount of ALU's are going to match nv's higher amount of ALU's, that is a complete change of design since the g80 and r600.....
 
razor1 said:
Well we will have a pretty good idea of what Vega is going to be with Polaris, those two architectures should be fairly similar.

You have to understand, the 980ti had the capabilities to overclock high too. Something then 390x wasn't capable of.

The questions is how much AMD could do in front end. This is why I have doubts on the "capabilities" of GCN's new front end to match nV's "capabilities" at least clock for clock. nV has been tweaking gen to gen, these types of changes are done because they understood after making one change, they saw they can change something else because now the bottleneck shifted. As much as you can predict things through math and emulation, you can't do it all sometimes you need to make the chip and then analyze the things that are happening thus its an evolutionary change instead of one large leap.

And now we are talking about such a shift that AMD's lower amount of ALU's are going to match nv's higher amount of ALU's, that is a complete change of design since the g80 and r600.....
Click to expand...


No actually I was more talking about AMD's lower amount of ALU's meeting or beating its previous higher amount of ALU's. I mean AMD didn't have horrible cards they were just inefficient and couldn't match the clocks of nvidia cards. But they still matched them in certain games but overall 10/15% slower. Like you saw 390x to fury x, shit load of alu's but the not same performance increase. The design may have been limited and i think that is what they focused on in the front end. Getting more out of these shaders.

So if 2306 shaders on Polaris get past 390x and close to fury performance I would say that is pretty good at the same clock speed. If they can clock them high enough more power to them.
 
NKD said:
No actually I was more talking about AMD's lower amount of ALU's meeting or beating its previous higher amount of APU. I mean AMD didn't horrible cards they were just inefficient and couldn't match the clocks of nvidia cards. But they still matched them in certain games but overall 10/15% slower. Like you saw 390x to fury x, shit load of alu's but the same performance increase. The design may have been limited and i think that is what they focused on in the front end. Getting more out of these shaders.

So if 2306 shaders on Polaris get past 390x and close to fury performance I would say that is pretty good at the same clock speed. If they can clock them high enough more power to them.
Click to expand...


Well I think they need the clock speed increases to reach them though.

The games that we saw AMD cards get close or sometimes beat nV's counterparts is when they pushed the areas where AMD cards had a definitely advantage, like raw shader performance. So pretty much nV's cards were bottlenecked by shader performance where AMD could keep going.
 
razor1 said:
Well I think they need the clock speed increases to reach them though.

The games that we saw AMD cards get close or sometimes beat nV's counterparts is when they pushed the areas where AMD cards had a definitely advantage, like raw shader performance. So pretty much nV's cards were bottlenecked by shader performance where AMD could keep going.
Click to expand...

Yea also at some point though AMD couldn't get the same from so many shaders on the fury x, it seemed like the architecture was bottlenecked at that point where other parts of the chips were holding back the shaders. I was expecting alot from all the shaders on the fury x but it really didn't see much increase in overall throughput. Thats something i hope they fixed with polaris. Where Vega will be able to take the same number of shaders and crush the fury x in performance.
 
My AMD cards has always been as fast as my NVIDIA cards.Turn off FPS counter and I could never tell the difference.S0 for lets say 300 bucks for new AMD card and performs as well as new Nvidia why would you care if its slower by a couple FPS.It makes no difference in gaming.

So lets say new AMD card polaris or whatever the name is can run at 40 FPS with freesync and 1080 runs at 50FPS on gsnyc monitor.Which one is really faster and does it really make a difference.

All cards suck until CPU catches up and we can run games with mins of 60FPS for me.

Hell my Titan X and 980ti and Fury X cards were still not able to runs games at 60 FPS mins.Such a disappointment. I am sure 1080 card and new AMD card will still be the same.

POST I made over 3d Guru and no my rig has no problems,and also your game does not run at 100FPS all the time
.Gaming sucks for anyone wanting high quality graphics and 60 FPS mins as of today.
Video is of games not maxed out at 1080p.Its only 5 games but I have many more than this.
980ti single card @1481 core.It still sucks.
[youtube][/youtube]

Added some 980 GTX , R9 290 ,Titan X benches for the last couple years




290_980_data_table.png
[/QUOTE
</spoiler>
 
gerardfraser said:
My AMD cards has always been as fast as my NVIDIA cards.Turn off FPS counter and I could never tell the difference.S0 for lets say 300 bucks for new AMD card and performs as well as new Nvidia why would you care if its slower by a couple FPS.It makes no difference in gaming.

So lets say new AMD card polaris or whatever the name is can run at 40 FPS with freesync and 1080 runs at 50FPS on gsnyc monitor.Which one is really faster and does it really make a difference.

All cards suck until CPU catches up and we can run games with mins of 60FPS for me.

Hell my Titan X and 980ti and Fury X cards were still not able to runs games at 60 FPS mins.Such a disappointment. I am sure 1080 card and new AMD card will still be the same.

POST I made over 3d Guru and no my rig has no problems,and also your game does not run at 100FPS all the time
.Gaming sucks for anyone wanting high quality graphics and 60 FPS mins as of today.
Video is of games not maxed out at 1080p.Its only 5 games but I have many more than this.
980ti single card @1481 core.It still sucks.
[youtube][/youtube]

Added some 980 GTX , R9 290 ,Titan X benches for the last couple years




290_980_data_table.png
[/QUOTE
</spoiler>
Click to expand...

I think you are right, but people really do it for bragging rights to be honest. For me AMD and Nvidia have been very similar but I like to brag sometimes too, haha. But I can live with either. To truly hit 60fps I think you will have to wait for vega or big pascal. I am actually expecting big things from vega. Polaris will be a very very good indication of what we can expect from vega. We just gotta wait and see.
 
polydiol said:
As an ATI fan, I'm unimpressed. It appears that ATI/AMD is going to cede the high end gpu market to Nvidia and flood the lower and mid range marked with their products.
Click to expand...


you have to go where the money is and the money is in the mid range market. if the power numbers are anywhere near where they claim it makes it quite easy to push into the prebuild market that they've been lacking for a few years now with their high power usage chips.
 
For AMD as a whole, it would be very beneficial to get hardware back in laptops and OEM builds with a large Market Share. Plus Apple should be very please with Polaris as well which can only help.

Still like to know all the new features that will come with Polaris, any new AA methods, CFX, VR, Display, OCing software etc.
 
noko said:
For AMD as a whole, it would be very beneficial to get hardware back in laptops and OEM builds with a large Market Share. Plus Apple should be very please with Polaris as well which can only help.

Still like to know all the new features that will come with Polaris, any new AA methods, CFX, VR, Display, OCing software etc.
Click to expand...


i'm hoping the hidden gem is that they overclock like crazy but we'll see.
 
W
gerardfraser said:
My AMD cards has always been as fast as my NVIDIA cards.Turn off FPS counter and I could never tell the difference.S0 for lets say 300 bucks for new AMD card and performs as well as new Nvidia why would you care if its slower by a couple FPS.It makes no difference in gaming.

So lets say new AMD card polaris or whatever the name is can run at 40 FPS with freesync and 1080 runs at 50FPS on gsnyc monitor.Which one is really faster and does it really make a difference.

All cards suck until CPU catches up and we can run games with mins of 60FPS for me.

Hell my Titan X and 980ti and Fury X cards were still not able to runs games at 60 FPS mins.Such a disappointment. I am sure 1080 card and new AMD card will still be the same.

POST I made over 3d Guru and no my rig has no problems,and also your game does not run at 100FPS all the time
.Gaming sucks for anyone wanting high quality graphics and 60 FPS mins as of today.
Video is of games not maxed out at 1080p.Its only 5 games but I have many more than this.
980ti single card @1481 core.It still sucks.
[youtube][/youtube]

Added some 980 GTX , R9 290 ,Titan X benches for the last couple years




290_980_data_table.png
[/QUOTE
</spoiler>
Click to expand...


I own those games also. Same experience. Makes owning a 120Hz monitor pointless.
 
I'm not sure what's going on with AMD.

They supposedly have prio on HBM as well as having released HBM cards last year.

They chose to release some crappy $300 card that might or might not have 980Ti performance. Seriously, that's a terrible move.

GTX 1080 is supposedly 25-35% faster than 980Ti, sure, it's way more expensive than $300 Polaris, but it's also a lot faster. 1070 will be cheaper, and maybe some 15-25% slower than 1080 (still faster than 980Ti) for about $400 or so.
But, the real MORONIC part here is that they have NOTHING to compete with GTX 1080. So by the time they release something as fast as 1080 most people will already have 1080 and won't be interested in AMD's more powerful card. And by the time AMD release something close to 1080 we will probably know more about 1080Ti and 1080 prices will drop, making more powerful Polaris even more useless.

Seriously AMD :cautious:
 
Nebell said:
I'm not sure what's going on with AMD.

They supposedly have prio on HBM as well as having released HBM cards last year.

They chose to release some crappy $300 card that might or might not have 980Ti performance. Seriously, that's a terrible move.

GTX 1080 is supposedly 25-35% faster than 980Ti, sure, it's way more expensive than $300 Polaris, but it's also a lot faster. 1070 will be cheaper, and maybe some 15-25% slower than 1080 (still faster than 980Ti) for about $400 or so.
But, the real MORONIC part here is that they have NOTHING to compete with GTX 1080. So by the time they release something as fast as 1080 most people will already have 1080 and won't be interested in AMD's more powerful card. And by the time AMD release something close to 1080 we will probably know more about 1080Ti and 1080 prices will drop, making more powerful Polaris even more useless.

Seriously AMD :cautious:
Click to expand...

I fully agree while at the same time think this is a really smart move. The mid-range market is where the real money is made, and if AMD can release something that is as powerful as a highly overclocled 390X but only uses 150w, and costs less than $250, Nvidia will be the one with no competijg product.
 
Nebell said:
I'm not sure what's going on with AMD.

They supposedly have prio on HBM as well as having released HBM cards last year.

They chose to release some crappy $300 card that might or might not have 980Ti performance. Seriously, that's a terrible move.

GTX 1080 is supposedly 25-35% faster than 980Ti, sure, it's way more expensive than $300 Polaris, but it's also a lot faster. 1070 will be cheaper, and maybe some 15-25% slower than 1080 (still faster than 980Ti) for about $400 or so.
But, the real MORONIC part here is that they have NOTHING to compete with GTX 1080. So by the time they release something as fast as 1080 most people will already have 1080 and won't be interested in AMD's more powerful card. And by the time AMD release something close to 1080 we will probably know more about 1080Ti and 1080 prices will drop, making more powerful Polaris even more useless.

Seriously AMD :cautious:
Click to expand...

I don't think that AMD sells enough $700 video cards to care. Going after the notebook market and mainstream desktop market is the best move in the long run. I think this last rumor mentioned Zen based APUs. Announcing a new DDR4 Zen APU + 50w video card combo for a notebook will make them a ton more money than a $700 video card.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yakk
like this
cageymaru said:
I don't think that AMD sells enough $700 video cards to care. Going after the notebook market and mainstream desktop market is the best move in the long run. I think this last rumor mentioned Zen based APUs. Announcing a new DDR4 Zen APU + 50w video card combo for a notebook will make them a ton more money than a $700 video card.
Click to expand...

No doubt this is their positioning. Tons more volume to move in the $200-300 range than at the top end. And if they deliver something that is 70% as fast as 1080 for less than half the price who cares. 3870 couldn't compete with G80 (with nothing to answer for it, and no, I'm not counting 3870x2) and it still sold tons for half the cost.

And remember Vega, which is now rumoured to be coming in October, is their real competitor to 1080.
 
Nebell said:
They supposedly have prio on HBM as well as having released HBM cards last year.
Click to expand...
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:

Nebell said:
They chose to release some crappy $300 card that might or might not have 980Ti performance. Seriously, that's a terrible move.
Click to expand...
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.

Nebell said:
GTX 1080 is supposedly 25-35% faster than 980Ti, sure, it's way more expensive than $300 Polaris, but it's also a lot faster. 1070 will be cheaper, and maybe some 15-25% slower than 1080 (still faster than 980Ti) for about $400 or so.
But, the real MORONIC part here is that they have NOTHING to compete with GTX 1080. So by the time they release something as fast as 1080 most people will already have 1080 and won't be interested in AMD's more powerful card. And by the time AMD release something close to 1080 we will probably know more about 1080Ti and 1080 prices will drop, making more powerful Polaris even more useless.

Seriously AMD :cautious:
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top