AMD, Where Are You?

[noko]

What the rx480 holds it own in only performance to the 1060 in DX12 and nothing else, power, effeciency, die size, all of these have cost implications abet not too much but for OEM's they matter, and it can't go against the 1070, it can't go up against the 1080, where are these cards from AMD that can go against Titan X? They are not competing in the MOST VALUABLE segment the performance segment and the most decisive segment for the entire line up the Halo product. Yet you had Papermaster (and a few other higher ups at AMD) saying the mainstream segment is 8.5 million cards, where the totally amount of sales is around 13 million and the performance segment is 55% of the entire market! How does that math work lol. Sorry but as a CTO of an engineering company I would expect at least 4th grade math to be done right lol. Sorry but when you have your "leaders" making mistakes like this I can see why the rest of AMD is disillusioned and think what they are doing is on the right track.

Vaporware on slides just doesn't mean anything specially when those slides in the past came out as FALSE when the product released everyone remember the <150 watts for rx480? LOL what crock was that?

Or Hallock's explanation about their power ratings in the manuals of these cards of 110 watts as GPU only power lol. What do you say about things like this?

All you can do is sit back and laugh at AMD, its so bad its funny, the way they make excuses and try to explain their mistakes with more mistakes lol.

Are they really competing or as Kyle put it, polished turd? Sure looks that way when you see what Pascal variants can do that are directly competing against Polaris are doing.

I think AMD was clear on Polaris market target and when Vega was going to be released. Not much deviation there except Polaris was suppose to go into the performance end of the spectrum and I don't see that. Cu do's I give to Nvidia for Pascal, results and execution of launches. Hey folks are indeed buying the readily available higher end cards and most I say are very happy with the Nvidia cards. The most AMD can do is compete against the 1070 with lower priced FuryX's (less than the 1070 prices that is). I would recommend a 1070 AIB card over a FuryX unless you can get one around $350 or less then it becomes a toss up.

As for marketing - AMD really needs to have someone like Kyle review their shit first to get all the BS out of it before ushering out meaningless, colorful and sometimes endless slides that can be taken so many different ways and get to the meat and potatoes with real demonstrations/tests/gaming/VR etc. out. Otherwise at this point folks will just not believe much of what AMD says. At least Nvidia runs a game or two showing frame rates but I think they can improve too. The way out of places, paying for flights, motel room, food and whatever else frankly stinks. Why not just invite the reviewers at AMD and broad cast it anyways on the internet? Reviewers that don't show up probably don't care anyways and maybe just bribe them with a real sample card if they show up in the first place. Now AMD is going to spend money on a worthless dump to showcase their next card??? I wonder how much money to decorate a worthless facility abandoned years ago will AMD spend - lol I hear Razor1 here in Florida laughing already.

 

[razor1]

Florida, hope everything is well with your family and friends down their with the hurricane!

I just wish AMD can actually do a prefect launch without all the drama lol. Damn reminds me of my grandma watching General Hospital, if someone isn't sleeping with anothers wife, he must be gay lol. Its just too much lol. Its entertaining as hell but the end of the day, its like I just wasted an hour on that?

 

[Chimpee]

Florida, hope everything is well with your family and friends down their with the hurricane!

I just wish AMD can actually do a prefect launch without all the drama lol. Damn reminds me of my grandma watching General Hospital, if someone isn't sleeping with anothers wife, he must be gay lol. Its just too much lol. Its entertaining as hell but the end of the day, its like I just wasted an hour on that?

Pretty sure you got your hour worth of entertainment just hearing grandma comments!

 

[noko]

Thanks - we live more Inland and it was very minimum damage. A little bit scary with the uncertainty in how the Hurricane was going to hit and where but that is always the case, 50-100 miles more towards us would have made a huge difference. Now many are still without power which would suck or much worst, fortunately our lights never flicker once.

 

[Spoonie_G]

AMD is MIA when it comes to high end graphics. AMD's fastest card came out over a year ago and is surpassed by Nvidia's 3 top cards (TITAN, 1080,1070). And you are going to have to wait at least 6 months before AMD releases a card that can outperform (or match) Nvidia's top offerings. And by that time Nvidia will have even faster cards. Looks like I'll be jumping ship (And I hate Nvidia).

 

[SnowBeast]

Looks like I'll be jumping ship (And I hate Nvidia).

 

[Deleted member 93354]

AMD is MIA when it comes to high end graphics. AMD's fastest card came out over a year ago and is surpassed by Nvidia's 3 top cards (TITAN, 1080,1070). And you are going to have to wait at least 6 months before AMD releases a card that can outperform (or match) Nvidia's top offerings. And by that time Nvidia will have even faster cards. Looks like I'll be jumping ship (And I hate Nvidia).

I'm jumping ship too. I just can't believe AMD any more.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

#wheresvega

 

[Creig]

AMD is MIA when it comes to high end graphics. AMD's fastest card came out over a year ago and is surpassed by Nvidia's 3 top cards (TITAN, 1080,1070). And you are going to have to wait at least 6 months before AMD releases a card that can outperform (or match) Nvidia's top offerings. And by that time Nvidia will have even faster cards.

Which is only an issue if all you care about are graphics cards costing $600+. I just bought another new AMD card a few weeks ago because its price/performance ratio was above anything Nvidia could offer. Just like the last 4-5 AMD cards I've owned.

 

[Spoonie_G]

Which is only an issue if all you care about are graphics cards costing $600+. I just bought another new AMD card a few weeks ago because its price/performance ratio was above anything Nvidia could offer. Just like the last 4-5 AMD cards I've owned.

Which AMD card are you talking about in regards to price performance ratio? The GTX 1070 cost $400 and blows away any single die AMD GPU. The GTX 1060 is faster than a RX 480 and costs about the same price as the RX480. Which AMD card are you talking about?

 

[Creig]

Which AMD card are you talking about in regards to price performance ratio? The GTX 1070 cost $400 and blows away any single die AMD GPU. The GTX 1060 is faster than a RX 480 and costs about the same price as the RX480. Which AMD card are you talking about?

I recently picked up a PowerColor 8GB 1330MHz RX480 for $215 after rebate. Triple fans, dead silent. The only 1060 card that was in that price range was the 3GB version which I wouldn't recommend to anybody. And the 1070 for $400 certainly isn't twice as fast despite being nearly twice as expensive.

 

[Stryke1983]

I recently picked up a PowerColor 8GB 1330MHz RX480 for $215 after rebate. Triple fans, dead silent. The only 1060 card that was in that price range was the 3GB version which I wouldn't recommend to anybody. And the 1070 for $400 certainly isn't twice as fast despite being nearly twice as expensive.

But now you are talking sale prices. I've seen deal alerts for 6GB 1060s at $225 and 1070s in the $350 range. Which removes the price/performance advantage again.

 

[Creig]

But now you are talking sale prices. I've seen deal alerts for 6GB 1060s at $225 and 1070s in the $350 range. Which removes the price/performance advantage again.

Well, at the time I purchased my RX480 there were no 6GB 1060's that were even close to $225. Certainly none with a triple fan cooler.

 

[Activate: AMD]

Which is only an issue if all you care about are graphics cards costing $600+. I just bought another new AMD card a few weeks ago because its price/performance ratio was above anything Nvidia could offer. Just like the last 4-5 AMD cards I've owned.

Which AMD card are you talking about in regards to price performance ratio? The GTX 1070 cost $400 and blows away any single die AMD GPU. The GTX 1060 is faster than a RX 480 and costs about the same price as the RX480. Which AMD card are you talking about?

The unfortunate truth for AMD fans is that for many people it doesn't matter that AMD wins the price to performance ratio at the bottom of the market. If you want to play modern games at high resolutions at high framerates, who gives a crap if the RX480 offers a better value than the 1060 3GB? Your choices are 1070, 1080, or Titan X... nothing from AMD. If you think the $300+ GPU arena is irrelevant to the majority of the market, I would point out that the GTX 970 was (is?) the most popular single GPU on the steam survey. AMD has ceded this market to NV again and again and has nothing to show for it. I don't want to spend $700 on a graphics card just to run 1440p at a decent framerate if I don't need to, but AMD has been letting the side down ever since the 290X, which wasn't exactly a perfect card either. I hope Vega (or really, the card after it since I already have my 1080) is competitive to drive costs down, but I wasn't going to wait over 6 months after the 1080 on the off chance Vega offers what I want.



As an aside, the second most popular GPU was the 960 (lol) which goes to show that lots of people care about things other than price/performance ratios.

 

[Stryke1983]

Well, at the time I purchased my RX480 there were no 6GB 1060's that were even close to $225. Certainly none with a triple fan cooler.

That's my point. If you get a card via a good sale then of course it's likely to be a better deal than the equivalent card from the other vendor. AMD has nothing to match the brand new $170 980Ti I could have bought earlier in the week. Doesn't mean Nvidia has the price/performance lead in that price tier though.

It's hardly the "$600+" range that AMD isn't competing in. More like the $250+ range. And even then the price/performance leader changes between vendors in the different tiers below that price point.

 

[htphm42]

Why do people keep complaining about the $600 price point for the top of the line flagship card; this has been going on forever. Hell, due to inflation, prices were technically much more expensive back then than today. I remember the first card that caught my eyes, the 8800GTX which also when for $600 and the 8800GTS which went for $400. Accounting for inflation rate of around 20% (for around 10 years), that's $720! So, to sum it up it up: I was just a kid and I managed to get myself a 8800GTS, so you should at least be able to get a 1070.

If you can't afford even that much, then maybe consider a different hobby?

 

[Creig]

The unfortunate truth for AMD fans is that for many people it doesn't matter that AMD wins the price to performance ratio at the bottom of the market. If you want to play modern games at high resolutions at high framerates, who gives a crap if the RX480 offers a better value than the 1060 3GB? Your choices are 1070, 1080, or Titan X... nothing from AMD. If you think the $300+ GPU arena is irrelevant to the majority of the market, I would point out that the GTX 970 was (is?) the most popular single GPU on the steam survey. AMD has ceded this market to NV again and again and has nothing to show for it. I don't want to spend $700 on a graphics card just to run 1440p at a decent framerate if I don't need to, but AMD has been letting the side down ever since the 290X, which wasn't exactly a perfect card either. I hope Vega (or really, the card after it since I already have my 1080) is competitive to drive costs down, but I wasn't going to wait over 6 months after the 1080 on the off chance Vega offers what I want.

Guess what? According the latest Steam Survey, over 93% of gamers out there are running 1920x1080 or under. So AMD is ceding a whole 7% of the market solely to Nvidia. Big whoop. An RX480 is plenty good for 1080P and is still decent for 1440P.

As an aside, the second most popular GPU was the 960 (lol) which goes to show that lots of people care about things other than price/performance ratios.

Good for them. I'm not one of them. I prefer to spend my money wisely.

 

[Creig]

Why do people keep complaining about the $600 price point for the top of the line flagship card; this has been going on forever. Hell, due to inflation, prices were technically much more expensive back then than today. I remember the first card that caught my eyes, the 8800GTX which also when for $600 and the 8800GTS which went for $400. Accounting for inflation rate of around 20% (for around 10 years), that's $720! So, to sum it up it up: I was just a kid and I managed to get myself a 8800GTS, so you should at least be able to get a 1070.

If you can't afford even that much, then maybe consider a different hobby?

I could afford to spend just about any amount of money I want on computer hardware. But I only purchase the hardware that I think I need. If an RX480 is good enough for me, who are you to say I need more? You want to buy me a GTX1080 or two, I certainly won't stop you. Otherwise, I'll sit here and happily game on my RX480.

 

[Factum]

Single poster != Videocard markedet.
(But it makes a minority)

The numbers speak for themself...no matter the fluffy feelings.

 

[Creig]

Computer hardware snobs are too funny. Trying to impress each other by spouting how much they've spent.

 

[JustReason]

Single poster != Videocard markedet.
(But it makes a minority)

The numbers speak for themself...no matter the fluffy feelings.

Actually that is how it works. He claimed he spent for what he needed. That is how a great deal of the market is. Then there is the part that buy on WANT, like those morons that bought the TitanX (pascal) sight unseen, before any benches released.

 

[Activate: AMD]

I could afford to spend just about any amount of money I want on computer hardware. But I only purchase the hardware that I think I need. If an RX480 is good enough for me, who are you to say I need more? You want to buy me a GTX1080 or two, I certainly won't stop you. Otherwise, I'll sit here and happily game on my RX480.

I could afford to spend just about any amount of money I want on computer hardware. But I only purchase the hardware that I think I need. If an RX480 is good enough for me, who are you to say I need more? You want to buy me a GTX1080 or two, I certainly won't stop you. Otherwise, I'll sit here and happily game on my RX480.

lol I actively thought better of responding to your response because you obviously have an agenda, but seriously.... you're ignoring the fact that I don't give a shit what the price/performance ratio is (to a point), and many others are just like me. I have a minimum standard that needs to be met. You say you can spend whatever you want, but for whatever reason you've chosen not to. I don't care why, but you've failed to understand the fundamental issue. I don't care who's GPU's I buy, but I have a standard of performance. It might be outside of the "sweet spot", but I'm not willing to compromise. If you can't appreciate that, its your fault, not mine. The 480 doesn't do enough, so I bought a 1080. Why this is some kind of partisan issue is beyond me

Nothing AMD sells does what I want. I'm not quite the "halo" customer, because I'm not going to buy a Titan, but AMD has been dead to me for years. Nothing has changed, and I don't expect it to with Vega. If AMD can't convince me to buy their shit, they are in trouble.

 

[NKD]

lol I actively thought better of responding to your response because you obviously have an agenda, but seriously.... you're ignoring the fact that I don't give a shit what the price/performance ratio is (to a point), and many others are just like me. I have a minimum standard that needs to be met. You say you can spend whatever you want, but for whatever reason you've chosen not to. I don't care why, but you've failed to understand the fundamental issue. I don't care who's GPU's I buy, but I have a standard of performance. It might be outside of the "sweet spot", but I'm not willing to compromise. If you can't appreciate that, its your fault, not mine. The 480 doesn't do enough, so I bought a 1080. Why this is some kind of partisan issue is beyond me

Nothing AMD sells does what I want. I'm not quite the "halo" customer, because I'm not going to buy a Titan, but AMD has been dead to me for years. Nothing has changed, and I don't expect it to with Vega. If AMD can't convince me to buy their shit, they are in trouble.

For 215 for powercolor clocked at 1330 is pretty damn good for 8gb model. I dont know what the issue is here. No one buys everything you might suggest. I am the same way. I could go spend 3k on a computer but I will never spend more than I need. I would look for best deal for 1080p if that was all I was gaming at. I would rather give me 8gb of ram for memory intensive games just in case. Performance vise they are pretty equivalent I can't recommend one over the other but if you can pull at rx480 for $215 that is one heck of a deal. The mean made a decision that best fit his need and at that price his price performance ratio is pretty good. I haven't seen any gtx 1060 6gb go for 225, if you did more power to you. I have had nvidia and amd both, I pick what best fits my needs regardless of opinion of others.

 

[CSI_PC]

For 215 for powercolor clocked at 1330 is pretty damn good for 8gb model. I dont know what the issue is here. No one buys everything you might suggest. I am the same way. I could go spend 3k on a computer but I will never spend more than I need. I would look for best deal for 1080p if that was all I was gaming at. I would rather give me 8gb of ram for memory intensive games just in case. Performance vise they are pretty equivalent I can't recommend one over the other but if you can pull at rx480 for $215 that is one heck of a deal. The mean made a decision that best fit his need and at that price his price performance ratio is pretty good. I haven't seen any gtx 1060 6gb go for 225, if you did more power to you. I have had nvidia and amd both, I pick what best fits my needs regardless of opinion of others.

Built to a price and one of the weaker designed 480s around.
Of course I am seen as being anti-AMD even though I would recommend other AMD models if it fits what the person wants.
So who else to believe, Buildzoid who says it is the worst design so far (in terms of PCB design), due to built to a price IMO.

Yes he says it is safe, but that is not my point, which is it is a cheap design and not necessarily better value than more pricey 480s.

 

[ManofGod]

Why do people keep complaining about the $600 price point for the top of the line flagship card; this has been going on forever. Hell, due to inflation, prices were technically much more expensive back then than today. I remember the first card that caught my eyes, the 8800GTX which also when for $600 and the 8800GTS which went for $400. Accounting for inflation rate of around 20% (for around 10 years), that's $720! So, to sum it up it up: I was just a kid and I managed to get myself a 8800GTS, so you should at least be able to get a 1070.

If you can't afford even that much, then maybe consider a different hobby?

Perhaps it is because I do not think they are worth it? Perhaps you are just used to overspending for these cards?

 

[KazeoHin]

Perhaps it is because I do not think they are worth it? Perhaps you are just used to overspending for these cards?

Something is worth what people are prepared to pay.


What are you going to do... buy from the competition?

 

[5150Joker]

I'm surprised this thread reached 4 pages really. AMD doesn't compete against NVIDIA anymore and hasn't been able to for a few years now. Why do people still expect this? They're a budget brand and that is their target market, just leave it at that.

 

[Mchart]

Guess what? According the latest Steam Survey, over 93% of gamers out there are running 1920x1080 or under. So AMD is ceding a whole 7% of the market solely to Nvidia. Big whoop. An RX480 is plenty good for 1080P and is still decent for 1440P.



Good for them. I'm not one of them. I prefer to spend my money wisely.

I would not considering a 480 plenty decent for 1440p when using my 980 wasn't good enough. (And this is after overclocking it to 1400mhz which is a good 15-20% faster then stock) Maybe if you're sticking with couple year old games.. But for the latest games a 480 isn't going to cut it at 1440p unless you're fine with low/medium graphics settings or poor framerates.

Now I will say anything last gen / the 480 is good for 1080p. So you're right - They've got it where the market share is greater. Although i'll point out that many OEM PC builders don't use AMD as the default option.

This is why the 960 is so widespread in hardware surveys. It wasn't particularly a good card but it was used in a shitload of different OEM builds.

 

[Creig]

I would not considering a 480 plenty decent for 1440p when using my 980 wasn't good enough. (And this is after overclocking it to 1400mhz which is a good 15-20% faster then stock) Maybe if you're sticking with couple year old games.. But for the latest games a 480 isn't going to cut it at 1440p unless you're fine with low/medium graphics settings or poor framerates.

You're forgetting that GCN generally has higher performance in DX12 than DX11 where your 980 was better at DX11 than it is at DX12. And AMD cards already seem to age better than Nvidia cards so I fully expect performance to keep increasing the longer I own it. Vulkan also brings out extra performance in AMD cards as it's based on Mantle. But we'll have to see if it catches on or not.

 

[Creig]

I'm surprised this thread reached 4 pages really. AMD doesn't compete against NVIDIA anymore and hasn't been able to for a few years now. Why do people still expect this? They're a budget brand and that is their target market, just leave it at that.

AMD competes just fine against Nvidia. Just because they don't sell $600-$1,000 video cards doesn't mean they aren't competing in the other categories. Sounds more like somebody is salty that they overspent on $2,000 worth of Titan X's.

 

[razor1]

AMD competes just fine against Nvidia. Just because they don't sell $600-$1,000 video cards doesn't mean they aren't competing in the other categories. Sounds more like somebody is salty that they overspent on $2,000 worth of Titan X's.

They are not competing well against nV, they don't have money to fuel their R&D for next gen products, the longer they don't get more margin products, the worse it is, R&D fuels the further progress of next gen products, AMD started cutting down their graphics division R&D since 2010? How long does it take make a GPU from design to Tape out? Around that time right? That means when AMD cut down R&D its affecting these product lines that are coming out now! And they still haven't increased R&D that we know about for their GPU's, they have increased marketing for their Graphics group which definitely seemed to have worked on you....

 

[KazeoHin]

AMD competes just fine against Nvidia. Just because they don't sell $600-$1,000 video cards doesn't mean they aren't competing in the other categories. Sounds more like somebody is salty that they overspent on $2,000 worth of Titan X's.

As someone who has bought two (maxwell) TiX cards, I can say this:

I WANT to buy an AMD card (or two) for my next upgrade. But they simply don't have anything out there that can compete with my current setup, or even half of my current setup. I really want to buy an AMD product for both practical and personal reasons. I just have no product to buy! If AMD comes out with a card that can look the TiXP in the eye, then I will consider upgrading to that product. But I don't see this happening until the next Titan comes out.

 

[Mchart]

You're forgetting that GCN generally has higher performance in DX12 than DX11 where your 980 was better at DX11 than it is at DX12. And AMD cards already seem to age better than Nvidia cards so I fully expect performance to keep increasing the longer I own it. Vulkan also brings out extra performance in AMD cards as it's based on Mantle. But we'll have to see if it catches on or not.

The fact is that across the board the whole magical 'DX12 will make GCN way faster bruh' is just flat out false. If the game isn't running fast enough already under DX11 running it under DX12 will either worsen performance (On both AMD and NVidia) or give such small gains that it's irrelevant.

The fanboy in you is so obvious.

There isn't a single game out there where DX12 will magically bring the performance levels of a 480 high enough that it means someone wouldn't need to buy a 1070 (or better) instead.

If I look at the three games in my collection w/ DX12 support (DX:MD, BF1, and Hitman) none of them would benefit me running under DX12 even if I had a 480.

Unless your only goal in life is to play ashes of singularity for the benchmark mode that 480 isn't going to magically play the above listed titles at a stable 60FPS @ 1440p w/ max settings.

 

[CSI_PC]

The fact is that across the board the whole magical 'DX12 will make GCN way faster bruh' is just flat out false. If the game isn't running fast enough already under DX11 running it under DX12 will either worsen performance (On both AMD and NVidia) or give such small gains that it's irrelevant.

The fanboy in you is so obvious.

There isn't a single game out there where DX12 will magically bring the performance levels of a 480 high enough that it means someone wouldn't need to buy a 1070 (or better) instead.

If I look at the three games in my collection w/ DX12 support (DX:MD, BF1, and Hitman) none of them would benefit me running under DX12 even if I had a 480.

Unless your only goal in life is to play ashes of singularity for the benchmark mode that 480 isn't going to magically play the above listed titles at a stable 60FPS @ 1440p w/ max settings.

Yep,
the poster child for DX12 and async was AoTS, but now days Nvidia is on a near level playing field and can be a bit faster even ignoring DX11.

That is using PresentMon, which is probably the best independent way of benchmarking performance, with higher cards the 980ti is outperforming Fury X now at 1440p with crazy and 4xMSAA (key point independent benchmark tool for real-game analysis)
Where the perception is that DX12 is better for AMD is in games that seem to be closely worked with AMD or from a console background and then ported.
Quantum Break was initially used to show how much better DX12 is on one IHV, but then what tanked the game initially on Nvidia is the development and implementation of post processing effects and volumetric lighting.
However with more time spent with DX11 and so better optimising for PC, turns out the volumetric lighting/engine related-integrated effects no longer kills Nvidia cards; that situation is pretty similar to how Fallout games can heavily hurt AMD cards as Fallout is heavily optimised at a rendering and AO/volumetric ligting levels with Nvidia cards.

Hitman is another classic example where in DX12 AMD beats Nvidia by a large margin, but then also in DX11 AMD beats Nvidia by a good margin as well, an MSI 470 can just beat the Nvidia 980 in that game.

But I do see AMD has the advantage now because of the amount of time given to AAA games developed on consoles (considering their architecture is ubiquitous as GCN much more resources given here, and especially as AMD has developed GPUOpen to assist development between console and PC) and then ported, meaning Nvidia has to be even more engaged with individual developers and individual games than they were in the past.
The last point could be stretching that department/team until Nvidia comes up with a solution/restructuring, and possibly why initially the driver quality dropped off as well.
Need to see how it all pans out, but AoTS is a case showing that Nvidia can catch up in DX12, what may need to be watched is 'Day1' port releases and DX12 performance advantage for AMD, Battlefield 1 is an example where Pascal is losing a lot more performance than it should (losses should be less and between 1% to 3%) in DX12 for now.
However the recent released DX12 Gears of War 4 again shows the 980ti outperforming a Fury X, when analysed with the independent PresentMon; and even the latest update test with Async Compute gave Pascal 3% gains (even though it is still not truly enabled and just crude re-org at driver level, same trend is seen with AoTS who state it is still disabled in their game for Nvidia) and Fury X 8%.
As reference the Palit 1060 is around 2% slower than the Asus 480 Strix Gaming in Gears of War, key point again is using a good independent frame analyser, latest chart with several AMD/Nvidia models near very bottom: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Gears-of-War-4-Spiel-55621/Specials/Performance-Test-Review-1209651/

Cheers

 

[htphm42]

I could afford to spend just about any amount of money I want on computer hardware. But I only purchase the hardware that I think I need. If an RX480 is good enough for me, who are you to say I need more? You want to buy me a GTX1080 or two, I certainly won't stop you. Otherwise, I'll sit here and happily game on my RX480.

If you're happy with your RX480, then good for you. I'm just saying that prices have been this high for high end products since forever. People should stop complaining about it since it'll be this way for a very long time, unless another company all of a sudden jump in and say: look here we have a new gpu that's better and we'll sell it for peanuts. If AMD were in Nvidia position right now, I'll bet you their high end card will cost around $600. It does suck, but it's also just economic man. When you make a product that's superior to your opponent in every way possible, you'll charge more for it. That's the premium.

 

[Creig]

The fact is that across the board the whole magical 'DX12 will make GCN way faster bruh' is just flat out false. If the game isn't running fast enough already under DX11 running it under DX12 will either worsen performance (On both AMD and NVidia) or give such small gains that it's irrelevant.

I never said DX12 will make GCN "way faster bruh". What I said is that DX12 is generally faster for AMD than DX11 was while DX11 was generally faster for the 980 than DX12 has been so far. Of course you'll find some that perform in the opposite direction. That's only to be expected. But my general statement still stands.

The fanboy in you is so obvious.

Pot, meet kettle.

There isn't a single game out there where DX12 will magically bring the performance levels of a 480 high enough that it means someone wouldn't need to buy a 1070 (or better) instead.

I game at 1080P. I don't need to waste an additional $200 on a 1070 to game at that resolution.

If I look at the three games in my collection w/ DX12 support (DX:MD, BF1, and Hitman) none of them would benefit me running under DX12 even if I had a 480.

I don't play those games.

Unless your only goal in life is to play ashes of singularity for the benchmark mode that 480 isn't going to magically play the above listed titles at a stable 60FPS @ 1440p w/ max settings.

If those are the games you play and 1440P is the resolution you game at and you have to have all settings maxed and you need full 60 FPS, then a 480 may not be for you. For the games I play at 1080P, an RX480 is plenty.

 

[Creig]

Built to a price and one of the weaker designed 480s around.
Of course I am seen as being anti-AMD even though I would recommend other AMD models if it fits what the person wants.
So who else to believe, Buildzoid who says it is the worst design so far (in terms of PCB design), due to built to a price IMO.
Yes he says it is safe, but that is not my point, which is it is a cheap design and not necessarily better value than more pricey 480s.

I'm not overclocking it, so why do I need super-uber-military-grade components? As long as it doesn't burst into flames like EVGA 1080/1070 cards I'll be happy.

 

[CSI_PC]

I'm not overclocking it, so why do I need super-uber-military-grade components? As long as it doesn't burst into flames like EVGA 1080/1070 cards I'll be happy.

Wow talk about taking it to extremes...
It is more underspec than anything else out there to date for the 480.
So not sure how you think all other 480s are using super-uber-military-grade components...

 

[Creig]

Wow talk about taking it to extremes...
It is more underspec than anything else out there to date for the 480.
So not sure how you think all other 480s are using super-uber-military-grade components...

If it performs just fine as advertised from the factory, why would it need to be better?

 

[Mchart]

I never said DX12 will make GCN "way faster bruh". What I said is that DX12 is generally faster for AMD than DX11 was while DX11 was generally faster for the 980 than DX12 has been so far. Of course you'll find some that perform in the opposite direction. That's only to be expected. But my general statement still stands.


Pot, meet kettle.


I game at 1080P. I don't need to waste an additional $200 on a 1070 to game at that resolution.


I don't play those games.


If those are the games you play and 1440P is the resolution you game at and you have to have all settings maxed and you need full 60 FPS, then a 480 may not be for you. For the games I play at 1080P, an RX480 is plenty.

Bruh,

You're the one that brought up a 480 being 'plenty decent' for 1440p and how DX12 would magically make it run better, somehow in the future. It isn't, and never will be.

I'm glad you only need to game at 1080p - Because you're right. A 480 is enough. As was my 980. But you can't tell people to stick with AMD when AMD offers nothing to compete with even a 1070 which for NVidia is still third man on the totem pole. Most enthusiasts, especially on this website, have moved or are moving to at least 1440p.