Latest Rumors: "Polaris 10" performs "close" to a 980ti

Zion Halcyon

Zion Halcyon

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
2,108
From the article:

If AMD can manage to launch a card at around $329 US with better efficiency and performance close to 980 Ti with twice the VRAM of Fury X, they can have a great product in their hands which many users will be willing to upgrade to. AMD Polaris looks to be an incremental step for team red in the efficiency game, it will be great to see competitive products from AMD in the coming months which will be built for DirectX 12 and VR Gaming. You can see the leaked specifications in the table below:

Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-polaris-10-desktop-polaris-11-notebook-gpu/#ixzz46rIFHozd

​

It appears this is where they are going now, with the $1500 Radeon Pro Duo being their current flagship "Halo" until Vega next year, if the article is to be believed.
 
So if this turns out to be true, what happens to the Fury and Fury X cards. Can't see the point in keeping them around if a card almost half the price is as fast or faster. Or is the Polaris 10 supposed to replace it. i really can't make head or tails over any of these rumors for Polaris or Pascal.
 
Maddness said:
So if this turns out to be true, what happens to the Fury and Fury X cards. Can't see the point in keeping them around if a card almost half the price is as fast or faster. Or is the Polaris 10 supposed to replace it. i really can't make head or tails over any of these rumors for Polaris or Pascal.
Click to expand...

it would make sense if they canned the Fury-X all together with its expensive cooler, Fury might live on though as well as the Nano.
 
Maddness said:
So if this turns out to be true, what happens to the Fury and Fury X cards. Can't see the point in keeping them around if a card almost half the price is as fast or faster. Or is the Polaris 10 supposed to replace it. i really can't make head or tails over any of these rumors for Polaris or Pascal.
Click to expand...

Im expecting them to phase out the Fury line and sell the remaining Fiji chips with the Radeon Duo... I'd expect to see the Fury and Fury X at 400-500 soon, which will make them good buys still.
 
If Polaris 10 is at, or above, Fury X game performance then I could see AMD either EOL the expensive Fury GPU, or shifting it over to FirePRO professional cards only.

Mind you AMD already has their W9100 card and it's MASSIVE 32GB VRAM + at least as much system RAM available to the GPU. So the only real space I would see for the Fury is with VR.
 
Wasn't this a $200 card last week?

If Polaris was anywhere near GM200 then AMD wouldn't be downplaying its performance like they've been doing. This is great news, at this rate Polaris will be 50% faster than the 980 Ti by June and I'll have something to upgrade to.
 
Last edited:
TaintedSquirrel said:
Wasn't this a $200 card last week?

If Polaris was anywhere near GM200 then AMD wouldn't be downplaying its performance like they've been doing. This is great news, at this rate Polaris will be 50% faster than the 980 Ti by June and I'll have something to upgrade to.
Click to expand...


Or you could just upgrade to a Radeon Pro Duo now. Welcome to the new Graphics card leader:

AMD Radeon Pro Duo Benchmark Results Leaked - Dual Fiji GPUs Tested Against GTX 980 Ti and Fury X, 60% Performance Lead at 4K
 
Yakk said:
If Polaris 10 is at, or above, Fury X game performance then I could see AMD either EOL the expensive Fury GPU, or shifting it over to FirePRO professional cards only.

Mind you AMD already has their W9100 card and it's MASSIVE 32GB VRAM + at least as much system RAM available to the GPU. So the only real space I would see for the Fury is with VR.
Click to expand...



I think the Fury and Fury X production can be tapered off with the leftover resources going towards pumping out Pro Duo's, since that's the current Fury heir, and then you just let the Polaris 10 chips fall where they may in terms of performance per watt.
 
What is next "Polaris 10 can walk on water"?

There is a reason Vega is coming next year and it uses HBM2.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
I think the Fury and Fury X production can be tapered off with the leftover resources going towards pumping out Pro Duo's, since that's the current Fury heir, and then you just let the Polaris 10 chips fall where they may in terms of performance per watt.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... Relooking at this... AMD is pushing Fury cards to developers pretty hard, so I can't see them being discontinued for a couple reasons. Game engines overall are currently fine tuned for consoles which +/- equals to Tahiti and Hawaii which is great, with a new stopgap type GPU with Polaris. Next gen will be HBM2. So AMD already started prepping new code with game, and specifically engine developers, in that direction. IMO improved HBM support should be ready by the time Vega gets released.

Polaris seems to be a great new mid-range (equal to almost top range currently) GPU for people who want lower power usage, new consoles, and even Apple who seem very interested in going Full Polaris. Ultimately AMD also needs to prep all these companies for the shift towards Vega and HBM2.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
That's $1500 and the 295 X2 was the leader anyway.
Click to expand...


And at one point, 3DFX was the leader about 10 years ago. We're not talking about the past. We're talking about now and the immediate future.
Yakk said:
Hmmm... Relooking at this... AMD is pushing Fury cards to developers pretty hard, so I can't see them being discontinued for a couple reasons. Game engines overall are currently fine tuned for consoles which +/- equals to Tahiti and Hawaii which is great, with a new stopgap type GPU with Polaris. Next gen will be HBM2. So AMD already started prepping new code with game, and specifically engine developers, in that direction. IMO improved HBM support should be ready by the time Vega gets released.

Polaris seems to be a great new mid-range (equal to almost top range currently) GPU for people who want lower power usage, new consoles, and even Apple who seem very interested in going Full Polaris. Ultimately AMD also needs to prep all these companies for the shift towards Vega and HBM2.
Click to expand...


I never said they would discontinue the line, but the Radeon Pro Duo IS 2 Fury's in CF on a single card. So in terms of production, they can repurpose them to use in Pro Duos. That was my point. We all know the new Flagship is coming in 2017 with Vega, but I was merely talking about the short term here in the meantime.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
And at one point, 3DFX was the leader about 10 years ago. We're not talking about the past. We're talking about now and the immediate future.



I never said they would discontinue the line, but the Radeon Pro Duo IS 2 Fury's in CF on a single card. So in terms of production, they can repurpose them to use in Pro Duos. That was my point. We all know the new Flagship is coming in 2017 with Vega, but I was merely talking about the short term here in the meantime.
Click to expand...

Only issue there is. How many chips do they have left and how many cards do they expect to sell for $1500. Whilst the Fury Pro is an absolute beast, one would think at that price it has a very limited market.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Wasn't this a $200 card last week?

If Polaris was anywhere near GM200 then AMD wouldn't be downplaying its performance like they've been doing. This is great news, at this rate Polaris will be 50% faster than the 980 Ti by June and I'll have something to upgrade to.
Click to expand...
They would if there is inventory to move still.

Darakian said:
No you idiot! Polaris 10 turns water into wine. 11 is the one that can walk on water!
Click to expand...
You need to get your facts straight. It's powered by a potato battery and distills vodka in the cooling process, not wine!
 
"Close" could easily fall under 20% slower, which is 390x performance level (stock versus stock).

In other words, we're back at the rumors we had last week. Nothing to see here, just another clickbait article from WCCF.
 
I dont know, 3dmark results are pretty concrete. AMD "cheated" a little with Fury X's performance estimate but how do you cheat 3dmark?
 
Suddenly, Nvidia needs to Git Gud.

resize
 
This is what everyone is talking about.

The Polaris 10 GPU is said to have 3DMark Firestrike Ultra performance around 4000 points which is about what a Radeon R9 Fury X and GeForce GTX 980 Ti score. By 4000 points, we don’t mean exactly 4000 but it’s actually a bit less than that.

Which is a meaningless statement to me.
 
Aquineas said:
Meh. It looks like the big guns won't be out until Vega.
Click to expand...

Well if you only buy flagships then yes you're right. If your heart is set on HBM2 then you have to wait for next year as AMD and Nvidia are revealing that tech then. These are the mainstream cards to replace Hawaii. I just want one for the new encoder and mess around with that.
 
cageymaru said:
This is what everyone is talking about.

The Polaris 10 GPU is said to have 3DMark Firestrike Ultra performance around 4000 points which is about what a Radeon R9 Fury X and GeForce GTX 980 Ti score. By 4000 points, we don’t mean exactly 4000 but it’s actually a bit less than that.

Which is a meaningless statement to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, saw that. Made me laugh and shake my head. Honestly thought about not posting the article over that statement. But I figured hell, post it and let everyone else come to their own conclusions.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
Yeah, saw that. Made me laugh and shake my head. Honestly thought about not posting the article over that statement. But I figured hell, post it and let everyone else come to their own conclusions.
Click to expand...

I see, you surely could have chosen a more moderate title for the thread though, this seems to be in line with pretty every other rumor, including the leaked ps4k specs
 
Well see that's the problem. How close is close? I think that a Fury X is close enough to a 980ti to say that they are pretty much tied. But someone that plays Battlefield 4 will say that it's a 20% difference in performance in that game so it isn't close at all. So again how close is close without numbers?

But rumors are always awesome. Need more! :)
 
cageymaru said:
This is what everyone is talking about.

The Polaris 10 GPU is said to have 3DMark Firestrike Ultra performance around 4000 points which is about what a Radeon R9 Fury X and GeForce GTX 980 Ti score. By 4000 points, we don’t mean exactly 4000 but it’s actually a bit less than that.

Which is a meaningless statement to me.
Click to expand...

They should have just rounded up and said "It's almost over 9000".
 
What exactly is Polaris 10? The new APU?

AMD is dead to me as a graphics card. But I am still open to APUs for clients. I stopped following AMD last year.
 
KazeoHin said:
I am looking forward to this, but I'm not expecting a 980Ti replacement from AMD until Vega.
Click to expand...

I hope that Nvidia and AMD inject about 100% more performance into their product lines by next year. All of the VR games look like Nintendo Virtual Boy games. Since I have little interest in chasing virtual balls across the room, I have even less interest in VR to this point. I'd rather wait and buy a HDR monitor and hook it to my R9 290 at this point.
 
cageymaru said:
This is what everyone is talking about.

The Polaris 10 GPU is said to have 3DMark Firestrike Ultra performance around 4000 points which is about what a Radeon R9 Fury X and GeForce GTX 980 Ti score. By 4000 points, we don’t mean exactly 4000 but it’s actually a bit less than that.

Which is a meaningless statement to me.
Click to expand...
Well the more obvious question is what's the score for 1440p and 1080p given fury X was touted to beat the 980ti in AMD benchmarks which seemed to be very specific why proper benchmarks and reviews can mean so much.
 
Semantics said:
Well the more obvious question is what's the score for 1440p and 1080p given fury X was touted to beat the 980ti in AMD benchmarks which seemed to be very specific why proper benchmarks and reviews can mean so much.
Click to expand...

I'm going to take a stab at trying to understand what you just said.

I don't actually know of any 'AMD benchmarks', unless you mean 'benchmarks performed by AMD'.

And everyone knows the Fury line of cards scale better with resolution than Nvidia's cards: so that's not exactly controversial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top