AMD Reveals their new Graphics card, out June 29th and cost 199USD

The new Radeon seems to deliver great bang for buck and is positioned to compete against 1070 performance wise at more attractive price point.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/05/amd-rx-480-polaris-release-date-price-specs/

 

Where did you get it would compete with 1070 performance wise? I know its great value for money but I doubt its gonna be a top end card

 

It was another article...it said it was going to be performing slightly worse than 1070....so yeah competing against but coming slightly short.. =O

 

Haha, sorry if i came off with an agressive tone, wasnt intended

 

hehe no worries...graphics cards always brings up heated debates... =O

 

Cool, sweat price point and hopefully good performance.

So GTX 1070 at $400 or AMD RX 480 at $ 200?

Now we just need a nice price drop in VR HMD's.

 

So I could have two RX480s for the price of a GTX 1070 and 3 for the price of a GTX 1080?

Will a 1070 be twice as fast as a 480, or a 1080 3x?



NB: Note Ashes of the Singularity tends to work better on AMD hardware, other games vary.

 

Many people also prefer having one powerful card to the headaches that can come with multicard

 

Saying that, the closer the competition the better

 

Good point and often dual cards are released by third parties. Although this is the first of 3 GPU families AMD are releasing over the next couple of years.

Personally HBM 2.0 (High Bandwidth Memory 2.0) will probably be where we get the largest boost in this new generation of GPU's.

 

Just don't forget that even if performance increases to the levels of a GTX 1070 or 1080, the available video memory will still be limited to the RX480's 4GB. Both the GTX 1070 and 1080 have 8GB and last I was aware the 1060 will have 6GB.

 

Are you sure as third party GPU makers could boost the base memory config (uses GDDR5 not HBM)?

 

How many third party GPUs have you seen with an increased amount of video memory that didn't sacrifice something to achieve it? I know the lower end of the spectrum tends to have cards with large capacities but they also tend to use normal DDR instead of GDDR.

That said if it's within the limits of a third party manufacturer what's stopping them from doing it with the NVIDIA cards too?

 

Do games need > 4GB, AMD brought out the Fury and Nano with 4 GB HBM did games suffer because of this?

http://techreport.com/blog/28800/how-much-video-memory-is-enough

Sounds like it should be OK for 4k and current level VR games but maybe not multi-4k rigs or next gen VR.

 

I feel like atm most current games dont particuarly need 4GB+
But given what some games are already pushing (4k shadow of mordor with HD texture packs) I wouldnt be suprised if increasingly more games need >4GB

 

I just picked up a graphics amp for my Alienware 13. This would do perfect. Unless the Nvidia drivers for my 960m mess it up?

 

4GB of video memory is fine for resolutions like 1920x1080 (1080p), 2560x1440 (1440p), 3840x2160 (4K). For gaming at higher resolutions like 5760x3240 and 7680x4320 (8k), 4GB is not enough. The big question is what resolution do you plan to play your favorite games at. If you only plan to play games at 1920x1080 or 2560x1440, then 4GB is definitely enough video memory.

 

What happens in Unity if you attempt to overload the memory of a GPU?

 

I'm more interested in the 490.. I'm fine with sacrificing some TDP for the cost of the card, $200.00 for a card not far from a 390X (which I got to replace a 780 and for game dev pounds it into the ground) is pretty damn good.

I might check out a 1080, but I was so dissapointed with the 7XX cards I've become GPU neutral again. Although the Nvidia 980M is still one of the best Mobile GPU's I've ever come across, not being that far off the 390X.

Nvidia do make some very impressive cards (sometimes)..

 

I'm glad to see such budget VR ready cards preparing to enter the market. It really shows how dedicated companies are to making VR a reality for the majority of gamers.

 

I'd be hesitant to conclude they'll hold up for virtual reality though when there are very few titles and headsets available.

 

If these or similar become the de-facto entry level cards then they're just what everyone's going to have to aim for. I know that VR is demanding and all, but (good) developers have been implementing demanding applications on limited hardware for ages now.

 

Either way, the dedication of companies towards entry level VR is promising for today's VR expectations as well as tomorrow's. Hopefully, these cards will last a while until another upgrade is required.

 

Actually if you look at the price history of LED panels they tend to drop quite quickly, especially when a new high end panel appears. Hopefully we should see a drop in price of VR HMD's as new higher resolution panels turn up.

Also we could see Unification of the hardware in VR (teardown of HTC Vive, step 10,11) as currently they have lots of separate chips (about 10+ in HMD, 6+ in Lighthouse, 2+ in controllers ) that could be combined into dedicated silicon.

So just like the smartphone market we could see an annual VR HMD cycle, at least until they hit about 6k resolution the upper resolution limit of our eyes.

And drops in price of older models, and hopefully newer models with more unified silicon.

 

The main limiting factor for HMDs is our hardware though
no point having 144Hz 8k panels if no one can drive them

 

Yes, but there are a great number of monitor manufacturers. By contrast there are only a few HMD companies. Just look at what happens in similar situations with other markets. With only two companies the GPU market is largely price fixed.

 

In VR they can cheat and use eye tracking and foveated rendering as the resolution of your eye and it's colour sensitivity drops as you move away from the 'center'.

 

The 970 is the baseline for VR it's pretty much what everyone has. Games aim for 90hz on a 970 and that's not going to change for a while I don't think. Presumably a 1060 or 470 will be similar performance for a cheaper price.

 

So if at $200 it can compete with 1070... you could have two of them with crossfire technology, and have amazing graphical capabilities for $400.

EDIT: Which is what Arowx said much earlier lol

 

Of course, the odds of that being the case are near-nil, seeing as these cards have half the memory and aren't designed to compete with the 1070 in the first place.

 

#7

 

They're only evaluating it with a single title and it isn't a graphically heavy one either. We'll just have to wait and see if 4GB really can hold up for the more demanding titles. If it fails to then it might not stand a chance with VR either.

 

We will also need to keep an eye on game support and various glitches when using crossfire. Even if two AMD cards manages to match the performance of a single Nvidia card at the same price, there are some situations where the single card works better. For example, maybe there will be some VR title that needs the performance of two AMD cards but ends up not working properly with two cards in crossfire. Maybe a driver glitch or a game bug. It is hard to predict that stuff, but there is a history of edge cases where two cards ended up being a headache.

 

Damn. Ran the numbers and quickly discovered that 8k means 33 million pixels, meaning that screen buffer alone can easily eat a gigabyte. For example: 32bit backbuffer, 32bit depth/stencil, and let's say floating point buffer with 64bit per pixel. That's 16 bytes per pixel. So in 8k that'll be 530841600 bytes for the screen. And a game that heavily uses post effects will need more than that.

 

Good article here -> http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/2...y-x-faces-off-with-nvidias-gtx-980-ti-titan-x

 

Judging by TV sales nobody cares about the limits of practical benefits. Big numbers are easy to sell! This TV is better than that TV because bigger numbers!

Never mind that when you're sitting at TV viewing distance and it's less than planet sized you can't see those extra pixels anyway...

 

Human vision is a bit too complex to be simply compared to a flat resolution. After all the pixels of a monitor are spread evenly but the cone and rod cells are not. Cone cells are more densely packed the closer you get to the center and the rod cells are the exact opposite.

 

The last I checked human eyes can resolve 512k (thanks micro movement), but that doesn't translate in screen size exactly. Foveated rendering can help keep those number smaler

 

Pixel size is really important. Two HMD with 1080p screens but one has pixels that take up more space on screen while the other has black areas between make it really obvious that the smaller black lines the better. Three subpixels instead of pentile can make a big difference.

 

It'll come with 8GB as well, from the article: "The RX 480 will come in both 4GB and 8GB configurations (the former being the £160/$200 model)"

 

Wow. Reading over the article again I don't know how I missed that. I wonder what the price difference will be.

 

Not big according to the nx gamer who make hardware analysis on youtube, I think it's 240$ at best for the 8gb model

 

So... it'll be just like the GTX 960 where the 2GB model was discontinued almost immediately.

 

How's AMD drivers support these days?

 

So 200$ and you got same performance as 1070 GTX ?

 

No. We don't have any reasonable benchmarks.