AMD officially classifies Polaris 10 as mainstream desktop GPU and high-end notebook GPU

[bbqsauce]

the enthusiast market isn't where the money is at. mainstream i.e 970/390 and lower is where the bulk of the market is. why launch a flagship card that would more than likely make up the minority of their margin when you can lead your launch with what makes you actual money.
So it makes sense to launch the more mainstream class cards first that will more than likely go into prebuilts and laptops.

We should also take the word "mainstream" with a pinch of salt nowadays. AMD seems to be pushing VR to be mainstream and a 970/390 class card is like the minimum. Extrapolating from that and it would say that the "new mainstream" would likely be above 970/390 in performance

[Doobeedoo]

Polaris aside, I'm sure everyone are mainly interested in flagship Vega with HBM2 cause that will be truly Fury X successor.

[RagnarokDel]

Except they already demo'd Polaris 10 running Hitman 2016 at 1440p 60 fps which even the 980 TI and Fury X dont do... so huh

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, RagnarokDel said:

Except they already demo'd Polaris 10 running Hitman 2016 at 1440p 60 fps which even the 980 TI and Fury X dont do... so huh

at what settings?!

 

also: https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/hitman-2016-pc-graphics-performance-benchmark-review,6.html

 

[Notional]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

at what settings?!

 

also: https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/hitman-2016-pc-graphics-performance-benchmark-review,6.html

 

So according to this bench, a Polaris 10 full fat chip is marginally worse than a 980ti. Yeah AMD, you are really screwing yourself over løl

[Tomsen]

4 minutes ago, zMeul said:

at what settings?!

 

also: https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/hitman-2016-pc-graphics-performance-benchmark-review,6.html

 

That is still over TWICE the FPS of what you proclaim the performance to be..

[RagnarokDel]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

at what settings?!

 

also: https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/hitman-2016-pc-graphics-performance-benchmark-review,6.html

 

I should have put an asterisk. I dont remember the exact numbers but both the Fury X and 980 TI were just shy of it. As for settings, Directx 12 ultra settings is the only thing that makes sense.

[zMeul]

Just now, RagnarokDel said:

I should have put an asterisk. I dont remember the exact numbers but both the Fury X and 980 TI were just shy of it. As for settings, Directx 12 ultra settings is the only thing that makes sense.

not when you are AMD and want to overhype the crap out of shit you want to sell

also, difference between low and maximum settings is barely noticeable: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Hitman-Spiel-6333/Specials/DirectX-12-Benchmark-Test-1188758/ (scroll somewhere to the middle)

[LAwLz]

I vote for banning all Pascal and Polaris threads until they are released. Look at this shit show. Both sides are awful. On one side we got zMeul which in 95% of his posts bash AMD, and on the other side we got the people who in 95% of their posts throw around ad hominem attacks and seem to be more interested in attacking zMeul than to actually talk about the topic at hand.

Both sides just seem interested in making the other side look as bad as possible.

 

 

 

 

On topic: These are disappointing news. I was expecting Polaris 10 to be the 390X replacement. But maybe that's my fault for not following the rumors that thoroughly (which seem to contradict each other every time we hear something new).

Now, some might argue that AMD are changing their definition of "mainstream" but I really don't see any reason to believe that. To be honest, it sounds like the kind of mental gymnastics someone might do to avoid being disappointed. If you want a high end AMD card it seems like you will have to wait for Vega which will hopefully come later this year or early next year.

[patrickjp93]

11 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

If they have nothing else in the pipeline, and it is all true, than AMD is doing the same mistake they have done with the AMD Athlon 64 AM2 Socket, where they decided to no longer be the competitor of Intel high-end chips (they were with Socket 939 Athlon 64 X2 chips).

 

But I think they will have a high-end chip soon after... maybe they are waiting for HBM2 to be more affordable. Heck, Nvidia's Pascal won't have HBM2... maybe the Titan that will be released later on, and that would be probably be sold at 1000$.

 

You mean GP 100 which will be for sale before the close of this year (at least in Quadro form since the Teslas are already being sold through Nvidia's special supercomputers).

[BuckGup]

I am waiting until Volta. As this will yield HBM2 and some more

[ivan134]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I vote for banning all Pascal and Polaris threads until they are released. Look at this shit show. Both sides are awful. On one side we got zMeul which in 95% of his posts bash AMD, and on the other side we got the people who in 95% of their posts throw around ad hominem attacks and seem to be more interested in attacking zMeul than to actually talk about the topic at hand.

Both sides just seem interested in making the other side look as bad as possible.

 

 

 

 

On topic: These are disappointing news. I was expecting Polaris 10 to be the 390X replacement. But maybe that's my fault for not following the rumors that thoroughly (which seem to contradict each other every time we hear something new).

Now, some might argue that AMD are changing their definition of "mainstream" but I really don't see any reason to believe that. To be honest, it sounds like the kind of mental gymnastics someone might do to avoid being disappointed. If you want a high end AMD card it seems like you will have to wait for Vega which will hopefully come later this year or early next year.

This response right here is why he should be ridiculed and ignored. You are now trying to have a legitimate discussion based on some BS someone pulled out of thin air. AMD has already demoed Polaris 10 at Capsaicin running Hitman at 1440p locked 60 fps with no dips below 60 fps. That is Fury performance right there so either Polaris 10 Pro or XT gives Fury level performance at least. This means either of 2 things: The demo was of Polaris 10 XT and we can expect Polaris 10 Pro to be 390x performance, or the demo was of Polaris 10 Pro and we can expect Polaris 10 XT to be Fury X performance. This is not based on a rumor. This is based on something we've actually seen (although the video has since been deleted).

 

If you want more evidence as to why to not take his topics seriously, look at his response when presented with facts that contradict his delusions. He is now implying that AMD was fudging the demo. He and a few others did the same thing when Polaris 11 was demoed against a 950. They were saying that the benchmark was not believable unless we saw the entire video of how the demo was setup, including driver settings. Also, once again in this thread, he said he's biased against AMD.

 

Accurately calling out someone's BS =/= bias. It's called telling the truth. He heard a word and went full Alex Jones tin foil hat and started connecting imaginary dots. You'll have to forgive me if I'm not willing to waste my time discussing the conslusions of a raving lunatic.

[Dabombinable]

As long as Polaris is used in Zen APU (with HBM in some of them-even if it takes until 2019-2020), then I'll be saying up front that I don't give 2 shits what they do with mobile dGPU. However, if its Zen APU with previous graphics architectures without HBM and only the high end mobile dGPU being Polaris then I'm going to be a bit pissed. I do not want to have to fork out a shitload to get a laptop with a CPU+iGPU (or APU collectively)+dGPU combo again to get decent performance after experiencing the thermal issues caused by that particular setup. I'll be wanting 1 chip at most putting out loads of heat. Not 2-4 (the third or fourth depending on the combination being the Southbridge which handles the graphics switching).

[Humbug]

We already knew that Vega is the high end part..

 

 

 

 

[deviant88]

if moore law died some time ago, and they really dont have anything more up their sleeve then i guess its going to be a long time between upgrades, icant see myself pay another 350euro for a polaris/pascal equivalent gpu if the performance is not at least 2x flat, otherwise i could just buy another 2nd hand gtx 670 and sli, still not the same thing but much cheaper than this new 14nm crap

[Kobz360]

16 hours ago, zMeul said:

what mainstream means?! well .. you're not going to like it - it's about the performance level of a R9 260X or a R7 360X

I've called it! the information leaked about Polaris 10 was not encouraging at all - AMD is out of their minds if the spearhead of their new generation GPUs are low end and mid range brackets

and the performance bracket for Polaris 11 looks even worse, as it targets specifically the notebook market - meaning it's at the level of R7 240

 

What? Polaris 11 was already demoed against a 950 in SW: Battlefront. It is not at the level of an R7 240. What is wrong with you? All it means is AMD is either reconsidering how to define "mainstream" or the "mainstream" segment just got a whole of a lot powerful. I'm sure the same will happen with NVIDIA. 

 

Polaris 10 has also been demoed w/ the new Hitman at 1440p/60fps (numerous people have said this already in the thread). Another thing, why are they "out of their minds" for launching their fresh line of GPUs with non-high end cards? NVIDIA launched Maxwell with the 750/Ti cards and secondly, all of us already knew Vega (high-end GPU) wasn't coming out until later. We're simply seeing a significant shift in performance brackets; something that has taken far too long to occur. What we consider today to be high-end performing cards will be the mid-end of tomorrow. 

[rattacko123]

14 hours ago, zMeul said:

AMD demoed a Polaris based video card against a GTX950 - that's the level of performance I'm expecting ...

AMD also demoed a polaris based video card running hitman at 1440p60fps on ultra, that's the kind of performance I am expecting.

I expect that polaris 10 will be r9 390X level performance+some new features that can bring the minimum fps up (such as the new geometry culling accelerator)
polaris 11 will probably be about r9 380 level or gtx 950/960 level

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, ivan134 said:

This response right here is why he should be ridiculed and ignored. You are now trying to have a legitimate discussion based on some BS someone pulled out of thin air. AMD has already demoed Polaris 10 at Capsaicin running Hitman at 1440p locked 60 fps with no dips below 60 fps. That is Fury performance right there so either Polaris 10 Pro or XT gives Fury level performance at least. This means either of 2 things: The demo was of Polaris 10 XT and we can expect Polaris 10 Pro to be 390x performance, or the demo was of Polaris 10 Pro and we can expect Polaris 10 XT to be Fury X performance. This is not based on a rumor. This is based on something we've actually seen (although the video has since been deleted).

1) Nothing I said was pulled out of thin air. Everything I said can be found on AMD's own website. I didn't even read zMeul's post. I went to amd.com and read it for myself, then Googled to see what other cards AMD has classified as mainstream before.

2) I never trust benchmarks from the company itself. I don't trust benchmark numbers Nvidia publishes either. If it is true that the midrange card (I think everyone agrees at this point that Polaris 10 isn't the high end stuff, Vega is) will perform better than the Fury X (which doesn't manage 60 FPS in Hitman at all times with the game maxed out) then that's great for us. I want to see more evidence than a short clip from AMD's own setup before taking it as fact though. I actually wouldn't be surprised if it was true by the way, but more on that later (last part of the post).

 

 

5 hours ago, ivan134 said:

If you want more evidence as to why to not take his topics seriously, look at his response when presented with facts that contradict his delusions. He is now implying that AMD was fudging the demo. He and a few others did the same thing when Polaris 11 was demoed against a 950. They were saying that the benchmark was not believable unless we saw the entire video of how the demo was setup, including driver settings. Also, once again in this thread, he said he's biased against AMD.

 

5 hours ago, ivan134 said:

Accurately calling out someone's BS =/= bias. It's called telling the truth. He heard a word and went full Alex Jones tin foil hat and started connecting imaginary dots. You'll have to forgive me if I'm not willing to waste my time discussing the conslusions of a raving lunatic.

Wow, when did I say you were biased? Seems like you are projecting a lot right now. I said the other side seemed more interested in throwing around ad hominem at zMeul instead of discussing the actual topic at hand. I never said one side was right or wrong, just that both sides seemed more interested in talking shit about the other side. I think your own post is evidence of this as well, since you dedicated half of it to talking about zMeul as a person instead of the topic at hand.

 

 

 

 

I see a lot of people talking about how "mainstream is getting a lot more powerful", or "mainstream means 260X performance" and I can't help but think that those people seem very new to the world of computer hardware. Of course mainstream cards will become more powerful than the previous generations mainstream cards. That is how new generations of hardware work. It was normal for the new generation's mid-range card to be as powerful as the previous generations high-end card up until fairly recently. For example the 7850 was as powerful as the 6970. It's only been the last few generations we haven't seen huge leaps in performance across the board because we have been stuck on the same transistor size for so long. Polaris will hopefully bring us back on track again.

 

So I think the people who read this and thinks that Polaris 10 will not perform well are the people who are used to crappy improvements from generation to generation (like we have had the last few years). If we go back to the good old days of generational improvements then Polaris 10 should be a mid-range card trading blows with today's high-end card, and Vega (R9-490X or whatever you want to call it) will be significantly more powerful than the Fury X. Going by previous generations as a measurement it wouldn't be a surprise if a single 490X will perform slightly worse than a Crossfire Fury X setup.

 

The disappointing news here is that the high-end performance will be stagnant for another ~6 months, and people like me who really want to upgrade will probably have to wait another 6 months unless we want to buy a card that is suppose to be (and will be once Vega comes out) mid-range tier.

[zMeul]

Just now, Kobz360 said:

What? Polaris 11 was already demoed against a 950 in SW: Battlefront. It is not at the level of an R7 240. What is wrong with you?

perhaps I should've been more clear, let me rectify:

I was referring to the value bracket currently R7 240 is situated, "value"

[Senzelian]

So why do so many people care about a few graphics cards?

I'll just wait and see what happens. If a graphics card performs well for a good price,  I buy it,  if not I don't,  no matter if its called R7 450 or R9 Super Fury XX or even GTX 100008000 Ti. 

[ivan134]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

1) Nothing I said was pulled out of thin air. Everything I said can be found on AMD's own website. I didn't even read zMeul's post. I went to amd.com and read it for myself, then Googled to see what other cards AMD has classified as mainstream before.

2) I never trust benchmarks from the company itself. I don't trust benchmark numbers Nvidia publishes either. If it is true that the midrange card (I think everyone agrees at this point that Polaris 10 isn't the high end stuff, Vega is) will perform better than the Fury X (which doesn't manage 60 FPS in Hitman at all times with the game maxed out) then that's great for us. I want to see more evidence than a short clip from AMD's own setup before taking it as fact though. I actually wouldn't be surprised if it was true by the way, but more on that later (last part of the post).

 

 

 

Wow, when did I say you were biased? Seems like you are projecting a lot right now. I said the other side seemed more interested in throwing around ad hominem at zMeul instead of discussing the actual topic at hand. I never said one side was right or wrong, just that both sides seemed more interested in talking shit about the other side. I think your own post is evidence of this as well, since you dedicated half of it to talking about zMeul as a person instead of the topic at hand.

 

 

 

 

I see a lot of people talking about how "mainstream is getting a lot more powerful", or "mainstream means 260X performance" and I can't help but think that those people seem very new to the world of computer hardware. Of course mainstream cards will become more powerful than the previous generations mainstream cards. That is how new generations of hardware work. It was normal for the new generation's mid-range card to be as powerful as the previous generations high-end card up until fairly recently. For example the 7850 was as powerful as the 6970. It's only been the last few generations we haven't seen huge leaps in performance across the board because we have been stuck on the same transistor size for so long. Polaris will hopefully bring us back on track again.

 

So I think the people who read this and thinks that Polaris 10 will not perform well are the people who are used to crappy improvements from generation to generation (like we have had the last few years). If we go back to the good old days of generational improvements then Polaris 10 should be a mid-range card trading blows with today's high-end card, and Vega (R9-490X or whatever you want to call it) will be significantly more powerful than the Fury X. Going by previous generations as a measurement it wouldn't be a surprise if a single 490X will perform slightly worse than a Crossfire Fury X setup.

 

The disappointing news here is that the high-end performance will be stagnant for another ~6 months, and people like me who really want to upgrade will probably have to wait another 6 months unless we want to buy a card that is suppose to be (and will be once Vega comes out) mid-range tier.

I was never referring to you. The entire post I made was talking about zmuel and not you. Sorry for the confusion.

[Delicieuxz]

3 hours ago, zMeul said:

perhaps I should've been more clear, let me rectify:

I was referring to the value bracket currently R7 240 is situated, "value"

What you were saying is that the the P11 is conjectured (by you) to be equatable to what the R7 240 bracket was at the time of its initial release. But your wording in the OP makes it sound like you're saying the new generation of cards will be comparable to those cards' performances.

 

Also, I hope that's very wrong.

 

I also think that with VR, super widescreen gaming, and 2K & 4K screens, the Mainstream category has grown exponentially in its requirements, as have all the other brackets.

[Delicieuxz]

2 hours ago, Quibiss said:

Because people aren't buying techproducts/games and in this case graphics cards to benefit from their performance, they are buying themselves into a camp of whatever manufacturer they bought from. And they have to justify their purchase by harping on how superior they are (because they bought the superior product, mental gymnastics go deep).

I don't get that stuff. I've always bought the best card out at the time, and that's resulted in my previously owning multiple Nvidia and AMD cards. When buying a graphics card turns into a team sport for someone, the loser is their own gaming rig's gaming performance, and therefore themselves.

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, Quibiss said:

Because people aren't buying techproducts/games and in this case graphics cards to benefit from their performance, they are buying themselves into a camp of whatever manufacturer they bought from. And they have to justify their purchase by harping on how superior they are (because they bought the superior product, mental gymnastics go deep). While it's amusing to some point, it gets quite depressing because you cannot have a civil argument to talk tech anymore, it always ends up in a rabid AMD/Nvidia / Intel/AMD is better and you are wrong pissing contest. That any of those companies only have profit in mind and not their precious customers (we are just open wallets to them) doesn't cross those peoples mind when saying AMD is burning orphanages and Nvidia is the corporate antichrist and Intel clubs babyseals to death. I just hope that the new generation of tech will be all around successful and creates some competition on the market so the consumers/walleteers will benefit from it. 

But Intel DOES club baby seals to death... didn't you know that?

 

 

 

 

 

/s

[NuclearPeace]

Can't say that I really care about what AMD calls it as or what internal benchmarks they do. I would rather wait until third parties review the hardware than take the manufacturer at their word because both AMD and NVIDIA manipulate benchmarks to make their cards look better.

 

There's no point in getting would up by manufacturer hype just to be let down. Everyone saying that Polaris 10 or 11 or whatever the hell is called is going to be really great becasue it can play a game at 1440p and 60fps needs to realize that even my 380x could do that... get a golden chip, overclock the hell out of it, manipulate the game settings to what the card is strong at, and voila, you have 1440p and 60fps.

 

This is why its' better to wait for results from independent reviewers. You can check their testing methodology to see if its fair.