I think AMD's numbers are quite misleading and the 480 might not be that great...

[Prysin]

3 minutes ago, App4that said:

But crossfire doesn't work in many games, the reason AMD themselves had to use Ashes. That's not a representation of real world performance. SLI scales for shit but it's applicable in more games.

CF works in quite a lot of them. It's just that YOUR setup didn't.

Its pointless to have "support" if your scaling is so bad that a single card with a ok OC would catch up to two stock cards. Hell, iv'e yet to find two-way CF that scales negatively, but there has been a couple of two-way SLI that has.

How can you fuck up a two-way solution? I can understand negative scaling with three and four cards, but TWO?

 

Not to mention, SLI has some glaring issues with drivers, or rather the difficulty of installing them without shit getting corrupted. Not sure why Nvidia is taking so long fixing that issue, its been going on for a few months now.

 

 

SLI is not really a great solution. With the "new" "high" bandwidth SLI bridge, Nvidia should be able to do higher settings with SLI and scale better.

SLI has been dragging its balls for YEARS, because Nvidias SLI bridge had only 1GB/s bandwidth (per SLI Finger), so the "new" bridge will have 2GB/s Bandwidth. However, once Nvidia goes over the 1-2GB/s bandwidth limit, they start using the PCIe bus, like AMD does all along. Unfortunatly, Nvidia has not optimized for usage of the PCIe bus for multi GPU solutions, be it in the driver or in hardware. But i can tell you that once you push SLI over the bridge limit, the stuttering and scaling worsens dramatically.

 

 

 

[TidaLWaveZ]

2 hours ago, GiSWiG said:

And if AMD does sell the 8GB version for around $225, wouldn't they have said <$450 vs the $700 solution?

 

Then they would be lying because it would be equal to $450 not less than. (smartass comment) 

[GiSWiG]

7 minutes ago, Prysin said:

AMD has officially stated that the 8GB MSRP is 229 USD.

Where did you see this? I've actually several suggest that the 8GB would be more around $250 but some have said $230 but I have not seen anyone say that AMD said that.

[App4that]

4 minutes ago, Prysin said:

.snip

 

Check out this video, shows what to expect from SLI.

 

And yes, while all experiences will vary. It doesn't remove the fact that I spend 700us to crossfire two cards that never once offered a performance boost in any game I own.

 

A single card solution is the better solution until EVERYONE can see the benefits in EVERY game.

 

 

[Prysin]

3 minutes ago, GiSWiG said:

Where did you see this? I've actually several suggest that the 8GB would be more around $250 but some have said $230 but I have not seen anyone say that AMD said that.

https://www.techpowerup.com/223040/amd-radeon-rx-480-polaris-launched-at-usd-199

[GiSWiG]

3 minutes ago, Prysin said:

https://www.techpowerup.com/223040/amd-radeon-rx-480-polaris-launched-at-usd-199

" the 8 GB variant is expected to be priced at $229." 

Just about as reliable as I suggested and I never said it was fact.

 

Now even if it is so, $30? Why even bother making a 4GB model.

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, GiSWiG said:

" the 8 GB variant is expected to be priced at $229." 

Just about as reliable as I suggested and I never said it was fact.

 

Now even if it is so, $30? Why even bother making a 4GB model.

cuz at 1080p only a couple of games with insane AA levels need 4GB?

cuz because the higher resolution you get, the less you need AA due to the increased resolution and pixel density rendering things at such a high detail that jaggies is very hard if not impossible to see with the naked eye. so at 1440p and UHD you can cut back or turn off the AA, thus saving enourmus amounts of VRAM.

 

 

[App4that]

1 minute ago, GiSWiG said:

" the 8 GB variant is expected to be priced at $229." 

Just about as reliable as I suggested and I never said it was fact.

 

Now even if it is so, $30? Why even bother making a 4GB model.

For me the larger question is why the price jump when AMD is claiming to be working to lower the cost of gaming?

 

Here's a R9 380x, 200us.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131687&cm_re=r9_380x-_-14-131-687-_-Product

 

 

[Prysin]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

For me the larger question is why the price jump when AMD is claiming to be working to lower the cost of gaming?

 

Here's a R9 380x, 200us.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131687&cm_re=r9_380x-_-14-131-687-_-Product

 

 

the cost of VR* gaming

 

a 380X cannot do VR, not even close. a 970 can do it, but not really well. a 390X or GTX 980 is pretty decent. However those GPUs has a MSRP of 399 and 449 USD respectively atm.

 

you need AT LEAST a Ivy bridge i5, FX 8350 (VR is very multi threaded, but stuttering is a issue i bet) or newer. That means you need 200 to 300 USD for a CPU + some for a cooler (dont think about staying on stock Ivy or FX speeds, even that is borderline too slow)

at least 75-100 bucks for a decent mobo

400 USD or more for GPU

HDD, Case, PSU at least 200 bucks or so.

 

Total cost around the 900-1000 USD mark for a rig able to power VR (with Pre 14/16nm products)

Then add 500-1000 USD for the VR HMDs and shit is getting expensive fast.

 

a RX 480 = ~290X to 980 performance from what we have been shown (might be more, might be less).

If you look at the same "specs" for the last rig, and cut out 200 bucks, you end up around 700-800 USD. That is a fenomenal price drop to get a decent VR experience.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

snip

Ah come on! Not you too  

 

The cost of VR gaming is the 800 dollar fucking goggles  

 

Both AMD and Nvidia raised their prices, that's BS. This isn't about VR, this is about getting as much money from us as they can.

[Prysin]

8 minutes ago, App4that said:

Ah come on! Not you too  

 

The cost of VR gaming is the 800 dollar fucking goggles  

 

Both AMD and Nvidia raised their prices, that's BS. This isn't about VR, this is about getting as much money from us as they can.

well outside of Playstation VR, you cannot run VR off of a potato. Not proper VR (mobile shait excluded).

So in that regards AMD is right.

 

However i agree and disagree.

The Entry to VR is first the HMD, but secondly a PC capable of running it.

Considering the average PC gamer in this world is running something comparable to a i5 2500k + GTX 770/HD 7870 in terms of power, you can be sure that there is no fucking chance in hell they can run VR.

 

That being said, all those who bought a FX CPU should be happy. Cuz it works for VR almost as good as a 4790k (Steam VR test). So whilst all other games may suck, atleast they have a shot with VR. Until they puke from the "FX Stutter" that is.

 

 

[MoonlightSylv]

It's still a sub $200 card that can play VR.

 

Edit: Not saying that's what people will use it for, I'm saying it's powerful for its price.

[App4that]

4 minutes ago, ShadowTechXTS said:

It's still a sub $200 card that can play VR.

 

Edit: Not saying that's what people will use it for, I'm saying it's powerful for its price.

No it's not. If it wasn't replacing the 300 series you're right. But it's labeled a 480. 380's start in the 160us range for the 2g, and go up to 200us for the 4g. So the price has risen 40 bucks US. So if all AMD was touting was a performance increase, you can't say much. But since they are pushing that they want to bring the cost down of gaming, raising the cost of their cards is BS.

[Prysin]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

No it's not. If it wasn't replacing the 300 series you're right. But it's labeled a 480. 380's start in the 160us range for the 2g, and go up to 200us for the 4g. So the price has risen 40 bucks US. So if all AMD was touting was a performance increase, you can't say much. But since they are pushing that they want to bring the cost down of gaming, raising the cost of their cards is BS.

just because you can GET a card at 160 USD, doesnt mean thats what AMD says it should cost.

 

The MSRP for the 380 is 199 and the 380X is 229. This has NOT CHANGED since christmas

[tbake0155]

If the 4 gigabyte 380 is $200, then why are you comparing the $160 2 gig 380 to the $200 4 gig 480?  Is that logical or is logic not important and this is an emotional discussion?

 

@App4that

[LeStringMan]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

No it's not. If it wasn't replacing the 300 series you're right. But it's labeled a 480. 380's start in the 160us range for the 2g, and go up to 200us for the 4g. So the price has risen 40 bucks US. So if all AMD was touting was a performance increase, you can't say much. But since they are pushing that they want to bring the cost down of gaming, raising the cost of their cards is BS.

the 380 2gb launched for 199.... prices have gone down to 160 (with rebate), because the card is already end of life.

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, tbake0155 said:

If the 4 gigabyte 380 is 200, then why are you comparing the 160 2 gig 380 to the 4 gig 480?  Is that logical or is logic not important and this is an emotional discussion?

 

@App4that

he is just salty over AMD, because he had a 290X and 390X, tried to CF them and it didnt work. Despite the forums saying it would probably be troubblesome.

[tbake0155]

@Prysin

 

He should've waited for DX12!

 

I'm tickled with the advancements in technology from all of the companies.  I don't understand why people get so excited to shit on AMD

[othertomperson]

5 hours ago, Hero7750 said:

just because AMD is pushing for it doesnt mean game developers are 

The same goes for Async Compute itself. It needs to be more ubiquitous, and with performance increases better than the 5-10% we're seeing right now and AMD's own hardware too to be relevant.

 

11 minutes ago, Prysin said:

he is just salty over AMD, because he had a 290X and 390X, tried to CF them and it didnt work. Despite the forums saying it would probably be troubblesome.

 

To be fair there is absolutely no reason that shouldn't work short of AMD going out of their way to make it difficult, just like Nvidia with the 680 and 770. You should be salty over AMD and Nvidia for that.

[App4that]

Sorry for not quoting everyone, get's messy so this is just a blanket response.

 

First off I'm not salty, I'm educated  I know when I'm being bambosseled. The R9 380 did launch at 200us, for open cooler cards. The RX 480 is priced at 200us for a blower style. As with the 1080 the only cards that will hit the MSRP will be reference, the open cooler examples with better power management will cost more.

 

Article from the launch of the R9 380

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2980028/components-graphics/amd-radeon-r9-380-review-the-best-200-graphics-card-you-can-buy-for-1080p-gaming.html

 

So the price HAS changes as the blower style as with Pascal will offer thermal limitations.

[Prysin]

5 minutes ago, App4that said:

Sorry for not quoting everyone, get's messy so this is just a blanket response.

 

First off I'm not salty, I'm educated  I know when I'm being bambosseled. The R9 380 did launch at 200us, for open cooler cards. The RX 480 is priced at 200us for a blower style. As with the 1080 the only cards that will hit the MSRP will be reference, the open cooler examples with better power management will cost more.

 

Article from the launch of the R9 380

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2980028/components-graphics/amd-radeon-r9-380-review-the-best-200-graphics-card-you-can-buy-for-1080p-gaming.html

 

So the price HAS changes as the blower style as with Pascal will offer thermal limitations.

just FYI

 

the blower fan on the RX 480 is most likely the same as the one used on the XFX R9 390X blower version. Which believe it or not, is 20% more efficient then the old 200 series Banshee cooler. Not to mention that the 390X blower had a full pure copper heatsink in there. Instead of zink or aluminium

[Prysin]

10 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

The same goes for Async Compute itself. It needs to be more ubiquitous, and with performance increases better than the 5-10% we're seeing right now and AMD's own hardware too to be relevant.

 

 

To be fair there is absolutely no reason that shouldn't work short of AMD going out of their way to make it difficult, just like Nvidia with the 680 and 770. You should be salty over AMD and Nvidia for that.

he tried it BEFORE AMD had made official drivers for it to work...

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

just FYI

 

the blower fan on the RX 480 is most likely the same as the one used on the XFX R9 390X blower version. Which believe it or not, is 20% more efficient then the old 200 series Banshee cooler. Not to mention that the 390X blower had a full pure copper heatsink in there. Instead of zink or aluminium

And we don't know the thermals of the card yet, but going off of the TDP and what we know from the influence of the die shrink we have cause to worry.

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, Prysin said:

he tried it BEFORE AMD had made official drivers for it to work...

No actually that's not correct. I had my set up well past Crimsons launch. In fact Crimson hurt my performance. That I was a bit salty over. Official drivers =/= working. From ether company in my experience.

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

And we don't know the thermals of the card yet, but going off of the TDP and what we know from the influence of the die shrink we have cause to worry.

depends. TSCM has had more heat issues with their nodes then GloFo has. Historically that is.

Also, it is a known fact that Nvidia cards are made with much less cooling headroom then AMD cards. Historically that is.

 

Oh, and if nothing else. Sapphire NITRO/Vapor-X is still a thing