R9 470 to be only 5% slower than the 970

[Morgan MLGman]

18 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

Oh that can be true, AMD usually have a very good MHz OC to FPS ratio, unlike Nvidia.

 

Their chips just have much higher IPC - simple. Same with Intel chips over AMD CPUs. But yes, you could call it a "MHZ to FPS ratio", although it's because AMD's GPU architecture has more instructions per clock

 

Still, the chip doesn't seem fast enough to beat  a Fury X, but well, we'll see soon I guess. Two more weeks.

[Dackzy]

25 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Their chips just have much higher IPC - simple. Same with Intel chips over AMD CPUs. But yes, you could call it a "MHZ to FPS ratio", although it's because AMD's GPU architecture has more instructions per clock

 

Still, the chip doesn't seem fast enough to beat  a Fury X, but well, we'll see soon I guess. Two more weeks.

Time will tell and drivers will improve (or atleast they should)

[lukart]

2 hours ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I certainly hope it's true ^^ Even if it beats only the 980, still awesome considering it'll be much more futureproof for less money, and the 470 with R9 290-like performance for 150$...

 

Shame people still expect to buy this card for 149$...
I will have to put this into my sig for you guys to remember one day that RX470 wont be 149, or 150 for that matter.  If you add 20 or 30$ on top of that your closer to the real price.

[Morgan MLGman]

2 minutes ago, lukart said:

 

Shame people still expect to buy this card for 149$...
I will have to put this into my sig for you guys to remember one day that RX470 wont be 149, or 150 for that matter.  If you add 20 or 30$ on top of that your closer to the real price.

Market rules are why you're wrong. If the cost of the 470 were 180$, then nobody would buy it because a 480 would be 19$ more expensive. Not to mention, GPU prices tend to drop a little after launch.

[lukart]

2 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Market rules are why you're wrong. If the cost of the 470 were 180$, then nobody would buy it because a 480 would be 19$ more expensive. Not to mention, GPU prices tend to drop a little after launch.

 

Yes, but maybe its not AMD interest to sell that many 470 anyways. Also 480 8Gb is not coming at 229, maybe I should put this one on my signature as well

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, patrickjp93 said:

If you really think AMD isn't rigging the effects in GPUOpen, you're crazy. Everything will depend on ludicrous amounts of unnecessary Asynchronous Compute and Shading.

they can't to the same degree as gameworks because it is opensource even nvidia can take a look at it or use it if they want. and its probably up to the developers whether or not to have async compute

[spartaman64]

17 minutes ago, lukart said:

 

Shame people still expect to buy this card for 149$...
I will have to put this into my sig for you guys to remember one day that RX470 wont be 149, or 150 for that matter.  If you add 20 or 30$ on top of that your closer to the real price.

why wouldn't it? whats so special about the rx 470. the r9 390 announce price was 329 and reference versions sold at 329. aftermarket solutions sold at 350

[lukart]

Im just saying your not seeing any brand boards for 149$.. 

One thing you have to consider 20$ in 300$ card while its same amount but at 149$ price point, 20$ makes a big difference, so its easy for partners to increase or reduce price at that price point.

 

But think, 480 8GB will be around 239/249$  do you really think AMD has the margin to cut that deep to lower the cost down to 149 using same GPU (even if its cut down version) .

They might have in the future, but not right now.

[spartaman64]

2 minutes ago, lukart said:

Im just saying your not seeing any brand boards for 149$.. 

One thing you have to consider 20$ in 300$ card while its same amount but at 149$ price point, 20$ makes a big difference, so its easy for partners to increase or reduce price at that price point.

 

But think, 480 8GB will be around 239/249$  do you really think AMD has the margin to cut that deep to lower the cost down to 149 using same GPU (even if its cut down version) .

They might have in the future, but not right now.

the reference card is going to be 149 and yes aftermarket manufacturers are going to charge extra for their coolers, custom pcb etc so?

[lukart]

AMD can play that card indeed, but if they do have reference card in the market will serve just as listing as they barely have any stock on those cards.

480 4Gb reference will have very few cards on sale, AIB partners will have but all of them at 219» $   later on they will come up with cost down versions that will target 199$.

 

But while its true what you say, but with 470 will be much harder to get to 149$.

 

You have to remember one thing, what AMD wants to sell, 480 higher margin card or barely making any money with 470?  

[spartaman64]

4 minutes ago, lukart said:

AMD can play that card indeed, but if they do have reference card in the market will serve just as listing as they barely have any stock on those cards.

480 4Gb reference will have very few cards on sale, AIB partners will have but all of them at 219» $   later on they will come up with cost down versions that will target 199$.

 

But while its true what you say, but with 470 will be much harder to get to 149$.

 

You have to remember one thing, what AMD wants to sell, 480 higher margin card or barely making any money with 470?  

amd is going to make the same money regardless if its the reference model that sells or the aftermarket model. that extra money charged is going to go to the manufacturer not amd

[Castdeath97]

5 minutes ago, lukart said:

AMD can play that card indeed, but if they do have reference card in the market will serve just as listing as they barely have any stock on those cards.

480 4Gb reference will have very few cards on sale, AIB partners will have but all of them at 219» $   later on they will come up with cost down versions that will target 199$.

 

But while its true what you say, but with 470 will be much harder to get to 149$.

 

You have to remember one thing, what AMD wants to sell, 480 higher margin card or barely making any money with 470?  

You are making so many assumptions that may or may not hold water, so let's just wait and see. Even at 169 this card is still a great deal.

[patrickjp93]

3 hours ago, Notional said:

Considering they are open source and the devs can change whatever they can I would say absolutely not. PureHair, the result of TressFX 3+ in GPUOpen, used in Rise of the Tomb Raider proves my point. No performance penalty on NVidia at all. In fact Purehair used less performance than HBAO+.

HBAO+ is ambient occlusion. It's a much higher level effect over a much larger area than any hair effect. You can't compare the two.

 

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

they can't to the same degree as gameworks because it is opensource even nvidia can take a look at it or use it if they want. and its probably up to the developers whether or not to have async compute

I completely disagree. Game studios are not full of library developers. They're full of 2nd rate system applications developers. AMD knows making it O-S is good for publicity, but most game studios won't touch the code anyway. They'll just use what they like. Honestly people think a bit harder.

[patrickjp93]

1 hour ago, Castdeath97 said:

You are making so many assumptions that may or may not hold water, so let's just wait and see. Even at 169 this card is still a great deal.

All of his assumptions are sound from a microeconomic perspective and they fall I line with trends from previous years.

[stconquest]

20 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

All of his assumptions are sound from a microeconomic perspective and they fall I line with trends from previous years.

...and yet could be completely wrong, and utterly useless whether right or wrong.

[Norseman4]

14 hours ago, Energycore said:

The whole xx9.99 is a weird paradigm in marketing that I'd rather went away. I'm more likely to remember a product's price when it says 150 than when it says 149.99

They can legally say that this will be below $150. That has been the whole point when the whole $[xx].99 thing started.

[vorticalbox]

14 hours ago, GidonsClaw said:

Still no competition at the top... o well...

most of the market is not made up with high end cards.

[Humbug]

14 hours ago, impure said:

And when you factor in async compute it'll be even faster.

everybody keeps touting 'async compute'. It seems to be a major buzz word right now.

I know that it can be a big factor in some games, but honestly wouldn't many games see no gain? Wouldn't it only be games who have adequate compute workloads that benefit?

 

 

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, Humbug said:

everybody keeps touting 'async compute'. It seems to be a major buzz word right now.

I know that it can be a big factor in some games but honestly but wouldn't many games see no gain? Wouldn't it only be games who have adequate compute workloads that benefit?

 

 

I think most games can probably benefit in some way, but of course, the significance of the gain will be highly dependent on the type of game and how it was programmed (Open World vs heavily scripted corridor shooter, for example). I'm not a video game programmer, so I cannot say what type of game benefits the most. AotS seems to benefit quite a bit, and that's a large scale RTS with lots of AI and many many things going on at once. I suppose we can say that RTS will likely benefit, especially the SupCom style larger format RTS.

[Notional]

32 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

HBAO+ is ambient occlusion. It's a much higher level effect over a much larger area than any hair effect. You can't compare the two.

 

I completely disagree. Game studios are not full of library developers. They're full of 2nd rate system applications developers. AMD knows making it O-S is good for publicity, but most game studios won't touch the code anyway. They'll just use what they like. Honestly people think a bit harder.

You still didn't support your claim that GPUOpen would gimp performance on NVidia. Neither did you dispute my claim. Rather you just wasted everyone's time on a non sequitur to the topic at hand. 

 

Get off your high horse. The game engine devs are more than qualified for the work. Snowdrop and Frostbite engines didn't just magically exist out of nowhere. They were made by competent devs.

[SteveGrabowski0]

12 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Wouldn't shock me in the fucking slightest.

Hell, it already kinda happened in the 7th generation and it wasn't any better in the 6th generation, with such gems as SimCity 4, The Simpsons: Hit and Run, and many many more titles like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

San Andreas was hard to run? It performed pretty well on my Radeon 8500 64MB and single core Athlon XP 1800+. It was about the only 2005 game that seemed to run well on that card and cpu anymore (which is why I bought an XBox 360 in 06).

[spartaman64]

56 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

All of his assumptions are sound from a microeconomic perspective and they fall I line with trends from previous years.

what im getting now from what he is trying to say is aftermarket cards are more expensive than reference cards. which i agree with but its not from the card going for more than it is advertised its the manufacturer charging more for the better cooler and other features

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

what im getting now from what he is trying to say is aftermarket cards are more expensive than reference cards. which i agree with but its not from the card going for more than it is advertised its the manufacturer charging more for the better cooler and other features

We all know aftermarket cards tend to be more expensive. They don't have to follow the MSRP since they have charge more for "features" like factory OC, better cooling, etc.

 

I think we're in agreement here. The reference cards will be sold at the MSRP (At least in the US at places like NewEgg and MicroCenter). it's not lying or false advertisement or whatever. Those cards will be that price. If there is limited supply, the retailer might jack the price up a bit, but even that isn't overly common. If the AIB Partners charge more for their aftermarket cards? The AIB keep all the extra, not AMD. AMD actually only gets paid for each chip it sells.

[PlayStation 2]

1 hour ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

San Andreas was hard to run? It performed pretty well on my Radeon 8500 64MB and single core Athlon XP 1800+. It was about the only 2005 game that seemed to run well on that card and cpu anymore (which is why I bought an XBox 360 in 06).

I've always found it really wonky to run. At least the original PC version and not the newer port. 

[Humbug]

1 hour ago, Notional said:

Get off your high horse. The game engine devs are more than qualified for the work. Snowdrop and Frostbite engines didn't just magically exist out of nowhere. They were made by competent devs.

To be fair to Patrick there is a world of difference between the game engine guys at Dice, Epic, Valve, Crytek, id software etc and the competence of the typical game developer.