RX 480 4gb Has 8gb

[ChiefGunny]

Why would AMD gimp the early retail RX 480 8gb to 4gb just in the bios? Why not just sell them as an 8gb version? It isn't cheaper for them to turn off 4gb in the bios and sell it cheaper as a 4gb version. This makes no sense to me. I get that they did it for the end user that wants a cheaper 4gb variant but the 8gb end user should be pissed that they paid more for the 8gb version when they could have bought the early retail 4gb and flashed it to 8gb. Maybe I'm missing something. If I am please explain it to me in dummy so I can understand lol

[App4that]

AMD didn't have any 4g built yet, but wanted the marketing boost that was having a 200us option to the card. Plus, having 4g cards that unlock to 8g cards gave them a marketing boost as people will foolishly expect the same once the 4g cards are built and sold. It's actually brilliant. Evil, but brilliant.

[Imakuni]

1 minute ago, ChiefGunny said:

Why would AMD gimp the early retail RX 480 8gb to 4gb just in the bios? Why not just sell them as an 8gb version? It isn't cheaper for them to turn off 4gb in the bios and sell it cheaper as a 4gb version. This makes no sense to me. I get that they did it for the end user that wants a cheaper 4gb variant but the 8gb end user should be pissed that they paid more for the 8gb version when they could have bought the early retail 4gb and flashed it to 8gb. Maybe I'm missing something. If I am please explain it to me in dummy so I can understand lol

What if 1 of the ram chips / solders / whatever has a problem? Now you can't sell the card as an 8gb variant. So what do you do, throw it away or gimp it and sell as a 4gb card?

 

Not only that, the 4gb one runs at a lower RAM speed.

 

And I'm sure there are other reasons to do it as well, I just quickly gathered 2 of them.

[vorticalbox]

5 minutes ago, Imakuni said:

What if 1 of the ram chips / solders / whatever has a problem? Now you can't sell the card as an 8gb variant. So what do you do, throw it away or gimp it and sell as a 4gb card?

 

Not only that, the 4gb one runs at a lower RAM speed.

 

And I'm sure there are other reasons to do it as well, I just quickly gathered 2 of them.

this is pretty much what they do for CPU's. there is a tech quicky on binning. 

[TheRandomness]

1 minute ago, vorticalbox said:

this is pretty much what they do for CPU's. there is a tech quicky on binning. 

Also actual GPUs. If some SPs/CUDA cores aren't working, you laser the connections and sell it as a cut down product (Fury/Fury X, 290/290X...etc)

[mariushm]

AMD made the circuit boards for the 8 GB version which had to use memory chips with a certain footprint (pins arranged in a certain form), because they were if not the only ones, just one of the few capable of reaching 2000 Mhz or higher (the memories achieve 2250 Mhz in most cards these days).

 

From what I heard, when they wanted to make 4 GB boards, Samsung said they're not really interested in fabricating more of those smaller size chips (4 gbit chips, 512 MB per chip, 8 x 512 MB = 4 GB) and said they're stopping production of 4 gbit chips in a couple of months so AMD and its partners (Sapphire) didn't feel like making stocks of a chip that will soon no longer exist and there's wasn't much time to design and validate a new circuit board with another footprint for memory chips. So they just decided to reuse the existing pcbs from the 8 GB model and just take the loss of about 10-15$ (the price difference between 8 x 4 gbit chips and 8 x 8 gbit chips). Flashing the bios from the 8GB versions on these cards will unlock the full memory capacity and the higher frequency.

 

From overclockers.co.uk, the owner said at some point that he wanted to place order for 1000+ reference models with 4 GB memory and AMD simply refused him, saying they're only going to make 8 GB boards and to order non-reference boards for the 4 GB version.

 

Third party designs (like the Sapphire Nitro+ 4 GB) use different memory chips, with another footprint, so on these third party cards will actually be 4 gbit chips (512 MB), no chance of buying cards with 8 GB.

AMD also only imposes a minimum frequency of 1750 Mhz for the 4 GB version (4x1750 Mhz) = 7000 Mhz, the 480 8GB is 4 x 2000 Mhz = 8000 Mhz , so some manufacturers making a 4 GB version of the card may use cheaper chips that are only specified for 7000 Mhz allowing just some minimal overclocking, instead of chips like the ones on the reference card which are guaranteed for 2000 Mhz but run at 1750 Mhz on the reference 4 GB model. 

 

[Al Bundy]

If I were an investor I would pull my money out.

This is like KFC selling you a 4pc chicken meal and looking under the bottom of the box is another 4pc.  That extra 4 pieces costs the company something.

[App4that]

8 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

If I were an investor I would pull my money out.

This is like KFC selling you a 4pc chicken meal and looking under the bottom of the box is another 4pc.  That extra 4 pieces costs the company something.

AMD never does well stock wise, Nvidia's stock is worth 10x what AMD's is as a whole. With Nvidia gaining the Nintendo NX with a mobile focus that's going to get worse.

[incarnate]

7 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

If I were an investor I would pull my money out.

This is like KFC selling you a 4pc chicken meal and looking under the bottom of the box is another 4pc.  That extra 4 pieces costs the company something.

No that analogy is way off base. If amd didn't have a 4gb card ready for the 200.00 price point, then selling some 8gb as 4gb at that price point is better than not having a 200.00 option. It's not like the ram cost is the same as the markup from 4-8gb. Don't kid yourself those cards were still sold at a profit.

 

And any investor would be far more concerned with not filling the 200.00 price point at launch than taking a small hit in profit to increase market share. The simple fact is that those 8gb cards still turn a profit at 200.00 and the 200.00 option always outsells the 250.00 option.

 

WsWas it ideal? No, but far better than not having the 200.00 option at launch.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, incarnate said:

No that analogy is way off base. If amd didn't have a 4gb card ready for the 200.00 price point, then selling some 8gb as 4gb at that price point is better than not having a 200.00 option. It's not like the ram cost is the same as the markup from 4-8gb. Don't kid yourself those cards were still sold at a profit.

 

And any investor would be far more concerned with not filling the 200.00 price point at launch than taking a small hit in profit to increase market share. The simple fact is that those 8gb cards still turn a profit at 200.00 and the 200.00 option always outsells the 250.00 option.

 

WsWas it ideal? No, but far better than not having the 200.00 option at launch.

You do know investors don't look that deeply into it, right? Two words, Pokémon Go.

[incarnate]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

You do know investors don't look that deeply into it, right? Two words, Pokémon Go.

True enough, but they do look at the bottom line, which would only be hurt by not having a 200.00 option at launch.

[App4that]

5 minutes ago, incarnate said:

True enough, but they do look at the bottom line, which would only be hurt by not having a 200.00 option at launch.

That I completely agree with. But I'm still waiting on the impact the NX has with it's Tonga chip. And the fact you can bet on new Shields hitting the market as a result.

[Al Bundy]

4 minutes ago, incarnate said:

No that analogy is way off base. If amd didn't have a 4gb card ready for the 200.00 price point, then selling some 8gb as 4gb at that price point is better than not having a 200.00 option. It's not like the ram cost is the same as the markup from 4-8gb. Don't kid yourself those cards were still sold at a profit.

 

Unfortunately that's not how it happened.  4GB 480s were selling for $250 - $350 because of supply and demand.  AMD also hammered Nvidia for not having 8gb on the 970 and up.  Then what did they do on their next gen?  They went with 1/2 of the vram.  I'm not a silicon manufacturing expert.  However, I do know that there is a monetary difference when you give ram away for "free".  Even if the extra 4gb were a couple of dollars difference, multiply that with the millions of gpu to be manufactured and it does add up. 

 

Quote

And any investor would be far more concerned with not filling the 200.00 price point at launch than taking a small hit in profit to increase market share. The simple fact is that those 8gb cards still turn a profit at 200.00 and the 200.00 option always outsells the 250.00 option.

 

WsWas it ideal? No, but far better than not having the 200.00 option at launch.

Most "sales" of $200 cards don't take place during the first 30 days of launch.  It happens about a year later.  By that time your competitor has caught up.  In this case the 1060 caught up, pulled the 460 behind it and hit the nitrous oxide button.  AIB 1060s are already selling at the $250 range.  Seeing how the 480 can't match the 1060, buyers are going to spend that extra $10 and not care about -2gb vram.

 

AMD beat Nvidia on the $200 price range last generation.  380, 385 & 380X were just too much for the 960.  970 was a league above and was $100 more.  In this case, the 480 is already outgunned by the 1060 and is only $10 less.  I'm afraid AMD is checkmate.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Al Bundy said:

 I'm afraid AMD is checkmate.

Not even close my friend. The RX 480 is a beast, the GTX 1060 relies on overclocking to pull ahead. Pulling from your analogy most gamers don't want to hit the nitrous button, they just want to game. The 970 was so popular because of it's use in prebuilts, not the DIY market. If AMD makes it more attractive for manufacturers to use the 480 then the 480 will sell more copies than the 1060. The 1060 and 480 are not 960s and 380s, they're 970s and 390s. The market has shifted. Which is a good thing as the price has dropped. There is no checkmate though mate, just any given Sunday.

[incarnate]

13 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

Unfortunately that's not how it happened.  4GB 480s were selling for $250 - $350 because of supply and demand.  

AMD sets msrp. What retailers charge is left up to them.

[Al Bundy]

1 hour ago, App4that said:

Not even close my friend. The RX 480 is a beast, the GTX 1060 relies on overclocking to pull ahead. Pulling from your analogy most gamers don't want to hit the nitrous button, they just want to game. The 970 was so popular because of it's use in prebuilts, not the DIY market. If AMD makes it more attractive for manufacturers to use the 480 then the 480 will sell more copies than the 1060. The 1060 and 480 are not 960s and 380s, they're 970s and 390s. The market has shifted. Which is a good thing as the price has dropped. There is no checkmate though mate, just any given Sunday.

The 1060 beats the 480 before over clocking.  Even in AOTS (AMD's ace up its sleeves) the 1060 wins.

 

When you say pre-builts, do you mean PCs from Dell and Best Buy?  I really doubt folks who buy those computers would buy a 970.  Last I looked, their "gaming" rigs consisted of a 960 as a $300 option.  Poor suckers.  If if your claim is backed up with statistics, then I would buy it.

 

But from where I'm looking at, the 1060 might be a tough nut for the 480 to crack.

[App4that]

1 hour ago, Al Bundy said:

The 1060 beats the 480 before over clocking.  Even in AOTS (AMD's ace up its sleeves) the 1060 wins.

 

When you say pre-builts, do you mean PCs from Dell and Best Buy?  I really doubt folks who buy those computers would buy a 970.  Last I looked, their "gaming" rigs consisted of a 960 as a $300 option.  Poor suckers.  If if your claim is backed up with statistics, then I would buy it.

 

But from where I'm looking at, the 1060 might be a tough nut for the 480 to crack.

There are tons of reviews that contradict that statement, but believe as you must.