Techspot: AMD Polaris 10 performance will reportedly be on par with Radeon 390/390X

[Deleted]

That is funny, saying the Sapphire card is silent. Computerbase tested the Asus, powercolor and Sapphire one. The sapphire one was actually by far the loudest of the three.... And hottest...

And I was aiming at the qoutes, nothing you personally said

No worries, but it is the smallest of the 3 in question though and cheapest (4GB), it will likely not bother those whose budget only stretches to £200 and no more.

[Remilia]

That is funny, saying the Sapphire card is silent. Computerbase tested the Asus, powercolor and Sapphire one. The sapphire one was actually by far the loudest of the three.... And hottest...

And I was aiming at the qoutes, nothing you personally said

but it has
L
E
D
... >.>

OCUK should probably stop taking any orders, cause that's a LOT.

[Sorshen]

Is RX 470 at ~GTX 780 level?

[Fascinate]

Is RX 470 at ~GTX 780 level?

Ya thats about my guess of where it will land performance wise, should be a good budget card for 1080p.

[Vash The Stampede]

Is RX 470 at ~GTX 780 level?

Sounds about right. I wonder where the RX 460 will be around? Could be a compelling upgrade for my HTPC.

[Sorshen]

So, the RX 470 is at ~GTX780/290X level
The Asus card has gimped power limit to stay within ~60 degrees, fixable.

[Gully Man]

So, the RX 470 is at ~GTX780/290X level
The Asus card has gimped power limit to within ~60 degrees, fixable.

The pricing is idiotic in some countries. £11 difference between a 470 nitro and a 480 nitro on overclockers.co.uk.

[Sorshen]

Yea, there's little reason to buy this card outside of the US. The 180$ models might be a bargain tho.

US prices:
PowerColor RED 4GB ~$180
Gigabyte G1 Gaming 4GB ~$200
Sapphire Nitro 4GB ~$210
XFX RS 4GB ~$210
Sapphire Nitro 8GB ~$240
(all these models have custom cooling)

[Zenny]

Am I just imagining things or is GCN 4.0 not faster at all then the previous gen GCN at the same clock speeds, just compare the RX 470 and Radeon R9 380X if you equalize the clock speeds and TFLOP's. Both cards have the same amount of RAM, Memory Width, Texture Units, Stream Processors and ROP's.

[Jtbrig7390]

Based on the digital foundry video IMO there is no reason to get a RX 480 if you can get the RX 470 (In the US) The performance difference is small and sometimes even beats the RX 480 and its $70 cheaper ($20 if u get the $200 model). If you can get the $200 RX 480 then its worth it in price/performance difference. But at $250 and if your really budget strapped just get the RX 470.

I am personally impressed with the performance of the RX 470. I guess since it can handle Direct X 12 and the GTX 970 can't it even beats it sometimes. All of this is at 1080p gaming tho.

IMO there is zero reason to get a RX 480 now. If you can spend $250 save up $100 more and get a 1060 and if ur budget strapped get a RX 470 that can equal and sometimes perform better then a RX 480. It can even sometimes get near 1060 levels of performance.

IMO only reason this card isn't cheaper is it would outright kill the RX 480 in price/performance.

[Vash The Stampede]

The biggest difference between GCN 4.0 and previous cards is memory bandwidth. The 49 290's and 390's use 512-bit memory bus while the RX 480 is using 256-bit. The R9 380X is 256-bit, but not as the same performance of the RX 480 or even 470. This is mostly due to AMD's new Tile Based Rendering which reduces memory bandwidth.

[Deleted]

£164 for a 470, nice!
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/sapph...?__ckdesktop=2

[Jtbrig7390]

£164 for a 470, nice!
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/sapph...?__ckdesktop=2

And its Sapphire as well and IMO Sapphire is a great brand.

[Zenny]

The biggest difference between GCN 4.0 and previous cards is memory bandwidth. The 49 290's and 390's use 512-bit memory bus while the RX 480 is using 256-bit. The R9 380X is 256-bit, but not as the same performance of the RX 480 or even 470. This is mostly due to AMD's new Tile Based Rendering which reduces memory bandwidth.

The R9 380X has a core clock of 970, the OC'd RX 470 cards reviewed have a core clock of 1260 which is almost exactly a 30% in clock speed, the RX 470 just so happens to be around 25%-28% faster in most benchmarks, in all other major respects the spec of the two cards are identical. So basically the cards are very close, if not exactly the same performing once core speeds are equalized.

The same thing was brought up about Maxwell - > Pascal. Now I know both new architectures add things other then just increased clock speeds and better efficiency, but if it was pointed out on Pascal it's just fair to point out the exact same thing on Polaris.

I doubt AdoredTV would make a video about it though, I wonder why that is?

[Evildeffy]

The R9 380X has a core clock of 970, the OC'd RX 470 cards reviewed have a core clock of 1260 which is almost exactly a 30% in clock speed, the RX 470 just so happens to be around 25%-28% faster in most benchmarks, in all other major respects the spec of the two cards are identical. So basically the cards are very close, if not exactly the same performing once core speeds are equalized.

The same thing was brought up about Maxwell - > Pascal. Now I know both new architectures add things other then just increased clock speeds and better efficiency, but if it was pointed out on Pascal it's just fair to point out the exact same thing on Polaris.

I doubt AdoredTV would make a video about it though, I wonder why that is?

Except you are comparing a different die architecture to a die architecture that is mostly identical.

Tell me... is the die shot between an RX 470 and an R9 380X identical? If not then cease your inane drivel.

And your last comment proves that you don't watch AdoredTV at all considering the fact he's been very critical of AMD as well.

[Zenny]

Except you are comparing a different die architecture to a die architecture that is mostly identical.

Tell me... is the die shot between an RX 470 and an R9 380X identical? If not then cease your inane drivel.

And your last comment proves that you don't watch AdoredTV at all considering the fact he's been very critical of AMD as well.

What does it matter if the die architecture is different if the performance is the same? Plus the two architectures are 95% the same:

http://techreport.com/r.x/rx480review/polaris10.png

http://images.bit-tech.net/content_i...w/380x-11b.png

Addition of HWS and not much else as far as I can see.

And please, AdoredTV's bias can be seen from the freaking moon.

[Vash The Stampede]

The R9 380X has a core clock of 970, the OC'd RX 470 cards reviewed have a core clock of 1260 which is almost exactly a 30% in clock speed, the RX 470 just so happens to be around 25%-28% faster in most benchmarks, in all other major respects the spec of the two cards are identical. So basically the cards are very close, if not exactly the same performing once core speeds are equalized.

Don't know about the RX 470 vs the R9 380X cause I haven't looked at the benchmarks much. Quick look at HardOCP's review shows the RX 470 at 100% above the R9 380 in Vulkan Doom. I see a good 50% increase in other games as well. But I'll have to get around to seeing other benchmarks to see where the RX 470 sits.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/..._card_review/5

The same thing was brought up about Maxwell - > Pascal. Now I know both new architectures add things other then just increased clock speeds and better efficiency, but if it was pointed out on Pascal it's just fair to point out the exact same thing on Polaris.

Pretty sure Polaris is very different from previous AMD cards. Significant enough to not warrant this discussion.

I doubt AdoredTV would make a video about it though, I wonder why that is?

Probably because it isn't worth his time, but I wouldn't be against it. But it's not like AMD's previous cards haven't had little to no changes from one generation to another.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphi...locks/?page=11

[Zenny]

Don't know about the RX 470 vs the R9 380X cause I haven't looked at the benchmarks much. Quick look at HardOCP's review shows the RX 470 at 100% above the R9 380 in Vulkan Doom. I see a good 50% increase in other games as well. But I'll have to get around to seeing other benchmarks to see where the RX 470 sits.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/..._card_review/5

The Radeon R9380 is about 10-15% slower then the X version of the card.

You can compare the R930X vs RX 470 here: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...ercolor,1.html

About 25-30% more performance, exactly in line with the 30% increased clock rate.

Pretty sure Polaris is very different from previous AMD cards. Significant enough to not warrant this discussion.

The die shots don't really back that up though. (I don't really believe this, a die shot cannot show you all the differences between architectures, it's just the same argument used against Pascal)

[Vash The Stampede]

The die shots don't really back that up though. (I don't really believe this, a die shot cannot show you all the differences between architectures, it's just the same argument used against Pascal)

Part of the problem here is the RX 470 is a retarded 480, while the R9 380X is not. The R9 380 is a retarded 380X. They are similar in their die photo, but not as similar as Pascal is to Maxwell. A fair comparison would be between the RX 470 vs the R9 380, not the 380X. What parts of the chip they disable, I do not know.

RX 480 die photo
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/10446/P4.png

R9 380X die photo
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/9801/380XBlock.jpg

[Evildeffy]

What does it matter if the die architecture is different if the performance is the same? Plus the two architectures are 95% the same:

http://techreport.com/r.x/rx480review/polaris10.png

http://images.bit-tech.net/content_i...w/380x-11b.png

Addition of HWS and not much else as far as I can see.

And please, AdoredTV's bias can be seen from the freaking moon.

You're comparing "It's the same card!!111oneoneone" when it's clearly a new architecture with quite a radically different design.
If you actually read and studied what the die build-ups are you would notice it.

Instead you are only looking at the layout (really? .. there are a metric crapton of football fields around the world, all use the same layout.. are all stadiums then the same?) instead of the actual contents.

Just because they pack the same amount of ROPs/CUs etc. doesn't mean they are the same damn thing.
Is a 2.0 liter VW Golf 7 TDI the same as a 2.0 liter VW Golf 3 TDI? Of course not.

You're also looking at an entirely different price bracket.

So there's 0 validity in your statement where the actual architecture differences from Maxwell to Pascal are almost non-existant.
Looking at their die-shots actually tells you that as well.

For example you pointed out that there's 2 Hardware Schedulers instead of one, what about the 4 Asynch Compute Engines instead of 8?
Those minor "details" change the entire playing field in chip design and saying they are similar whilst knowing that would get you laughed at by any engineer.

As far as AdoredTV goes... you should watch his videos, if you think he's biased for AMD only then you only see what you want to see.

Also technically the R9 380(X) have a hardware 384-bit memory bus of which 128-bits are laser cut disabled.
Where the RX 470 / RX 480 are fully designed 256-bit buses.