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

[Deleted]

Ok this aint looking good and what i was worried about:

http://www.techspot.com/news/65328-a...cb-photos.html

What are you on about?

From the article you linked:

Update: Videos have been removed from YouTube, but for those who were looking to watch, fps counter was showing steady performance comparable to that of a GTX 980 as mentioned above

That is what all the rumors have been saying, somewhere between a 390 - Fury most likely close to the 390x.

[Fascinate]

What are you on about?

From the article you linked:



That is what all the rumors have been saying, somewhere between a 390 - Fury most likely close to the 390x.

That overwatch video was NOT gtx 980 levels, sorry. I want high as FPS as possible in blizzard games i plan on getting a 144hz panel this year, i wouldn't care as much if i was sticking to this 60hz model. Its just baffling why AMD architecture does not get good FPS in blizz games.

This is very much disappointing to me i was planning on buying this card, but that overwatch video reminded me of why i haven't considered an AMD card in a while (performance in blizzard games is seriously lacking, AMD is usually quite a ways behind in MMO GPU performance as well which is yet to be seen).

Edit: That chart you linked proves my point even more man, the 970 is outperforming the 390x and they dont even compete in the same price bracket. The 980 on that chart is averaging 140 fps, video we saw an average of maybe 105 fps from the 480 with some settings on high.

- - - Updated - - -

Your 760 is performing almost on the level of a 970 then. Either that or you're not playing at max settings.

Not even close, check the chart dude linked 970's are averaging over 125 fps on ultra.

[Deleted]

That overwatch video was NOT gtx 980 levels, sorry. I want high as FPS as possible in blizzard games i plan on getting a 144hz panel this year, i wouldn't care as much if i was sticking to this 60hz model. Its just baffling why AMD architecture does not get good FPS in blizz games.

This is very much disappointing to me i was planning on buying this card, but that overwatch video reminded me of why i haven't considered an AMD card in a while (performance in blizzard games is seriously lacking, AMD is usually quite a ways behind in MMO GPU performance as well which is yet to be seen).

I know AMD is usually a bit behind in blizzard games, but I would wait till the card is out. Seems to be that the proper drivers are not out yet.

DRIVERS
Most of the leaks are running on 16.5.2 driver version. If you take Tonga, double the ROPS, add 256 cores, clock it about 25% higher, and add a small boost due to a faster cache, the leaks basically reflect that.

What it does not reflect is literally any of the new logic hardware in Polaris. That discard accelerator doesn't run itself. It is operated by driver code which does not exist at all in current AMD drivers.

The launch drivers in reviewers hands right now, 16.6.2, are just the first draft of support for the new features of the architecture, and I don't think it would be that surprising if performance in some areas improved in excess of 10%.
A 10% higher FSU score based on arch improvements. Plus a 20% OC from 1266 -> ~1500 on the GPU and the known 12.5% OC on the VRAM. This alone puts the card at Fury X.

Why would production drivers out in public have beta driver code for an unreleased product? It just doesn't go in the build. There is no optimization or hardware support for Polaris right now in the leaks, since the reviewers just got that missing code in the new press drivers less than 24 hours ago.

I just don't see an AMD developer leaking it. And since all the leaks are right around the same level, differing in 1080 base vs 1266 boost clocks it seems, it is even more unlikely that one guy leaked it to multiple people with different builds. Occam's Razor, 480 drivers didn't leak.

[Fascinate]

Eh that still does not explain why the 970 is outpacing the 390x on that benchmark linked above. I am going to keep a close eye on overwatch benches and MMO's when this thing drops.

[mrgreenthump]

Eh that still does not explain why the 970 is outpacing the 390x on that benchmark linked above. I am going to keep a close eye on overwatch benches and MMO's when this thing drops.

From what I can see, the 970 is the outlier here. It usually isn't that close to the GTX 980.

[Fascinate]

Even taking that graph out of the equation entirely, the 480 from that video was only averaging 20 FPS more than my now considered ancient gtx 760. The 480 is more than twice as fast on paper, just a really disappointing result.

[Triggered Fridgekin]

I'm interested in what the RX 470 can bring to the table since I'll be focusing on 1080p with a FX-6300 @ 4.4ghz. If rumors are true, it'll sit ahead of the 380X which would be a decent bump in performance when compared to my vanilla 280 especially if it turns out to be an overclocking monster.

Then again, if the difference between it and the RX 480 is only $50, I'd almost be a fool to not throw extra at it especially considering the fact that I'll likely be doing an overhaul in the fall for Zen. I'm not entirely sold on 8GB for 1080p though even if it's only an extra $30. This is one thing which I am hoping to have figured out when reviews start to pop up and comparisons are made.

Even if it only matters at the ultra + level of detail, I wouldn't be surprised if my processor becomes a bottleneck at that point so it may not even matter.

[Vash The Stampede]

Even taking that graph out of the equation entirely, the 480 from that video was only averaging 20 FPS more than my now considered ancient gtx 760. The 480 is more than twice as fast on paper, just a really disappointing result.

That ancient GTX 760 ain't so bad. You're doing about the same as a GTX 960. If Nvidia released a 1060, it would also perform about the same. Welcome to the graphics industry for the past 5 years. Marginal improvements are now the norm.

Then again, if the difference between it and the RX 480 is only $50, I'd almost be a fool to not throw extra at it especially considering the fact that I'll likely be doing an overhaul in the fall for Zen. I'm not entirely sold on 8GB for 1080p though even if it's only an extra $30. This is one thing which I am hoping to have figured out when reviews start to pop up and comparisons are made.

Anything more than 8GB is a waste, except for cards like the 1080, and even still 4GB would still be enough. I'd absolutely go 4GB unless someone can prove to me otherwise that 8GB is a must. Also nothing that shows going from 15fps to 20fps cause that just means my graphic settings are too high and unplayable, regardless of memory size.

[Fascinate]

Wut, a 1060 would have to be at least doubly fast as my 760 to compete with the 480.

[Triggered Fridgekin]

Anything more than 8GB is a waste, except for cards like the 1080, and even still 4GB would still be enough. I'd absolutely go 4GB unless someone can prove to me otherwise that 8GB is a must. Also nothing that shows going from 15fps to 20fps cause that just means my graphic settings are too high and unplayable, regardless of memory size.

What I've been hearing is if you're in to modding games such as Fallout and Skyrim that the 4K texture packs tend to eat up that extra memory but even then... it still seems rather niche since not every title has modability let alone to the same degree as the two mentioned above. The only games I can think of off the top of my head which drains 4GB at 1080p is GTA V and the SoM texture update and it's entirely possible that my 6300 even at 4.4ghz couldn't handle it anyway. Then again, now that the Neo and Scorpio are on the horizon, maybe it'll have an impact on vram as well since most games are now ports.

In any case, here's to hoping that the 470 will have a release date thrown out on the 29th and we're not teased with an NDA which lasts right up until release.

[Vash The Stampede]

What I've been hearing is if you're in to modding games such as Fallout and Skyrim that the 4K texture packs tend to eat up that extra memory but even then... it still seems rather niche since not every title has modability let alone to the same degree as the two mentioned above. The only games I can think of off the top of my head which drains 4GB at 1080p is GTA V and the SoM texture update and it's entirely possible that my 6300 even at 4.4ghz couldn't handle it anyway. Then again, now that the Neo and Scorpio are on the horizon, maybe it'll have an impact on vram as well since most games are now ports.

In any case, here's to hoping that the 470 will have a release date thrown out on the 29th and we're not teased with an NDA which lasts right up until release.

Never in my life have I ever seen the need for more memory on a graphics card. The RX 480 is a fast graphics card, but is it fast enough to make use of 8GB? The R9 390X certainly wasn't with 8GB. Whenever there's a situation that 8GB does produce better frame rates, it doesn't allow the game to be playable regardless. You always lower the settings to the point where the extra VRAM gets the same frame rates as cards with less VRAM.

Also since the 480 is right around the 980 and 970 performance range, it's not like developers are suddenly going to make games that make use of that extra vram. They will still work around 4GB.

[mrgreenthump]

Also since the 480 is right around the 980 and 970 performance range, it's not like developers are suddenly going to make games that make use of that extra vram. They will still work around 4GB.

Think someone was testing it out and reported that there were only 2 games that went over 4 gigs on stock 480. Can't really remember who it was or the games tested, because it got removed quite fast. But yeah the 8GB is a marketing trick most of the time, because it's one of the things people see on the cover of the box. 8 GB > 4 GB must be better etc.

- - - Updated - - -

That said, you should probably still play it safe with 8 GB, because you never know when the next unoptimized piece of junk port is going to hit the gates.

[Serpha]

I have R9 390 8GB and I saw benchmarks comparing all the cards and if the extra 4GB matters. Trust me, it doesn't, not even at highest resolution.

[Evildeffy]

Not entirely true.

DOOM (2016) does not activate some options unless you have 5.5GB of VRAM and it's called "Nightmare" mode in graphics (not difficulty).
Mirror's Edge Catalyst has a "Hyper Mode" which cannot run properly if you don't have 8GB of VRAM due to the use of some graphic functions.

Battlefield 1 will host some options requiring more than 4GB of VRAM to be activated (much like DOOM).

This will be a trend among game developers and it is growing, it doesn't improve performance but it does allow for extra eyecandy mode.

[Asmekiel]

Doesn't the new Tomb Raider benefit from the extra VRAM in DX12 mode too?

[Fascinate]

Games use more memory if your card has it, but ive never seen improvements from it. When i went from a 1gb 465 to 2gb 760 WoW memory usuage went from capped at 1gb to ~1.4gb usage on high preset at 1080p. Even when i had a 1gb card ive never seen performance hits from running into memory cap. I had skyrim with HD packs installed, ran just fine on the 465.

[Evildeffy]

Games use more memory if your card has it, but ive never seen improvements from it. When i went from a 1gb 465 to 2gb 760 WoW memory usuage went from capped at 1gb to ~1.4gb usage on high preset at 1080p. Even when i had a 1gb card ive never seen performance hits from running into memory cap. I had skyrim with HD packs installed, ran just fine on the 465.

I dare you to enable Nightmare mode graphics on 4GB cards with DOOM or run Hyper mode from Mirror's Edge Catalyst with 4GB.

4GB does not limit performance right now, but it will limit eye candy goodies in games right now.

It's not essential ... but workable.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't the new Tomb Raider benefit from the extra VRAM in DX12 mode too?

Rise of the Tomb Raider is a software mess, even a rat/pidgeon is less of a slob than that game.

[Vash The Stampede]

Not entirely true.

DOOM (2016) does not activate some options unless you have 5.5GB of VRAM and it's called "Nightmare" mode in graphics (not difficulty).
Mirror's Edge Catalyst has a "Hyper Mode" which cannot run properly if you don't have 8GB of VRAM due to the use of some graphic functions.

Battlefield 1 will host some options requiring more than 4GB of VRAM to be activated (much like DOOM).

This will be a trend among game developers and it is growing, it doesn't improve performance but it does allow for extra eyecandy mode.

Wait, some games are now hiding graphic options? I'd like to be the one to determine if my hardware can handle it or not.

[Evildeffy]

Wait, some games are now hiding graphic options? I'd like to be the one to determine if my hardware can handle it or not.

Well sucks to be you but it's here.

Though Mirror's Edge Catalyst has the option available for everyone it will not function for those below 4GB of VRAM unless you like 10FPS.

[Lathais]

nVidia has lost me trust in products too many times over the series of years. Don't agree with the business/marketing decisions they've been doing. Also don't agree with the prices they are doing for the small performance gain.

AMD on the other hand. I've owned around 5 AMD cards, and only 1 has failed. 5770, working. 6870, working. 7870, working. R9 270x, failed. R9 390x, working.

Personal history with the two companies, I will give nVidia no more chances, or efforts into getting any of their products.

Note: I'm on 1080p, and have no need or desire to go beyond at this time. Tried 2K 27". Didn't like it.

This statement confuses me, you tried 2k and didn't like it, but are on 2k? 1080p=2K.