• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

AMD Polaris architecture to succeed Graphics Core Next

T

Thraktor

Member
If it is accurate then the single 6-pin connector would put the maximum power draw of the card at under 150W (75W from the PCIe connector + 75W from the 6-pin). The current 380/380X have a 190W TDP, and the 390/390X are 275W, so if it manages to compete with the latter on performance while consuming around half the power that's impressive enough as is.

Edit: For reference:

R9 380/380X - TDP: 190W - Provided: 225W (PCIe + 2x 6-pin or 1x 8-pin)
R9 390/390X - TDP: 275W - Provided: 300W (PCIe + 1x 8-pin + 1x 6-pin)
RX 480 (rumoured) - TDP: ? - Provided: 150W (PCIe + 1x 6-pin)

GTX 970 - TDP: 145W - Provided: 225W (PCIe + 2x 6-pin or 1x 8-pin)
GTX 980 - TDP: 165W - Provided: 225W (PCIe + 2x 6-pin or 1x 8-pin)

GTX 1070 - TDP: 150W - Provided: 225W (PCIe + 1x 8-pin)
GTX 1080 - TDP: 180W - Provided: 225W (PCIe + 1x 8-pin)
 
frontieruk

frontieruk

Member
Thraktor said:
If it is accurate then the single 6-pin connector would put the maximum power draw of the card at under 150W (75W from the PCIe connector + 75W from the 6-pin). The current 380/380X have a 190W TDP, and the 390/390X are 275W, so if it manages to compete with the latter on performance while consuming around half the power that's impressive enough as is.

Edit: For reference:

R9 380/380X - TDP: 190W - Provided: 225W (PCIe + 2x 6-pin or 1x 8-pin)
R9 390/390X - TDP: 275W - Provided: 300W (PCIe + 1x 8-pin + 1x 6-pin)
RX 480 (rumoured) - TDP: ? - Provided: 150W (PCIe + 1x 6-pin)

GTX 1070 - TDP: 150W - Provided: 225W (PCIe + 1x 8-pin)
GTX 1080 - TDP: 180W - Provided: 225W (PCIe + 1x 8-pin)
Click to expand...

Got the 980 / 970 figures to hand?
 
M

MuchoMalo

Banned
dr_rus said:
Pretty much as expected. Will sell at $300 but it's likely that by its launch time NV will have some 1060Ti in the same spot with less power draw and samey performance.
Click to expand...

Power draw will be in the same ballpark. 1x6pin means that it draws under 150W but more than 75W, most likely 130W based on rumors. It's unlikely that the 1060 (Ti) would be rated at much less than the 120W TDP of the 960. I'd say that Nvidia would have a 10-20% advantage in the best case, and that's only relevant to, let's be honest, fanboys.
 
dr_rus

dr_rus

Member
MuchoMalo said:
Power draw will be in the same ballpark. 1x6pin means that it draws under 150W but more than 75W, most likely 130W based on rumors. It's unlikely that the 1060 (Ti) would be rated at much less than the 120W TDP of the 960. I'd say that Nvidia would have a 10-20% advantage in the best case, and that's only relevant to, let's be honest, fanboys.
Click to expand...

This really depends on if NV will need a GP104 based 1060Ti or a GP106 based 1060 to compete with 480. If it'll be the latter than we're likely to see a pretty huge TDP difference.
 
V

V_Arnold

Member
dr_rus said:
Pretty much as expected. Will sell at $300 but it's likely that by its launch time NV will have some 1060Ti in the same spot with less power draw and samey performance.
Click to expand...

Hah, this did not happen in the past two generations, unlikely to happen now. Nvidia does not just do "cheaper, more powerful, AND less power draw". They do not. So why spill into fantasy land just to spite AMD in its own comfortable range?
 
V

V_Arnold

Member
Adry9 said:
Not just a 1060 but a 1060Ti by July? Not happening.
Click to expand...

The fanboyness is showing at this point. It is not possible for Nvidia to dominate on ALL Fronts, all the time, in all categories. This idea that by the time AMD's main focus comes out, Nvidia will be there , for, well...faster, better, less power, AND cheaper - nonsense.

Nvidia did not do that, especially not the "for cheaper" part for quite some time now, they are not starting it when they are inching closer and closer to a monopoly.
 
S

SRG01

Member
So... I have two PCI-E slots on my motherboard (H97m-g43). Is it possible to have two graphics cards on the same motherboard and not have Windows screw up?

Why? Because that $199 graphics card is an instant impulse buy at this point.
 
M

mark_79

Banned
$200 for a nVidia 980 level GPU is fantastic value, if it indeed does offer that kind of performance.

I'm absolutely dead set on getting the 1070 next month but tonight's news will make my migrating from AMD to nVidia after more than a decade of gaming a little in geek terms, sad.

Maybe I could build a second AMD 480 powered pc? :D
 
I

Inspectah_Deck

Member
Source for the 199$ is WSJ, when they post a rumor it´s usally true, they have reliable sources and a name to hold up to.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/amd-prices-3-d-cards-to-spur-virtual-reality-market-1464725394

Also WhyCry from Vdeocardz:
BTW I heard AMD demonstrated RX 480 in CF beating GTX 1080 at Polaris Tech Day.
Click to expand...
http://videocardz.com/60752/amd-radeon-rx-480-specifications-leaked#comment-2704688968

I hope multi GPU starts through with Vulkan and DX12 (which supports it natively).
Imagine 1080 performance for 400$.
 
Caayn

Caayn

Member
That price would be amazing if that's true.
SRG01 said:
So... I have two PCI-E slots on my motherboard (H97m-g43). Is it possible to have two graphics cards on the same motherboard and not have Windows screw up?

Why? Because that $199 graphics card is an instant impulse buy at this point.
Click to expand...
Jup.

Two AMD GPU's would work on your motherboard but two NVIDIA GPU's won't. (Something about NVIDIA requiring a certification for SLI....)
 
C

CraigerGamer

Member
Gnubberen said:
http://videocardz.com/60773/amd-radeon-rx-480-to-cost-199-usd

$199.

That sounds pretty damn good.
Click to expand...

684V1O.gif
 
Q

qa_engineer

Member
If the 199.99 rumor and performance numbers are true then damn. There will be a lot more VR capable budget PCs in the wild.

Edit: Also my poor 390X.
 
C

chaosblade

Unconfirmed Member
$200 for 390X/980 performance? I'd be in. And my brother would probably get one too since he's trying to figure out what to ask for as a graduation gift.
 
N

napata

Member
Inspectah_Deck said:
Source for the 199$ is WSJ, when they post a rumor it´s usally true, they have reliable sources and a name to hold up to.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/amd-prices-3-d-cards-to-spur-virtual-reality-market-1464725394

Also WhyCry from Vdeocardz:

http://videocardz.com/60752/amd-radeon-rx-480-specifications-leaked#comment-2704688968

I hope multi GPU starts through with Vulkan and DX12 (which supports it natively).
Imagine 1080 performance for 400$.
Click to expand...

Probably with 100% scaling which no game will have. Multi GPU in general is bad but CF is the absolute worst. Even after 10 years it's still a microstutter fest.
 
P

Pop-O-Matic

Banned
SRG01 said:
So... I have two PCI-E slots on my motherboard (H97m-g43). Is it possible to have two graphics cards on the same motherboard and not have Windows screw up?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it should work fine as long as you have the case space for it, since the cards will almost certainly have dual-slot coolers and, with how it's spaced on that board, you'll need a case that supports at least 5 card slots.
 
Coulomb_Barrier

Coulomb_Barrier

Member
qa_engineer said:
If the 199.99 rumor and performance numbers are true then damn. There will be a lot more VR capable budget PCs in the wild.

Edit: Also my poor 390X.
Click to expand...

AMD's marketshare would jump from 23% to about 40% over the course of the rest of the year I reckon with a $200 970-beater.

Also, assuming the rumours are true that 480 xfire beats a 1080, then by extension the 480 must surely be faster than a 970, unless there is some magic dual-GPU scaling hardware/software AMD is introducing with these RX-series cards.
 
I

iavi

Member
Coulomb_Barrier said:
AMD's marketshare would jump from 23% to about 40% over the course of the rest of the year I reckon with a $200 970-beater.

Also, assuming the rumours are true that 480 xfire beats a 1080, then by extension the 480 must surely be faster than a 970, unless there is some magic dual-GPU scaling hardware/software AMD is introducing with these RX-series cards.
Click to expand...

Even tame rumors have the 480 punching with the 980.
 
S

SRG01

Member
Caayn said:
That price would be amazing if that's true.Jup.

Two AMD GPU's would work on your motherboard but two NVIDIA GPU's won't. (Something about NVIDIA requiring a certification for SLI....)
Click to expand...

Pop-O-Matic said:
Yeah, it should work fine as long as you have the case space for it, since the cards will almost certainly have dual-slot coolers and, with how it's spaced on that board, you'll need a case that supports at least 5 card slots.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I left something very important out: I currently have an nVidia graphics card installed that I need in order to do graphics work. Is it possible to keep that on the motherboard with an AMD card on the other PCI-E port?
 
N

Nostremitus

Member
Inspectah_Deck said:
http://www.hardware.fr/news/14651/computex-polaris-doubler-pdm-amd.html
Can someone translate?
Click to expand...

I may have misinterpreted the bit about the double smiles, it was worded strangely to me.

As expected, it's behind a curtain and without cameras that Polaris can be seen at Computex, with prototypes of custom cards and functional models, even if they are not clocked at the final frequencies as they are still being being finalized.

Different AMD partners we approached were rather enthusiastic about the future potential of these graphics cards. This is reflected in custom designs that we have seen that are pretty much finalized for mid-range cards.

When asked what expectations are in terms of market share with regard to continuing the recently reported AMD gains, the reaction is usually a double smile. First off, realize that AMD announced that their partners don't all feel the same way. One of the segments that "count" expect an estimated 15 to 17% increase for the Radeon brand. The second smile is from the most optimistic as they expect and much larger increase of up to 30%.

A leap that would be good for AMD; and its partners are convinced that the potential is there. They are also aware that Nvidia will do everything to maintain its position and the rumor is that the specs of the GTX 1060 have been revised slightly downwards, to change the design of the cards, to be able to offer a more aggressive price point.

Facing a fight that will be difficult, AMD's partners appreciate the intelligent management of product stocking since the beginning of the year. AMD have significantly reduced the volumes to avoid leaving older cards in stock at the time of the arrival of the new family. This has prepared the market for aggressive pricing at launch and to more easily create demand from retailers.

In addition, AMD partners believe that this more realistic inventory management is not just about this hardware launch and is the heart of AMD's strategy to ensure development advances much faster and no longer see long periods of time without real innovation. Obviously, AMD has convinced its partners, it remains to be seen if this will be the same for the players!
Click to expand...
 
N

Nostremitus

Member
Pop-O-Matic said:
Vid I poster is over 2 years old and I haven't seen anything about Nvidia blocking it since then, so...
Click to expand...
Its also not something that's actually affecting the market yet either.

As soon as Nvidia feels that the functionality starts having an effect on profitability its safe to assume they'll shut it down.

Sadly, this is just the type of business Nvidia has shown that they run. I'd love to be surprised, but they didn't get where they are today by being friendly.
 
M

MuchoMalo

Banned
dr_rus said:
This really depends on if NV will need a GP104 based 1060Ti or a GP106 based 1060 to compete with 480. If it'll be the latter than we're likely to see a pretty huge TDP difference.
Click to expand...

My estimation was based on it being GP106. Assuming performance on-par with GTX 980 and a similar performance per watt difference to 1080 vs 980 (assuming that Nvidia is more honest about TDP like they were with 1080 and 1070 and misleading like they were with Maxwell), the TDP would, in the best case, hit 105W, with 116W being more likely. However, let's take a look at history for the full Gxxx6 chip.

GM206: 120W
GK106: 140W
GF116: 116W
GF106: 106W

So, I think it's safe to say that sub-100W is pretty unlikely. There's a tiny chance that it could hit 100W and that the cut-down version could be a sub-75W; however, that seems pretty unlikely when you consider the fact that the 1080 has a higher TDP than the 980, despite the 980 having almost identical power consumption in real benchmarks.
 
T

Thraktor

Member
Sir Abacus said:
You could not pay me enough to trust AMD with SLI ever again.
Click to expand...

Well then then next time you should probably link your AMD cards with Crossfire rather than SLI :p

Seriously, though, for the next couple of years at least I wouldn't recommend CF/SLI for anything other than VR. More and more engines are implementing temporal features which completely rule out multi-GPU setups, and the frame timing of AFR solutions for those that do are far from ideal. A small number of devs might use the multi-adapter support in DX12 and Vulkan to implement good multi-GPU support in-engine, but they'll be few and far between, as it's a lot of work to cater for an extremely small market segment.

VR is where multi-GPU gets interesting, though (or at least dual-GPU). By splitting one GPU per eye you should get close to 100% engine compatibility and close to 100% performance scaling, without the stuttering and added latency of AFR. Both AMD and Nvidia have APIs for this, but it has to be implemented on a per-game (or per-engine) basis, which slows adoption significantly (again it's a very small market segment). This is why I was talking about AMD getting this implemented on an API level in Oculus and SteamVR. I don't know enough about any of the APIs involved to say if it's technically possible or not, but if it is then it would create one market segment where Crossfire setups would be genuinely desirable.
 
M

MadJackChurchill

Banned
Nostremitus said:
Its also not something that's actually affecting the market yet either.

As soon as Nvidia feels that the functionality starts having an effect on profitability its safe to assume they'll shut it down.

Sadly, this is just the type of business Nvidia has shown that they run. I'd love to be surprised, but they didn't get where they are today by being friendly.
Click to expand...
These fucking conspiracy theories my god lol.
 
N

Nostremitus

Member
Thraktor said:
Well then then next time you should probably link your AMD cards with Crossfire rather than SLI :p

Seriously, though, for the next couple of years at least I wouldn't recommend CF/SLI for anything other than VR. More and more engines are implementing temporal features which completely rule out multi-GPU setups, and the frame timing of AFR solutions for those that do are far from ideal. A small number of devs might use the multi-adapter support in DX12 and Vulkan to implement good multi-GPU support in-engine, but they'll be few and far between, as it's a lot of work to cater for an extremely small market segment.

VR is where multi-GPU gets interesting, though (or at least dual-GPU). By splitting one GPU per eye you should get close to 100% engine compatibility and close to 100% performance scaling, without the stuttering and added latency of AFR. Both AMD and Nvidia have APIs for this, but it has to be implemented on a per-game (or per-engine) basis, which slows adoption significantly (again it's a very small market segment). This is why I was talking about AMD getting this implemented on an API level in Oculus and SteamVR. I don't know enough about any of the APIs involved to say if it's technically possible or not, but if it is then it would create one market segment where Crossfire setups would be genuinely desirable.
Click to expand...
With DX12/vulkan you can get the same effect sans VR by assigning portions of the screen for each card to render instead of using CF/SLI, right? Not sure if that would cause the odd vertical (screen tear?) or not. Nor do I fully understand how it works, it just looks like an attempt to use a similar style of rendering without VR.

MadJackChurchill said:
These fucking conspiracy theories my god lol.
Click to expand...
Are you saying Nvidia didn't lock out AMD/Nvidia multiGPU use in the past?

Commenting on something they actually did and saying they could do it again isn't a conspiracy theory at all.
 
R

roadrunn3r

Member
Mrbob said:
Am I reading that WSJ excerpt wrong? To me it says the line of cards starts at 199....not that the RX480 will be 199. If the RX480 is 199 though imagine the 399 card that will be available.

I don't understand how videocardZ states the cards will be no more than $199. That excerpt doesn't say that.
Click to expand...

Advanced Micro Devices Inc. is angling to lower the cost of virtual reality, targeting the field with a new line of graphics hardware priced at $199—half or less the cost of comparable products.

AMD said the first chips based on its new Polaris design are expected to arrive in graphics cards for personal computers at the end of June. The company aims to help push the starting cost of PCs that can deliver VR experiences as low as $799 from above $1,000.

Consumers also face the cost of the latest generation of VR headsets—$599 for the Oculus Rift from Facebook Inc. ’s Oculus VR unit, for example, or $799 for HTC Corp. ’s Vive.

But the need for a PC with an add-in card that includes a beefy 3-D graphics chip is another barrier that stands in the way of widespread adoption of VR. An online survey conducted in April by the Advanced Imaging Society found that 68% of respondents said VR equipment was too expensive. “Less than 1% of PC users have systems that are capable of doing VR,” said Raja Koduri, senior vice president and chief architect of AMD’s Radeon technologies group. “The entry point is very, very high.”

AMD said its new Radeon RX cards, certified for use in VR by HTC and Oculus VR, deliver performance equivalent to that of $500 graphics cards used for VR.

Patrick Moorhead, an analyst with Moor Insights & Strategy briefed on AMD’s strategy, estimated that the current minimum price on cards comparable to AMD’s new models is $399. He said the $199 pricing comes as a surprise. “It’s great for getting more people into VR,” said Kelt Reeves, president of Falcon Northwest Computer Systems Inc., a boutique maker of gaming PCs that serves the market.

AMD competes with Nvidia Corp. in the chips known as graphics processing units, or GPUs. Mercury Research estimates that Nvidia had 70.6% of shipments in the first quarter of 2016 to 29.4% for AMD, though the latter’s share is up three percentage points from the fourth quarter.

Standard practice in the GPU business has been to start new product lines with high-end cards that command hefty prices and profit margins. Mr. Koduri said AMD hoped that breaking from tradition by starting with a lower-cost model could have a bigger impact. For one thing, he said, computer retailers prefer to stock machines for less than $999.

Nvidia on May 7 introduced a new flagship model called the GTX 1080 at a $599 price tag that is expected to succeed a $1,000 model called the Titan X. Nvidia also introduced a $379 model called the GTX 1070, which is likely to be seen as competition to the new AMD model.

“It’s up to Nvidia to come up with a lower-priced card,” Mr. Moorhead said. An Nvidia spokesman had no immediate comment.

AMD, based in Sunnyvale, Calif., plans to formally announce the new chips early Wednesday at the Computex trade show in Taiwan.
Click to expand...

The article mentions "cards" but only a single price point (199$) so it could be the other card is priced higher (or lower), we can't say.
 
F

FLAguy954

Junior Member
DSN2K said:
if I can replace my 290X with something a tad better and runs alot cooler I'd be happy.
Click to expand...

Same here. I'm gonna go in with reasonable expectation of AMD releasing a cooler, power efficient replacement to my 290X Lightning. Anything more than that would be a pleasant surprise.

Coulomb_Barrier said:
Very much doubt it (assuming 980 performance for $199).

But if true, I'd definitely buy two. Don't give a toss about Xfire issues.
Click to expand...

Lmao same (and I really hate Crossfire generally).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

First Intel Battlemage chips are being tested - launch for 2024
Hardware
4
992
Miyazaki’s Slave replied
AMD "Strix Halo" Zen 5 Mobile Processor Pictured
Rumor Analysis
39
3K
THE DUCK replied
AMD Announced AMD Radeon PRO W7000 with up to 48GB of VRAM
News Hardware
34
2K
Hudo replied
Qualcomm Unveils Snapdragon X Elite CPU PC Benchmarks: Oryon Core Faster & Efficient Than Intel 13th Gen & Apple M2 Max, GPU Faster Than AMD RDNA 3
2 3 4
172
16K
twilo99 replied
AMD Ryzen Z1/Phoenix2 APU seems to perform well at 15W
News Hardware
19
2K
BlackTron replied
Top Bottom