Jump to content
_Assad

AMD 2016 -Potato PCs can be VR Ready for >$500?

Recommended Posts

AMD just released their computex livestream. Their new RX 480 is basically a more efficient 390 at the price of $200 for the 4gb version and likely 240-270 for the 8gb version. Meaning all you people out there with potato PCs, Toasters, and Ovens can now enjoy crisp 1080p graphics and even delve into some 1440p gaming as well. With 2x Rx 480s supposedly being a better performer than the 1080 in Ashes of the Singularity it also probably means NVidia needs to do some serious re-pricing if they even want to compete with the 480. Offering 20-30% less performance for $180 cheaper than the 1070 all this means is that probably for the first time you can get a mainstream card which is capable of running any current and next gen game at high settings w/ 60 fps and without breaking the bank.

 

Y6AM94F.jpg

IQh9Gkr.png

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/4lytso/amd_computex_event_megathread/

Mandatory PCMR thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, PityFool said:

What about stability?

The Rx 480 is a smaller, less power hungry, and more efficient 390. Stability wise should be A Okay. Its an ugly af reference card priced at $200 with $500 gpu performance. AMD wants to capatilize on the VR market and the Crimson drivers shit on NoVideo all day. So it looks like AMD will be the mainstream and low end champions. Take a gandy pc plop a 4gb 480 in it for $200 and you end up with a PC that can run most AAA games on 1080 60fps on high even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bolagnaise said:

I'll wait for actual review to come out, as we have seen with nvidia, there always some fluff with marketing going on.

Same, but its already been a general consensus that its just a 390 at $250 and a 290 at $200. Either way it should prove fantastic for people trying to get into PC gaming all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like its less then 10.5" as well. Neither of the Nvidia cards will fit my Silverstone ft03-mini which was (annoyingly enough) made for 10" cards before they added another .5" to the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll wait for some actual reviews before buying into the marketing.

Not saying AMD are necessarily lying about 2 x RX480 beating a single GTX1080 in Ashes, just that I would like some more actual benchmarking done by somewhat less biased groups (E.g. Anandtech) using more than just Ashes. It is, after all, a game that has historically favoured the GCN architecture, rather than being generally representative of the way game engines are using resources.

Unfortunately for me AMD will remain off limits until they implement something like GameStream. At the moment my PC doubles as a console thanks to GS and that's certainly not a feature I'd want to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm playing on 1440p, and currently my 970 does a good enough job of running everything I want it to. 

But if I do want to upgrade, I don't see too much of a point in getting anything less than a 1070 or equivalent performance (no idea on the timeline for a 490 or next fury) just due to the lack of gains. 

Or I can buy a 2nd 970 for like $100-150 because their value will be trashed in coming months.

@Folterknecht input?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, _Assad said:

The Rx 480 is a smaller, less power hungry, and more efficient 390. Stability wise should be A Okay. Its an ugly af reference card priced at $200 with $500 gpu performance. AMD wants to capatilize on the VR market and the Crimson drivers shit on NoVideo all day. So it looks like AMD will be the mainstream and low end champions. Take a gandy pc plop a 4gb 480 in it for $200 and you end up with a PC that can run most AAA games on 1080 60fps on high even.

 

That's utter BS -  5TFlops ~ between R9 390 - 390X. Better forget that misleading DX12 marketing slide with the 1080 quickly.

@TaylorSwift

Sure - if your PSU can handle it. Though keep in mind that 3.5GB VRAM and SLI @1440p isn't ideal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People rather pay more because of looks only 4Head

 

This is afaik the reference card, wait for other coolers to be shown, will probs be dank af.

 

So yeah, I'll also wait for the benchmarks and I guess vega and then buy something. If I sell my card I can basically get a new card for like 150€ if not less, amazing! I'll be staying on 1080p for a few more years cuz 144Hz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The WSJ article said "$500 GPU performance for $200", so between 390x and Fury levels of performance. The leaked 3D Mark 11 scores on Videocardz a week or two ago show the 480 exactly between the 980 and the Fury, just below the Fury. So, fuck yea? Fury level performance for 40% the price.

5 hours ago, TaylorSwift said:

I'm playing on 1440p, and currently my 970 does a good enough job of running everything I want it to. 

But if I do want to upgrade, I don't see too much of a point in getting anything less than a 1070 or equivalent performance (no idea on the timeline for a 490 or next fury) just due to the lack of gains. 

Or I can buy a 2nd 970 for like $100-150 because their value will be trashed in coming months.

@Folterknecht input?

1070 is a fine ass upgrade. The AIB versions should be nice, fuck the FE version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Folterknecht said:

 

That's utter BS -  5TFlops ~ between R9 390 - 390X. Better forget that misleading DX12 marketing slide with the 1080 quickly.

@TaylorSwift

Sure - if your PSU can handle it. Though keep in mind that 3.5GB VRAM and SLI @1440p isn't ideal.

I was referring to the videocardz leak, but okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things:

  • 2 of those cards is 300 watts compared to 180 watts for the GTX 1080.
  • Will the extra wattage require power supply upgrades reducing the cost difference?
  • Will the extra wattage increase the electricity bill enough to make the cost difference negligible over the long run?  I haven't see anyone do the match on this when comparing components.
  • EVGA was selling GTX 1080 cards for $609 direct through its web site until they sold out.  With the cost of a PSU upgrade that some people will need to run two GPUs the GTX 1080 might be a lower cost solution.
  • They barely outperform a reference design GTX 1080 in one game that favors the AMD GPU.  What about the other thousands of popular games on the market that aren't favored by the AMD GPU?  What about GTX 1080's that aren't reference design?
  • You will be required to run crossfire to get that performance and we all know that crossfire and SLI don't always scale well in other games.
  • Not everyone will have a system that can run crossfire due to the PSU or lack of slots.

I personally favor a single card solution over SLI and so do many other gamers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 of those cards is 300 watts compared to 180 watts for the GTX 1080.
  • Will the extra wattage require power supply upgrades reducing the cost difference?
  • Will the extra wattage increase the electricity bill enough to make the cost difference negligible over the long run?  I haven't see anyone do the match on this when comparing component

Im going to stop you there because i honest to god think the electric bill stuff is total bullshit. And a 750 or 850w gold psu should be a standard if you're willing to throw down $400 for any piece of pc hardware. I live in a fucking desert and 70% of my bill alone comes from A/C. 15% utilities. And the rest being misc aka computers Tvs w/e. Extra wattage is more or less an investment in the future and usually for barely $20-$50 more. Because you can grab a high end psu if you want to upgrade way down the line or if you want a good psu gold standard rather than a ticking time bomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Bavor said:

A few things...

I agree that SLI is a lot less convenient and not fully supported.

AMD is aiming at grabbing a large market share, and the real contender is the 1060 when it arrives. I doubt anyone who is looking to buy a 1080 will pick up two of these instead, and I'm sure that isn't what AMD is aiming for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bavor said:

A few things:

  • 2 of those cards is 300 watts compared to 180 watts for the GTX 1080.
  • Will the extra wattage require power supply upgrades reducing the cost difference?
  • Will the extra wattage increase the electricity bill enough to make the cost difference negligible over the long run?  I haven't see anyone do the match on this when comparing components.
  • EVGA was selling GTX 1080 cards for $609 direct through its web site until they sold out.  With the cost of a PSU upgrade that some people will need to run two GPUs the GTX 1080 might be a lower cost solution.
  • They barely outperform a reference design GTX 1080 in one game that favors the AMD GPU.  What about the other thousands of popular games on the market that aren't favored by the AMD GPU?  What about GTX 1080's that aren't reference design?
  • You will be required to run crossfire to get that performance and we all know that crossfire and SLI don't always scale well in other games.
  • Not everyone will have a system that can run crossfire due to the PSU or lack of slots.

I personally favor a single card solution over SLI and so do many other gamers.

Same, but the problem for most people is money. I simply REFUSE to pay nearly 900€(860~890 here) for a 1080(FE 4Head ), while normal will still cost over 700€. The 1070 will cost for sure around 500€ here. Even a single RX 480 will be a HUGE upgrade from my current 7950 and it'll even consume less! (afaik about 70W less).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of this product is the 200 dollar price point. Its not supposed to be the fastest card. Its supposed to be the most popular card when it comes to sales. Nvidia is probably shitting themselves right now. All the money is made on the "mainstream" card. NOT on 1080s and Titans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Siimcy said:

Same, but the problem for most people is money. I simply REFUSE to pay nearly 900€(860~890 here) for a 1080(FE 4Head ), while normal will still cost over 700€. The 1070 will cost for sure around 500€ here. Even a single RX 480 will be a HUGE upgrade from my current 7950 and it'll even consume less! (afaik about 70W less).

 

Or you could just be financial intelligent and save for a few months/years/decades/centuries ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...