AMD

>http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-faster-than-nano-980/
> AMD RX 480 Edges Out R9 Nano & GTX 980 – Polaris 10 XT Runs At ~60c & Draws ~100W

BULLSHIT AND LIES

150W retard! 150!

File: images.png (8KB, 225x224px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x224px

>>55085826
DELETE THIS

File: 1461830260757.jpg (80KB, 719x693px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 719x693px

This is as stupid as the cut vs. uncut threads on /b/. AMDiscount and Nvidiots, please short circuit your lives.
With kind regards, everyone on this board.

150W TDP HOUSEFIRE

Inferior Ayymad technology 3 year old performance

>2016
>NVIDIA

1080 topping charts MAD can do NOTHING qgain

I'm stoked af for AMD, and even I know that WCCFTech is dodgy at best.

>>55085908
Not everyone is rich as you faggot.

File: 1464754047845.png (187KB, 327x316px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 327x316px

>mfw when stock 480 matches 980 oc
>mfw it can probably reach/get close to 980ti/fury x levels with a real oc
>mfw when amd release beast mode 480 that will outperform 980 ti/1070 for 300 burgers

Oh wow 390x aka rebranded 290x performance in 20 fucking 16 I can barely contain my excrement

>>55085923
They leaked the $200 price point before it was announced, so I daresay they have a source

>>55085928
400£
>rich

Nigga I spent 2000$ on a laptop which i didnt need some months ago for shits and im average payed

>>55085963
Or just get the 220$ model with a good cooler and plenty of VRM and OC it yourself

>>55085964
the 390x wasn't simply a rebrand, they were newly manufactured chips

>>55085964
You weren't saying that when the 980 came out with nothing more than less power.

>>55085964
>mid-end card

why dont the new 4xx cards have HBM
was HBM a meme?

>>55086049
These are mid-range cards you cunt.

>>55086049
Why don't Nvidia high end have HBM?

>>55086049

HBM1 was a meme.
HBM2 makes the meme supreme.

8GB or 16GB HBM2 1TB/s memory bandwidth will be unreal. The problem is designing a graphics chip that can even use up half of that bandwidth

>>55086049
Why don't honda civics have 50psi turbo engines?
Was 1980s F1 tech a meme?

>>55085826
>Get aftermarket cooled one for $230
>Dump power into it
>Match 980 Ti
>200w
Fucking nice

>>55086056
so they are going to release cards with HBM on the new architecture, right?

>>55086072
Not really, at all.
Hawaii was bandwidth starved, without compression feqtures like DCC we would be using near 1TB/s on newer chips

>>55086049
490 (I think) and 490X Vega cards will run up to 16GB of HBM2, bud.

File: 1428363317735.jpg (14KB, 222x227px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 222x227px

>>55086067

They do on their 15,000$ product. 1080 is mid-range too, it just has a 30% bigger die size.
14nm/16nm vs 28nm
200mm (RX 480)= 980/fury performance (previously 400/500mm size
300mm (1080)= 15% faster than 980 Ti performance (previously 600mm size)

I would say if you are serious about gaming at 4K, wait for 400mm die sizes, which is traditionally where the really powerful stuff starts coming along.

Nvidia and AMD released smaller die sizes to milk their customers, Nvidia's was slightly bigger and then they went ahead and charged 700$ for it

File: 123.gif (491KB, 499x428px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 499x428px

I'm really starting to grow tired of these threads.

>>55086105

fortunately those bandwidth issues are totally fixed with video compression that lowers bandwidth requirements by nearly 400%.

What once required a 500GB/s bus, one can now get away with 150GB/s and still have similiar performance

So a 512-bit bus of GDDR5X is probably capable of a TB/s too, and it should cost around the same as HBM.

at least HBM lowers power draw and takes up less space, makes it perfect for APU's and mobile GPU's

3 YEAR OLD PERFORMANCE IN 2016

AYYYMADKEKS ON SUICIDE WATCH

You idiots still don't get it that the 480 is a red herring? The real star is the 470, Polaris 10 PRO with 10% less performance and <$150 cost

>>55086140
It's going to be like this till the 29th and maybe even a week after.

File: fastest-graphics-card-ever-made.jpg (909KB, 1600x1362px) Image search: [Google]

909KB, 1600x1362px

>>55086189
All of these words and yet nvidia still can't match AMD in terms of outright performance.

File: 1444945897555.jpg (26KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x450px

>mfw every chart AMDkeks post up has Nvidia on the top

>>55085826
>r9 390
>1015 core clock
>CALLING THAT OC
what does that make my card running at 1140 core?

>>55085986
Underage b8

>>55086310
A golden chip

>>55086310
Less impressive than my '850mhz' 280X hitting 1190mhz.

We have good chips, there are also shit chips in the world

>>55086189
These are AMD's low end cards
AMD's low end cards are beating nvidia's high end cards of last gen

This can't be real, you can't be fucking serious.
I bought a 970 a month ago, FUCK YOU AMD

>>55086525
Polaris 10 is a (lower) middle-class chip.
Polaris 11 could be considered "Low-End", but the actual Low-End (as in, not much outside HTPC/Office/older Titles) can be found on AMDs x50/x40 as well as Nvidia's x40, and lower.

File: amd.jpg (295KB, 800x484px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 800x484px

>>55086602
Greatness comes to those who wait~

>>55086602
How is it their fault that you're an idiot?

>>55086263
damn
So.. SLICK

And releasing 14nm cool zone tech less then half of a 1070. Why do you need a $500 card that runs the same shit a $200 card does?

I've seen 2 firestrike benchmarks today, one stating that 480 blows away oced 980 other claiming 480 falls short behind stock 980. Can you AMD shills make up your mind?

>>55086631
>it's another "Why do you need a *insert higher price* card that runs the same shit a *insert lower price* card does?" post

that's like asking why anyone should buy smartphones when a 2001 brick nokia is fundamentally the same. people make their own judgement on what they need based on price, performance and sometimes popularity (aka apple fags). i could be asking you why should i buy a $300 aftermarket 480x when i can buy a bottom end $400 gtx 1070 which will be ~40/50% more powerful for just 33% more in cost.

>>55086263
Ye brah enjoy that 3 fps gain in 4k gayming, I'm sure playing Witcher 3 at 29 frames instead of 26 is very much enjoyable.

>>55086665
you can't trust benchmarks, especially these days, I'm waiting for actual game average fps.

>>55086631
Except 1070 can easily run everything in maxed 1440p while 480 will be somewhere between 970 and 980 which is just perfect for 1080p. I admit that buying 1070 for a single 1080p monitor is retarded.

>>55086681

The only aftermarket worth getting is xfx for AMD. Their warranty justifies the high prices. Nvidia has EVGA. Everything else is garbage.

>>55086602
Don't worry these are all fake, 480 has been confirmed to have 960-tier performance in reality.

>>55086707
>XFX
Kill yourself and your semen-for-solder company.

>>55086710
proof, anon?

>>55086707
Evga has been garbage since 2013. You're better off with Asus or Sapphire.

>>55086720
Common sense, knowledge of chips and circuits, my EE degree, AMD's general uselessness

>>55086737
i don't believe you, sorry anon.

>>55086736
>Evga has been garbage since 2013.

i've have nothing but praise for evga in these last few years. the cheapest cards with great performance.

>>>/out/

>>55086707
Sapphire is AMD's EVGA. XFX is really only great for that lifetime warranty.

>>55086737
>My gaping prolapsed asshole.

>>55086737
Go away Kyle, you're so buttblasted it's almost funny.

>>55086718

>Mad cause nvidiots aren't allowed to overclcok their graphics under warranty

>>55085843
>100W
>AMD

AHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AMD THEMSELVES SAID IT USES 150W
FUCKING RETARDED PAJEET SITE

>>55086781
>hes shellshocked
i'm so sorry dude.

>>55086781
TDP =/= Power consumption

Go back to >>>/v/

>>55086756
You've heard wrong. Evga was wonky during 7xx and 9xx series. Customer reviews say it all. Go for ASUS for cooling or Sapphire for best oc. But who am I kidding, you're trying to push your buyers remorse on others.

>>55086781
They never said it uses 150W you fool, they never said anything, they just showed you a slide saying "Power: 150W"

Which can mean
TDP is 150W <- makes sense but TDP is a difficult metric to count as power draw
Total available power for the IC is 150W <- makes sense considering the pin layout
If it uses 150W average it would fucking have power issues constantly due to the inadequate circuitry

>>55085963
>mfw when
>mfy face when when

>>55086736
>>55086756
>>55086762

Implying cheap Zotac isnt the godtier noisy leafblower aftermarket card you were looking for

>>55086781
Even if it uses 150W, what does 50W actually mean to you?
Are you that mong from a week ago that said that every 50W the ambient temp of the room grows by 2C?

>>55086800
>heard

i clearly implied that i myself have nothing but praise for them. i've had 2 of their cards in the last 2 years and they've both been very cheap compared to gigabyte, msi etc but have been solid overclockers. i'm running at 1508 mhz boost on my bog standard evga gtx 980.

i had a 970 before that which i donated to a cousin in need, but that too was a solid overclocker and was only £30 above stock reference price compared to all the other aftermarket vendors which were £50 and above.

>>55086848
>2000W heater in winter
>ambient temp is over 80C

Whew lad

File: stop posting.jpg (12KB, 449x364px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 449x364px

>>55086866
feel free

File: shiggy 2016.gif (805KB, 264x264px) Image search: [Google]

805KB, 264x264px

>1984+32
>nvidia

This is 130% fake, AMD is incompetent stupid pajeet poo company.. They cant make good chips
Never trust AMD, did you see Bulldozer?

>>55086811
>If it uses 150W average it would fucking have power issues constantly due to the inadequate circuitry

that's what they did with the nano and goyim ate it up

File: 1465604710287.png (359KB, 792x540px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 792x540px

>nivida fags in full defence mode

Feels good

>>55086011
Putting more CUs to existing architecture isn't making a new chip.

>>55086800
This
My Asus gtx 970 Black is clocked at +200/+500 with 120% power limit and +37mV and still runs in low 60s. DirectCu II is god tier cooler

>>55086959
It is, it involves a complete tape out and validation
But the 390X doesn't have more CU's, it's identical to the 290X, it has slightly better performance/power consumption since it's a much newer stepping and the process is much more mature

>>55087010
maybe for nvidia cards
asus is the worst you can get for amd cards

>>55086665
It's literally tech journalists pulling numbers out of their ass to get hits
Since Fury it has been a real shitfest anything related to GPU's

>>55086011

7970/280x wasn't respun and the 290/390 and 290x/390x weren't respins either, if they were AMD would have backported new stuff like trueaudio to the gcn 1.0 chips and the ASICs for video encoding/decoding would have been updated.

>>55087013
Yeah because 390x is rebranded OC version of 290x which was 7xxx rebrand archtecture. And by the looks 480 may be rebrand too. Enjoy your shitty techology from half a decade ago and wonder why is it so cheap

>>55087058
Please, pray tell, which chip is the 290X a rebrand of?

I'll give you a hint: the 7970Ghz became the 280X and they didn't make a solo chip in the 7xxx series better than that.

>>55087083

he's talking about the architecture. the changes in the various flavors of GCN after the introduction of the 7000 series was minimal, the biggest change in hawaii, tonga and fiji being the wider memory bus (and redesigned memory controller on fiji).

>>55085986
nigga I make $600 a month I cant afford these €799 cards

File: 50462012.png (93KB, 216x241px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 216x241px

>>55087122

File: 1465968063441[1].png (607KB, 1440x549px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 1440x549px

>>55087577
Try picking up a book and improving yourself

>>55087602
I can't afford books

>>55085826
>mfw just bought a 390x
oh well time to return it when vega comes out

>>55087717
Ask momma to buy one for you, learn second language

File: 77340844.gif (594KB, 299x276px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 299x276px

>>55087779
>mfw learning japanese right now

If all this bullshit is true, and the 480 @ 1266mhz really is as good as a Fury, with low temps and overclocking through the roof, the shitstorms will be amazing. A lot of people will still buy Nvidia this gen, because AMD's reputation is shit, but this wondercard will redeem a lot of AMD's street cred.

>>55086706
>60hz cucks

>>55086937
Nano had 1x8pin which was more than enough for its average 170W usage.

>>55088147

the nano throttled as soon as it was under any load (even a shitty 2d game load).

>>55088216
Obviously? It needed to keep clocks low to stay in that TDP, don't forget that it's a 275W Fiji XT chip.

>>55085928
You mean, not everyone is of age to have a job and earn money. Most here are children who rely on mom..and for some dad to provide for them. A new high end vid card kind of breaks the piggy bank so to speak for most. Time to mow some lawns or some shit.

Who am I kidding, these fat fucks would rather buy cheap shit and bitch why better is not better to avoid any kind of labor, physical or mental.

>>55085873
No, maximum of 150 W does not mean it has to draw 150 W

File: Prices.jpg (197KB, 452x810px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 452x810px

The RX 480 8GiB is confirmed to cost 249€ (=$280) more than the GT 730 (which costs about $70).

Source: http://www.gamemachines.de

>>55088298
>german prices

Lel
So 235 Murikka dollars.

File: 1465931264791.jpg (55KB, 957x621px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 957x621px

Will the 1080 age super badly?
Will all the new DX12 shit coming out fuck it in the near future?
Should I just get a 480 and wait for Vega?
I just want to play BF1 on the hugest settings when it's out.

>>55088368
You can't go wrong with a 1080, it's the fastest thing around for not that much money.

>>55085826
Nvidia is done. It is over. Amd rules.

>>55085963
>oc of amd cards are always shit

ayymd fanboys on suicide watch

>>55087779
>learn second language
english is my second language

>>55088409
What is Tahiti

File: Capture.png (19KB, 847x249px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 847x249px

>>55088409
>>55088435

>>55088368
It will age just as bad as any other nvidia card. Don't listen to this shill >>55088397, get a 1070 or 480 and buy something better in 1-2 years or something.

>>55088448
cyka blyat?

>>55088298
>GTX 1070 = 469€
>Custom 1070 = 547€+
>RX 480 8GB = 249€ = 47% cheaper than 1070
>RX 480 4GB = 209€ = 55% cheaper than 1070
This is perfectly in line with US prices being $200 for 4GB and $230 for for 8GB

>>55088368
>Will the 1080 age super badly?

the market for the 1080 is people who want the best performance available today, not people worried about 2 years from now

File: 04-Power-Consumption-Gaming.png (31KB, 451x765px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 451x765px

>>55085873
>>55085908
AMD declaared the R9 270 have a 150W tdp
In reality it only uses 120W.

>>55088562
>needing 2 cards

File: 1465557326331.jpg (80KB, 365x365px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 365x365px

Imagine Vega...

>>55088622
I imagine how shit it is, like Poolaris, that has below 980 performance and uses 150W.

Everything AMD makes is crap

>>55088298
>Trying to guess prices based on scam-tier gaymen PC retailers

>>55088633
It probably doesn't use 150W, refer to: >>55088585

And you're obviously pulling shit out of your ass, it outperforms an overclocked 980, as is apparent from OP, and costs $199 at the low end

I hope the 50 rupees is worth it familia

>>55088633
It's pretty fucking amazing how cute you Nvidiots have gotten in the last 2 weeks.

>>55088585
> just because it did on 270 doesn't mean it's also like that on 480
btfo

>>55088676
It probably does, the actual power draw has been estimated at around 100W

http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-faster-than-nano-980/

>thinks TDP = power consumption

Nvidiotism is one heck of a disease.

>heavily OCd RX480 near 1070 performance for $300

I bet someone is contemplating suicide.

>>55088435
It's a magical place.

>>55088695
awesome, than two rx 480 draw around 200Watt and are just 20W ahead of 1080

> AMD won

>idiots seriously believe a 1x6pin card will draw 150W average

You must be one huge fucking idiot.

>>55088748
The real victory is the price they can do it at, tbqh familia

File: rx470.jpg (73KB, 582x549px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 582x549px

>>55088762

Feels good man. Gonna snatch one of these up asap after release

>>55088748
>>55088765
What's AMDpoorfags answer to 1080 4-SLI?

Just what I thought...

>>55088764
Or an average Nvidia user on 4chan.

File: rx480m.jpg (28KB, 571x237px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 571x237px

>>55088776

>>55088785
what the heck,
that would exceed the price range, who would do that

>>55088785
You wanna get your 'enthusiast licence' to 4-way SLI your 1080's?

And no more then 100 people in the entire world would seriously do this, and even they're retarded.

>>55088785
aren't these limited to 2 way sli? is this a bait?

>>55088776
I was right, the 470 is around the 970's performance.

>>55088808
I think it's some 5-10% lower, but.. At some 90 average watts, that's fantastic.

>>55088808
LOL no, stock 970 is around 9.5k, clocked one reaches 11k

>>55088825
So... 5% difference?

Sounds like margin of error to me.

>>55088797
>>55088801
>>55088807
Good luck hooking up 8 480s

>>55088839
>cpu with this many pcie lines and motherboard for it defeat the lower cost purpose
meh

>>55088836
Hm, no 5% definitely is not within the margin of error, but it's not a huge difference considering the price

>>55086688
And yet Nvidifiends will say AMD is dead over a 2fps difference.

>>55088866
What's the 470 gonna cost? $130-150?

That's basically slaughtering the entire user card market.

>>55088887
149$ afaik

>>55088887
>used card*

>>55088887
>card that can pretty handily run 1080p at max settings outside of a few shitty tittles for $150

What a time to be alive.

>>55088836
Also stock 480 is slower than 1506/8000 GTX 970

>>55088934
It's not?

>>55088908
>nothing fishy about it :^)

File: de8zTvf[1].jpg (26KB, 570x296px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 570x296px

>>55088941
http://videocardz.com/61005/new-amd-radeon-rx-480-3dmark-benchmarks

Check the extreme score

>>55088951
Are you cross-comparing benchmarks with different hardware again, Johny?

>>55088762
970 had 9,5 or something.

>>55088975
6.5 actually

>>55088975
Makes sense.

>>55088971
Yeah Pajeet, the one in videocardz is tested with 5820k and the one on the picture is 4690k

>>55085826
NVIDIA IS BANKRUPT AND FINISHED

>10 different 480 benchmarks in the last 2 weeks ranging from slightly slower than 980 to faster than Fury and Nano


Man, this is no small variation, it's almost 15%
Who and what to believe?

>>55088995
>Said increasingly nervous Brijaesh for 10th time this month

>>55086160
>>totally fixed
Dude it that were the case then oc ing the memory wouldn't result in performance improvements. 512 bit buses are way more expensive than 256. So this gen both manufacturers are saving money. Less complex pcb and less heat means less expensive copper/alu to cool them too

>>55089005
How would you even know? Some might have different drivers, some might have different hardware, some are probably overclocked or even underclocked, some might not have a BIOS with a working turbo clock while some are probably straight up fakes.

Too much variables to actually know.

>>55088989
>>55088990
my bad, typoed.

>>55088776
Nice, gonna upgrade my 270X for an RX470, maybe even an RX480.

>>55089028
Typical AMDPOORFAGGOT
Can't afford true and tested performance and has to buy bargain bin hardware, lel

as an nvidia user i wold say good job AMD.

>>55089043
Nice try, but AMD did a shit job as always.
Below 980 performance for 150W, on 14nm at that! Pathetic, AMD is fucking dead.

>>55085908
>Status of your anus: nuked

>>55089042
AMD is just the smart choice.

If you want to get the most FPS for your money, the RX 480 is by far the best card to buy.

>>55089079
Poorfag kek

>>55085843
>>http://wccftech
Disregarded.

I'm buying one of these on the 29th and not even I believe this.

>>55089083
Not everyone wants to spend 500$ + on a GPU.

>>55089103
That's because you're poor and I'm not

>>55089079
>If you want to get the most FPS for your money, the RX 480 is by far the best card to buy.
Incorrect. That would be the R9 360.

>>55089107
Go away dumb child, I spent $800 on power tools I don't even need in the last 4 months and I wouldn't even considering buying the crap released now when much better stuff is coming out in less than half a year.

>>55086280
Price-wise too

>>55088971
This shill googled 970 firestrike extreme and grabbed the first result hoping you wont notice the 450 mhz overclock on it.

my r9 290 did 13000 at 1180 mhz, hurrr the 480 is rebranded 290 guyzzz.

>>55085900
True actually. The only one defending a crippled penis is someone who has one

>>55089110
Maybe he actually meant best card at playable framerates and resolution.
A free 5870 has the best price/perf, because it's free, but most shit isn't playable at decent res or framerate

>>55089083
There's a big difference between being poor and being smart.

I could buy you and your entire family, but that would also be a waste of money, just like buying nvidia cards is a waste of money.

>>55089083
>Paying twice as much money for 10 fps more makes you rich

>>55089059
>FUD

100 rupees for you my man

>>55089110
What the fuck is an R9 360?

>>55089133
Measuring in raw FPS and not percents.

>>55089140
typoying 9 and 6 strikes again

>>55089147
I hope you realize that the RX 480 is both cheaper and faster than an R9 390.

The 390 is total shit compared to a 480.

>>55089167
It's still OK if you can get it for used for cheap

>>55089176
Only if you can get it for $150, any other price you are just throwing your money away when the 480 is faster at $200

File: amd-rx-460-470-hands-on-3-1.jpg (767KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 1920x1080px

qt board

NO VIDEO FAGS BTFO

>>55089228
>256bit bus
>same power delivery as a 480

Literally 480 -15% for $150
I wonder if it'll reach Fury levels with a good OC

>>55089228
10/10 would bang

>>55088785
1080 limits to 2 way SLI tho.

>>55089005
Best case scenario on stock = Fury like
Worst case scenario = Slightly weaker than 980.

Real performance is within these two, so around Nano tier.

As more and more benchmarks come out, the accuracy rate becomes higher and higher.

Still a very good price for that type of performance even at the lowest prediction.

I like how AMD is keeping its cards close to their chest, usually when they're before a product launch and blowing hot air the product will be subpar.
Don't let marketing fuck it up, keep quiet, say whatever necessary you need and let the reviewers do the rest.

>>55089344
Eh, it doesn't mean anything.
It could also be they fired their entire marketing department to save money so this is the best they can afford

>>55089387
It means a lot, people are dumb as bricks and generating false hype keeps them interested until the product launches.

I will definitively buy it.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/05/27/from_ati_to_amd_back_journey_in_futility/

>In the simplest terms AMD has created a product that runs hotter and slower than its competition's new architecture by a potentially significant margin.

IT'S OVER, AYYMD IS FINISHED & BANKRUPT

>>55086815
>my mfw when

File: 1426355327521.png (75KB, 198x198px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 198x198px

>>55089425

>>55089059
It doesn't USE 150W, it's what it can pull at max. It uses about 100W.

>1 8pin and 1 6pin
>300W HOUSEFIRES single GPU

LOL AYYMDPOORFAGS, IT'S NOT 150W NOW

GTX 1070, 150W, MUCH FASTER PERFORMANCE WITHOUT BURNING HOUSES DOWN

>>55089439
AMD themselves admitted its 150W stupid fucking shill

>>55089439
Source?

>>55089425
>inb4 RX 480 is 100W and way more power efficient than Pascal
>inb4 the hardocp guy commits sodoko

>>55089228

>using magic circles to boost performance

Is Amadoka responsible?

>>55089443
>stock card only uses 6-pin
>max OC cards use 8-pin + 6pin
OC to the moon confirmed

>>55089477
>AMD
>OC

Lel

>>55089446
>>55089447
6 pin draws 75w. PCI lane draws 75w.

Those are the mobo specifications. You have a max of 150w draw. 150W power rating from AMD slide is not power draw but max draw.

File: 523152135235123.jpg (45KB, 409x409px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 409x409px

>idiots will go for a reference 480
>mfw I'll wait a bit longer to get a nice reference sapphire/msi and put on some moderate and comfy OC

>>55089496
Reference card won't have a problem overclocking nicely either, 6 VRM is more than enough for that wattage and some 40W headroom should give a good 15-20% OC
The only thing you lose on is heat and noise.

>>55089494
So no source.

>>55089494
Also TDP is essentially saying design the card cooler as if it dissipates 150W of power.

If thats the case, then if the card only draws 100w like the article suggests, but uses 150w rated cooler, the fans on the card would spin at low and keep the card cool.

>>55085900
I bet every AMD user has a circumcised penis. Just like their crippled graphics cards.

>>55089510
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/power-supply-specifications-atx-reference,3061-12.html

Computer Specifications 101. Go read a fucking book. Nvioniggers like you are the cancer.

File: 1459375048702.jpg (122KB, 572x303px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 572x303px

>>55089344
>always believe the opposite of what AMD's marketing department says

>>55089510
Yeah, it draws 150W nominal and constantly shuts down because it requires more power than the power circuitry can provide.
Also don't forget how no OEM would touch the card because of power issues.

You dumbass.

>>55089509

I never buy reference. They're noisy as fuck, even the comfy watercooled fury's weren't as silent as reference coolers.

Patience, AMD lads

>>55089529
>>55089525

AMD themselves says it uses 150W, until you show a source otherwise then it uses 150W.

>GTX 1070 FE
>Draws >200W under gaming load
>Costs 500€ and more
>Doesn't even have vapor chamber cooler
>Throttles and can't keep boost clocks

>RX 480 reference model
>Draws 100W under load
>Costs 250€
>Has brand new, top of the line cooling solution developed by AMD
>Offers 80% of 1070 performance at half the price with huge OC headroom

Nvidia is finished!

>>55089510
Why are Nvidiots so proud of their ignorance and lack of knowledge?

It's like Americans being proud of knowing 20 states but not where Amsterdam is.

>>55089548
>lies about RX 480 power usage
>calls others ignorant

Interesting.

I bought a gtx 1070, am I retarded? Feel like killing myself desu

>Bought 660 from MSI
>Bought 760 from Gigabyte
>Bought 950 (after 760 died) from EVGA

What brand should I pick for AMD?

>>55089562
Cute.

>>55089573
Are you admitting you lied?

What card should I get for 144 Hz at 1440p? GTX 1080? Or would a 1070 be enough?

File: lesi..png (92KB, 900x676px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 900x676px

>>55089568
Its still a good card. Depends how much you bought it tho

>>55089572
Look for benchmarks and don't ask us, how the fuck should we know what nonreference model they'll shit out.

>>55089572
Stop the brand loyalty and wait for actual reviews.

>>55089582
Always the stronger card nigga.

But 144hz at 1440p? You need a dual 1080 for that.... Only Comp. games can do that. I think so far only Doom managed to get 100+ fps in 1440p

>>55089580
I'm simply dazzled by your lack of grey matter.
It really makes you think about life.

>>55089541
Do you not know how to use your brain? 150 is the TDP. TDP is not power draw. If the card USES 150w, your computer will crash/shutdown throughout gameplay.

inb4 amd is dum

Nope. You're a fucking retard.

>>55089594
Keep the lies coming.

>>55089562
No, it's still a solid card.
Should have waited the aftermarket coolers though.

>>55089589
I wasn't going to brand royalty but I remember when I bought the 660 some guys didn't recommended the Gainward one because heat issues. I just wanted to know if AMD has better or worse brands

>>55089583
420 USD, I only bought it cause it didn't seem like the 480 would be much of an improvement over my 290x

>>55086602
3.5 :v)

>>55089595
>If the card USES 150w, your computer will crash/shutdown throughout gameplay.

Really? Then why would AMD say it uses 150W.

Are you saying the RX 480 crashes constantly?

>>55089595
>150 is the TDP
It is not the TDP. It is the max power consumption.

>>55089582
A toaster can run CS:GO and other comp shooters at QHD 144Hz. You don't need a 1080 for QHD

>>55089612
>AMD say it uses 150W.
Source

>>55089595
For some slight correction, ATX spec gives 20% headroom for the rails, so technically the card can draw 180W for a short period of time but not without risking damaging your hardware.

>>55089610
>290x

Why not waiting for cards that can push 60Hz at 4k ? 290x is still good for 1080p.

>>55089612
They say the power system is designed for 150W. They said nothing about actual power consumption besides "2.8x perf/watt"

File: Radeon-RX-480-Polaris.jpg (292KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1920x1080px

>>55089622
From AMD's own presentation

>>55089642
Power: 150W
So its limited to 150W? Makes sense, 75+75W = 150W

>>55089642
>Power 150W
Not TDP, Not Power Usage, Not Power Maximum, Not Power Minimum

You're lying to yourself and to others. Why would you tell lies on the internet?

>>55089642
>VR Premium - YES
Why hasn't AMD fired their marketing department yet?

Would the 480 be enough for 1440p gayming at 60 fps ?

>>55089639
I know, but I have a 1440p monitor and my 290x has major temp problems, many games started crashing after an hour or so

>>55089650
Show me where I lied.

>>55089664
yes. Not maxed out in every game, but at least high settings

So the RX 460 (Polaris 11) was finally announced today, but do we have any idea of the performance yet?

I just want a small cool and quiet card that can run Bannerlord at full 1080p60.

File: wefruckedupIneednoodles.jpg (57KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 800x533px

Post 460 & 470 stats.....laptop ahahahahaha.
Holy shit AMD that was hilarious

>>55089669
Power is not "power use".

You added the "use" to make a lie. Thats a lie.

Do you not understand English?

>>55089686
Still can't tell if that's a man or a woman.

>>55089696
How is it not power use?

>>55089662
They actually did that and begged people on reddit to fill those open positions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4nxa8e/amd_needs_to_fire_all_their_pr_team/d47uk2h

File: AMD-Radeon-RX-400-Polaris-8.jpg (713KB, 1826x1027px) Image search: [Google]

713KB, 1826x1027px

>>55089680
1024 shaders, probably somewhere around half the 480's performance.

>>55089678
Thanks.

File: 1465681563494.jpg (229KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1280x853px

>idiots shilling in thread about m-m-muh power draw
>still not understanding official power draw is an approximation and that testing usually reveals wide deviations from any value provided by the company
>"390 has a higher tdp than 970 so the 970 is more efficient"
>literally a margin of like 30-40 watts, completely irrelevant in the broader picutre, especially considering OC

>>>/v/ is where you faggots should go

>>55089650
Sources that say the RX 480 TDP is 150W:

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/05/amd-rx-480-polaris-release-date-price-specs/

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10389/amd-teases-radeon-rx-480-launching-june-29th-for-199

http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-polaris-10-polaris-11-specs-performance/

>>55089680
The demo they showed months ago was against a GTX 950.
Bannerlord will run on a toaster

>>55089727
TDP is not power usage.

>>55089739
Except it literally is

>>55089680
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNA6fll2DDQ

>>55089744
Go away retard.

>>55089315
Videocardz posted the lowest score today we've yet seen and the only one that puts it below a 980.

In the same article there's a 3dmark 11 score of 16400 which is equal to r9 nano. He also claims the average score is 16800~equal to a r9 Fury.

He claims its best score is 18060 which he charts at below a r9 Fury. That makes no sense, 18000 3dm11 is equivalent to a Fury X.

There's two xfire scores, 30060 and 28400. 3dmark 11 tends to scale at 170% or less. So that's 18000 and 16700 single card scores, equivalent to Fury and a Fury X.

>>55089744
Haha, no.

>>55089729
The 950 is hardly a toaster GPU.
It's a generation old mid-tier GPU.

File: energy efficiency cuck.jpg (259KB, 1609x941px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1609x941px

who cares whether the TDP is 150 or 250?
Nvidia has been advertising 165 tdp cards which in reality drew 240-250

Who gives a fuck? We are no longer living in the fermi/290 era, these modern cards are power efficient as fuck. Are you still falling for the electricity bill meme? Fucking niggers.

>>55089710
Because the pcie-bus can provide 75w of power to the card and the 6-pin another 75w. That's a max of 150w. This does not mean the card will actually pull that much. Even if it pulls 95w, AMD will have to put a 6-pin on it giving it headroom for a lot more than it needs. If it truly could pull 150w they would have to provide additional headroom which would mean either another 6-pin or one 8pin.

>>55089744
>15W "TDP" ULV
>can draw up to 35W

Yeah, TDP is power consumption.
Dumbass.

>>55089748
>>55089757
>I have no argument

Sorry the truth hurts.

Has /g/ gotten any mods or moppers recently? I want to report this clown.

>>55089744
TDP stands for Thermal Design Power, not Thermals actually recorded.
It's the thermal output that they expect as some kind of general guide rather than an exact quantity.
Sometimes it's accurate, sometimes it's too high, sometimes it's too low.
Rated TDPs are not measured watt usages.
Although thermals out will more or less equal (slightly smaller) than energy in, the rated TDP is not a measurement of thermals out, but an expectation to aid what kind of cooling is needed.

>>55089780
TDP is defined as power consumption while running "real applications"

When you benchmark a GPU, it almost always goes over the TDP.

>>55088083
Except 480/980 is nowhere near enough to reach stable 122/144/160 Hz at 1080p except for some cancer games like League or CSGO.
>Failing for the gsync meme

Please don't.

Don't feed the retarded troll. I want to say troll and give the person a benefit of the doubt, but it could really be a normie retard.

>>55089774
If it didn't pull 150W, AMD wouldn't have said that it pulled 150W.

>>55089804
Except TDP isn't defined anywhere.
Every manufacturer defines it differently.

>>55086602
>I bought a 970 a month ago
Nobody can be this stupid.

>>55089813
>>55089804
Don't reply to niggers

>>55089829
>Nobody can be this stupid.
Read the last half an hour of posts about TDP and you'll be convinced otherwise.

>>55089821
Only half true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

Manufacturers can basically make up the TDP for whatever they want, but they would get caught.

When AMD says the 480 uses 150W of power, I tend to believe them rather than some weird trolls on a message board.

>>55085826
nvidiot on suicide watch

>>55089664
Define games. Cuz there is a fucking difference between playing cancerous but optimized e-sports games and AAA games like FC4 and W3.

>>55089847
They also said the R9 270 (single 6-pin) would use 150W. It didn't. It used 120W under gaming and 140W in furmark. >>55088585

"150W power" is just a statement about the maximum power capability of the board

File: power_average.gif (75KB, 400x1125px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 400x1125px

>>55089847
Not really.
TDP nowdays is just a guideline for cooling requirements, you can specify a lower TDP but then the OEM will put a loud cooler and the card will run hot and produce WHIRRRRRING noises.

Here's a 180W TDP card, as you can see it's nowhere near 180W in usage.
TDP is not power consumption, only firepro/tesla/quadro cards stick the power consumption close to the TDP in most cases.

>>55089855
1440 isn't that much more intensive. If this thing is like a nano then its 1440 capable on triple a titles.

>>55085826
Looks like AMD has some good value this time... Shame that none of the deep learning frameworks run on their cards.

>>55088448
blyat

>>55089882
>>55089873
TDP is measured differently by Nvidia, AMD AND Intel, it's a completely worthless metric.

TDP == Power consumption about 10% of the time, mostly due to the vendors undermining the cooling requirements or cheaping out on the HS/fan

>>55089807
My 980 handles 1440p/144Hz just fine for most games. I have to turn graphics down a tiny bit for a few things to hit that, but it's mostly fine.

>>55089873

That's interesting because every other card I've seen goes over its TDP when maxed out.

You can check both the 970 and 390 go significantly over their TDP

>>55089923
that's because Nvidia and AMD use different definitions of TDP

Is the Rx 480 a good upgrade from a 290?

>>55089937
The 390 is made by AMD...

>>55089923
Look, what the card can draw during milliseconds is not nominal power draw.
The 1080 has 300W spikes here and there, it's not a 300W card.
The 480 will probably have 200W spikes too, it's not a 200W card.

>>55089943
Only if it overclocks as well as we think it will.
Sell your 290 now and get a 480, maybe some chump will dish out more than $200 for it and you'll still both get money and a better card.
If you can't sell, don't even buy unless you really need your card running at <115W

>>55089945
The 480 CAN"T draw more than 150W with one 6pin connector

File: power_maximum.gif (77KB, 400x1125px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 400x1125px

>>55089882
That's the average power consumption...

Here is the chart when it's maxed out.

TDP is 180W, yet the card gets to 226W usage.

>>55089966
>maximum
Of course it's average, who the fuck cares about what the card draws during furmark?

>>55089945
The max power draw is the important number because you need to plan around that for your power supply and cooling.

>>55089985
I'd say a lot of people would care how much power and heat their card produces when pushed to the limit.

File: r_600x450.png (63KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 600x450px

>>55089961
Haha, what the fuck are you smoking, here's a 8pin card with 300W spikes.
Of course it can, the spec was designed to handle such spikes for a few miliseconds.

File: 1462497644803.jpg (8KB, 220x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 220x250px

>>55086688
>He thinks 4k30fps is better than 1080p/1440p 60fps

I'm still running a 6870 and I've been waiting for another killer perf/$ card like it ever since so I'm real fucking hyped for the new RX series, AMD finally getting back in the game

>>55090009
Furmark is not 'pushing to the limit', it's a power virus meant specifically to run every single component of the card at once.
There is no single workload that exists that would replicate furmark, a part of the card will ALWAYS be idling.

>>55090033
If you don't use the native resolution of your monitor you either get black bars on all sides or massive blurring.

>>55089959
It's only $200, that's like nothing, could save the 290 for a back-up card or some shit. I'm just curious if there's a significant performance increase to be considered an upgrade.

>>55090050
Why is that? Wouldn't programs run faster if they used all resources?

File: k4pcz.jpg (13KB, 620x364px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 620x364px

>>55087057

>290 is hawaii
>390 is hawaii
>But mommy it was a new stepping


It had 8GB instead of 4GB, and it ran at about 50mhz higher clock speed, never with a reference cooler.

>7970 is different from the 280x!
>mommy it's a different stepping!

looks like tahiti to me

>nothing personnel kid

>>55090051
Really? If I get a 4k monitor and use it for movies and shit and only game in downscaled 1080p it will look shit? I thought 4k downscaled to 1080p looked better than native 1080p

>>55090104
you won't be gaming in downscaled 1080p, you'll be gaming in 1080p upscaled to 4k, hence why it'll look a bit blurry

>>55089801
>will more or less equal (slightly smaller) than energy in
Just where do you think the rest of the energy goes?

>>55090094
Because programming doesn't work like that, a program that loops and replicates itself will eventually 100% the hardware, but that's not much of a program, is it? All software has serial parts, those parts give breathing space to the GPU.

This isn't anyone's fault, really, it's mostly a design limitation of languages.

>>55090124
If I have a 4k monitor and I play in 1080p it would be getting downscaled. Not upscaled

>>55090154
You are a literal retard

>>55090154
That is incorrect.

>>55090124
>hence why it'll look a bit blurry
No it won't, unless you use some shitty upscaling algorithm that blurs everything.

>>55090124
Why would it be upscaled. It was never a native 1080p. If a monitor is default 4k you can DOWNSCALE it to 1080p

>>55090185
oops, u rite, 4k is a multiple of 1080p so it's fine

>>55090154
Nah, you provide a 1080p signal to your monitor, and the monitor stretches that (upscales) to fit on its 4k native resolution

Downscaling would be if you were providing a 4k signal to your 1080p monitor, though afaik downscaling is normally done by the graphics card rather than the display. This is usually done as a form of antialiasing, such as nVidia's Dynamic Super Resolution.

>>55090237
>>55090251
Specifically, upscaling is rendering a lower-resolution image and displaying it on a higher-resolution display.
Downscaling is rendering a higher-resolution image and displaying it on a lower-resolution display.

With any hope the higher binned 8GB >$250 variants can reach 1.7Ghz, that's reaching 980Ti/TitanX performance if it scales like other GCN arches.

Hopefully AMD doesn't skimp on the memory or controller and we can clock that up to 9000
Entirely possible for a 30-35% overall boost to give ~25% better real world performance.

>>55090237
Look up the meaning of the words you're writing.

>>55090251
So putting a 1080p resolution game or movie on a 4k monitor would look worse than regular 1080p?

>>55090315
>1.7Ghz,
lOL WHAT, the card is 1.23 turbo stock, 1.7 is a 40% OC which even fucking Tahiti couldn't do.
With that OC, the card would be neck and neck to a 1070.
Which just isn't fucking happening as much as I wish it.

>>55090331
Wouldn't it be really funny if it happened? I can already imagine all the suicide letters from Nvidiots.

If there's 1x8pin or 2x6pin AIB designs it's already confirmed the GPU will overclock like mad.
We'll find out soon enough.

I can't remember the last time I was hyped for AMD's hardware, when was it? the 4xxx/5xxx era? Phenom 1?

>>55089710
nvidiots just being idiots.

>>55090322
4k is a clean multiple of 1080p, so the actual upscaling shouldn't make it look worse than if it were on a native 1080p display

What might is the reduction in pixel density, though some people would actually prefer a larger display of the same resolution, so I guess that's down to preference

>>55090406
Athlon XP and Athlon 64, maybe?

>>55090466
They still made good things after that. Not much after Phenom II on the CPU front and not much interesting stuff on the GPU front after the first GCN iteration.

is there going to be a card that will make it worth me upgrading my 7950?

>>55085986
then you are a complete dumbass

>>55090595

RX 480 should be about twice as powerful and use significantly less power and output significantly less heat

>>55090603
I won't deny that, but what I'm getting at is that if you have a job a $600 GPU isn't any kind of problem unless your entire paycheck goes on your living arrangements and bills.
Then I'm sorry, you have a shitty life then.
Consider kids and then kill yourself.

>>55090630
>I have money therefore I should waste it

Gotta love dumbass logic

>>55090331
The reference chips are binned to reliably hit 150w power draw, from supposedly a typical 100w gaming usage. 50% more power is generally a 20% OC on old GCN.

If even the 8-pin power rumors are true the chip+memory might be damn capable of drawing close to 200w (of which 35-40w is generally taken by the VRAM when 8 channels of GDDR5 is clocked high), which could mean that highly binned P10 is in fact capable of 30-40% overclocks.

If we assume similar a voltage range as Pascal, and if we assume +100mv on very good cards, we can also assume the real power draw (with about a 10% variance):
100 * (1700 / 1266) * sqr(1.125 / 1.025) = ~160w, minus 25 for stock GDDR5 draw, plus 40 for OC'd GDDR5 draw, = 175w

1700 over 1266 is not even 35%, by the way. 7850s were released at 850Mhz and could clock to 1150, some hitting 1200. 1150 / 850 = 35.3%. The 7850 drew about 90w nominally at stock, and even with a modded BIOS struggled to break 140w outside of synthetic benchmarks. A 55% increase in power for a 35% increase in clocks.

>>55089525
Amd has not adhered to power spec for generations now. See: 295x2 and many others.
>>55089595
You too

>>55090129
I don't know, these guys don't even understand basic science

>>55090050
The point is that there are and will be games that can push it to the limit at some point, especially when you consider things like multitasking and multiple monitors.

If you don't know the actual max power output of your GPU, you could easily buy a power supply that isn't powerful enough or setup your cooling in a way that is not good enough.

If your system crashes when you run Furmark, you know it's unstable.

>>55090666
No, Satan, take for example the 290X, rated for 275w TDP, pulling about 225w in games.
AMD rates the TDP for absolute maximum torture load. Not "typical board power" like Nvidia.

From wiki:
>"The thermal design power (TDP), sometimes called thermal design point, is the maximum amount of heat generated by the CPU that the cooling system in a computer is required to dissipate in typical operation. Rather than specifying CPU's real power dissipation, TDP serves as the nominal value for designing CPU cooling systems."
>maximum
>rather than real
>as the nominal value for [a cooling system]

>>55090611
how much tho?

>>55090721
Uhh the 290x is 275W TDP and pulls 315W under max load

>>55090740

199$ for 4GB
230$ for 8GB

>>55090753
Actually it's 290W TDP

>>55090630
>pissing away my money on consumerist shit that I dont even need is much better than putting it away for a rainy day/investing/working less hours
you're literally one notch above jordan wearing, gold spinners on a 1990's car, homeless nigger

>>55090721
You are absolutely incorrect, the 295x2 will draw more than its 430 watt pcie spec pins. Hell even the 970 has power spikes that go well above its top and could potentially shutdown a weak PSU.