>What the RX 580 does prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt,

>>59959706
Aaaaaand that's fucking why they are making GCN 2.0.

File: amd.jpg (138KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 653x726px

>>59959706

File: WEWLAD.png (33KB, 500x690px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x690px

>For this test, we measure power consumption of only the graphics card via the PCI-Express power connector(s) and PCI-Express bus slot. A Keithley Integra 2700 digital multimeter with 6.5-digit resolution is used for all measurements. Again, these values only reflect the card's power consumption as measured at its DC inputs, not that of the whole system.

File: amd.png (42KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 653x726px

>>59960240
Who gives a shit about power consumption dumb nvidiot

>>59959706
> all those Intel shills on damage control
>>59960090
>>59960090
>>59960090

File: 1440477631288.jpg (57KB, 700x524px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 700x524px

I'm still rocking a 290x. Same perf as the 480 and now nearly the 580. So it uses more electricity so what. This is embarrassing for AMD but what's worse us there isn't any other competition. Nvidia can sell the 1080 ti for 800 euro and have the media tell us its good value because it's not 1100 euro like last year's titan.

>>59960365
wait® for Vega

>>59960293
Mobile market (laptops) > desktop market.

>>59960384
This time last year it was "wait for polaris". What a fucking let down.

File: fell for the meme.png (440KB, 645x1260px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 645x1260px

>>59960240

>>59960384

vega should come out in june. so nvidia will have nothing to position against vega until spring 2018? (when volta comes out)

>hear rumors about a 480 refresh
>get excited, imagine something with slightly better performance but cheaper and with less power draw
>make plans to buy one to upgrade from my GTX 760
>wake up this morning
>the motherfucker draws more power than a GTX 1080ti
>only very slightly better performance

Is AMD even trying?

d-don't worry
wait for v-vega

>>59960437
Polaris was good though. The 480 and 470 brought 1440p gaming under $200 and the 470 was notable for being the first GPU to run modern games on ultra at 1080p. There was no top end chip, and AMD strangely refused to make a 480x2, but for the mid-end Polaris was really great. Your 290X might match a 480, but you sure as fuck couldn't buy one new for $200.

>>59962271
not the original guy but I'm crossfiring 290xs (one that I got back in the day and one bought for 100£ on ebay) for 1070 performance.

suck my dick guys

File: 1492551809205.png (30KB, 500x530px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x530px

>>59959706
>tapped out

lol

>>59960556
This is what I wanted.

Why is it so damn hard for manufacturers to realise that consumers don't want massive max fps if it means throttling and pathetic minimums.

Give me a 580 with the same stock clocks as the 480 but a bigger boost and I would have been happy to buy it. For 1080 gaming the 480 fps was fine, it just needed better boost for higher minimums.

Annoying thing is I need a graphics card now as my GTX 660 crapped out on me.

Anyone know if it is possible to underclock/volt these cards to 480 stock clocks and give them a massive boost for targeted fps?

File: Hawaii-GPU-shot.jpg (27KB, 270x270px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 270x270px

>summer 2015
>buy a r9 290/390
>would have need to wait 2 more years
>mfw I haven't played anything that would need hawaii power besides Ark and dirt rally.
It think I'm just going to sit on my GPU for a decade and play Cs:Go or something.

>>59963539
or wait for new consoles, the next unreal engine or crysis

>>59959706
Still rocking gtx560 maxing competetive fpseseses
at 300fps

I wish they would rrelease vega price,so i would know if to buy 480 or wait.

>>59959706
>>59960240
Wasn't the point of the 480 to be a 390 with half power consumption? Did they just give up?

Still glad I fell for the 4GB HBM meme, I'm not even mad it dropped $100 after I bought it. I was gonna 480 it up until they fucked up the launch, too.

>>59964150
yeah but AMD halves =/= Nvidia halves

File: WattsPerFrame-RX580.png (10KB, 636x539px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 636x539px

>>59960240
It's stupid to only measure the GPU when Nvidia drivers have far more CPU overhead thus use up more total system power via more CPU work.
Bias as fuck test.

>>59964150
The RX580s outperforms the 390Xs by quite a bit. Its perf/watt is still higher.
Not a huge amount, but it's certainly not worse.
A good deal of the power consumption is that 8GB of GDDR5.

They've had to clock them too high to compete. It was made to be clocked around 950mhz. Had to bump that up to 1266mhz for the RX480. And now they're at 1340-1450mhz.
The process node was made more efficient, but they're clocked way higher than their point of efficiency. They should have done more CUs at lower clocks, but that costs way more money.

Literally what the fuck are they doing? the 400/500 series has been nothing but sidegrades to the 200/300's

>7970
>290
>390
''''revolutionary'''' new architechture
>480
>580

holy shit get your shit together amd

>>59965310
This. They should have just made a 8GB Fury ffs

>>59965269
And the fanbois will still claim it's better than nvidia's practices.

Literally selling you the same graphics cards for 3 generations now.

>>59965405
It's okay as long as it dwarfs the competition in the same price bracket, and 580 does..

>>59965405
>AMD doesn't make new cards
>Nvidia cucks early adopters that buy their flagships
Not sure which is worse. My Fury depreciated $50 a week after I bought it and it's down $100 by now but I consider that I got off easy compared to the rest of the shit I'm seeing.

>>59965423
No it's not since nvidia is selling better in the same price bracket

File: RX580-guru-3d-1.png (732KB, 1364x6707px) Image search: [Google]

732KB, 1364x6707px

>>59965310
Uh? The 290X was not a rebrand. It's the 280X that was the 7970.

>>59965344
They ran out of R&D budget.
It was supposed to be on a smaller node and a number of things.

>>59965269
The 290X 4GB was like $850 initially. I forget what the MSRP was, but it was high as well.
RX580 8GB is $230 and beats its more expensive competition, the $260 1060 6GB.

>>59965230
>The RX580s outperforms the 390Xs by quite a bit.

stop making shit up

File: 1489517742014.jpg (638KB, 1058x1056px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 1058x1056px

>it's a gpu episode

i am only here to piss anyone off

>>59965445
For amd drones 5% is a huge margin

>>59965436
The goyim will buy literal shit with nvidia stickers plastered over it, I'm talking about actual performance.

>>59965445
>>59965453
Okay, it's slightly ahead, you're right.

>>59965454
AMD drones do buy cheap shit with an AMD sticker on it though

>>59965436
That doesn't surprise me, and they will continue to do so. The 500 rebrands use more power than the 400's, which was really one of their only selling points despite being still higher than Nvidia's.

It makes it hard to keep rooting for the underdog.

>>59965442
>$850 for the 290X
That just seems fucking retarded to me. Granted, I didn't even get into trying to build a /gaymen/ until last year. Wow. What a time to be alive.

Anyone know if the 4GB can be flashed to 8GB like some of the first 400's?

>>59965475
Do you get paid for defending Nvidia on the internet? Why'd you do it for free?

>>59965497
Look at yourself, I would ask the same from you but I realize AMD can't afford shills

I got an R9 390 ages ago and AMD is still releasing shit of similar caliber as their latest and greatest, I upgraded to Nvidia just because AMD is fucking incompetent and can't release anything powerful

>>59965517
>can't release anything powerful
Any major arch change takes time.

>>59965527
Poolaris was a new amazing arch according to AMD

>just wait

You fucking retard, Nvidia is ten steps ahead

>>59965517
I shill for no one, I support consumer friendly business practices and products with the best price/performance ratio, simple as that.

>>59965536
It was a cutdown Fiji with some optimizations. It's like you can't read roadmaps, Ramesh.

>>59965537
You're poor and you're in the market for poorfag GPUs, not some price to performance shit

>>59965552
>paying less for more is bad
Why?

>>59965552
My income has nothing to do with 580's performance.

>>59965558
Because it's a weak poorfag GPU

I paid more for even more instead

>>59965571
>midrange card is midrange and offers good value
Do you have spending less for more? Are you braindamaged?

>>59965492
>That just seems fucking retarded to me. Granted, I didn't even get into trying to build a /gaymen/ until last year. Wow. What a time to be alive.
You need to think about it more.

In 2013 AMD released a card that still plays almost every game 4 years later at 1440p 60fps, max settings, let alone 1080p.

The Nvidia Titan (Keplar?) of the time, a $1200 card, is not as good as it was. It's only half as good in many cases.
That card was godly.
It was also godly at mining bitcoins.

And it's so good that well.. they only had to slightly adjust it and shrink it down to still be a great mainstream $250 card today.
And this is why people get so excited about Vega.

>>59965571
Good for you little goy. Why'd you barge in a 580 thread to express dissatisfaction though?

>>59965589
I came to your safe space and told AMD should get their shit together because they should get their shit together, they have no high end GPUs at all

>>59965611
They have. Vega 10 is their high end offering. You can even buy one. Though you can't play games on MI25 but it's no /v/, who the fuck plays games here?

File: kevin spacey smiling.gif (980KB, 227x221px) Image search: [Google]

980KB, 227x221px

>>59965517
>AMD can't afford shills
Boi u got tears streaming down my face like I'm back on the old /b/
>tfw I can't find my gif of that nodding lumberjack with an explosion shooped behind him

>>59965620
even amdshilltv adoredtv shits on this fuck off with your imaginary shit

>>59965552
I have plenty of money. About $30k in the bank right now. Not a ton, but you know enough to be comfortable and to be able to buy just about anything but an expensive car on a whim if I feel like it.

I don't see the point in overpaying for a GPU. I bought a 7970 6 years ago for like $530.
If it plays everything at least 30fps, why do I care to keep buying the latest Nvidia shit because they have planned obsolescence built into their older cards?

I'm waiting to buy a $1500 monitor with HDR10 before I upgrade, really. No point in buying a 1080Ti that might not support the monitor. Vega is already confirmed to support it, along with Polaris.

>>59965628
>imaginary
MI25 is as real as it gets. It's a 12.5tflops FP32 card.

>>59965620
>who plays games here
memes aside, everyone in this thread

>>59965650
Really?

File: 1479143824015.gif (4MB, 362x271px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 362x271px

>>59965650
tfw haven't played a game in months

>>59965682
Yes, what do you do with your GPU, what do you think others do? Because mining and folding sure as fuck isn't it

>>59965630
This guy gets it, saving up to bust a big nut.

>>59965579
Actually yeah that seems like a sick fucking card, I didn't realize it was THAT close to a non-X Fury.
Some dude by me is actually selling a 280 for $80 lol. I would have just jumped on that and built a budget system around it if this happened last year.

He's got the serial # in a picture, can anybody really do much with one?
https://plattsburgh.craigslist.org/sop/6062967476.html

>>59965648
my dick is pretty flaccid

>>59965712
Good to know. Maybe you should consider suicide.

>>59965719
No man I'm good the cure was ditching AMD

>>59965630
Because everyone else values fps

>>59965724
You ditched ayymd for what? Nodrivers?

>>59965700
$65-$85 is the going rate for 280 or 280Xs.
Still a good performing card today. Literally the only drawback is power consumption and heat.

>>59965732
Most people are retarded and don't realize their monitor is 60hz and that 150fps doesn't matter for them.

>>59965741
Yeah because the best of the best from AMD wasn't good enough and even now still isn't, also I wanted to play around sith cuda

>>59965753
Yeah those people buy amd

>>59965753
For the longest time where was some poor guy trying to sell like a 750Ti for $75- months and months. I figure he either sold it or killed himself.

I had the budget for a GTX 1080 but I will never buy nVidia again due to thier jewish tactics. Gimping cards with driver updates, promising features for old cards then back tracking on it, charging money for something AMD has for free, closed source etc.. That's why I will only buy AMD from now on.

>>59965847
I only care about performance so I went with Nvidia

>>59965753
My monitor is 165hz tho

>>59965903
Good for you. Most people still use 60hz monitors.

File: 1490303647634.png (84KB, 582x848px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 582x848px

>>59965766
Most popular GPU on Steam is the GTX 970. A gimped card that completely falls on its ass in some newer games because of that slow last 0.5GB of VRAM.
Nvidia rips off suckers. That's their business model. It's the 770 all over again.

>>59965903
>what is "most"

>>59965798
rofl god.. people bought so many of those shit cards. They can't even do 5FPS on a lot of newer games.

>>59959706

>beyond any shadow of pajeet
>various incarnations

>>59965926
Yeah I have been actually getting mad seeing retards charging close to what they paid for some of their old but still viable systems.
It's even worse when they list it as a 'gaming pc' and don't have a single fucking spec, leading me to believe they're actually that retarded or just junkies/niggers stealing.

>>59965977
I still saw fuckers trying to sell 970s for $175-$200 last month.

>>59962905
You're retarded you know that?

>if it is possible to underclock/volt these cards to 480 stock clocks and give them a massive boost
>underclock/volt
>give them a massive boost

All 'boost' means is running the core at a higher frequency on a period of time.

>>59966009
And someone, someone will unironically buy these 3.5 memes.

>>59966009
>>59966024
There has to be an angle to fuck these cunts. Maybe send them on wild-goose chases? I was thinking about just getting a shit old GPU and then a new one from a crap store like best buy, switch them out and carefully re-tape the box and return. Salespeople are shit and are asking for it. Especially the Chad types. ree

>>59966019
Yea that's what I want so I can hit 480 level fps with the avg and minimum fps as close as possible.

Playing GTAV on my now dead gtx660 on low settings was nauseating with the massive dips in certain areas.

I will take a stable 60fps over 80+fps with massive dips when the cards boost is forced to throttle because it's stock clock is already running right up to the red line.

>>59966136
You really are retarded, wow.
If you don't want throttling just get a GPU with a decent cooler like the Nitro+ and do not overclock it.

File: 1490423862598.png (37KB, 450x500px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 450x500px

You know.
AMD basically repeated that 4870 strategy with the RX480.
Back way back then, in 2008 I believe it was, they launched that card at... $299?
The 4850 was only $199.

It wasn't the absolute fastest card in every game, but he GTX 280 cost $650.
It was a $200 card that often nearly matched a $650 card.
And was more power efficient and so on.

But people still thought that AMD had bad drivers. So many Nvidia fanboys. The RX480 didn't sell nearly as well as AMD hoped.

>>59966240
And then 5000 series came and raped novidia. But well, Fermi was a gigantic fuckup.

>>59966274
Seems like people bought tons of 200, 300, 400, and 500 series, though.

Though if you check steam charts, there's many more people with a 7950/7970 than 680+780 combined, despite Nvidia having sold more of those at the time.
What I don't get is how those buyers don't learn. How can AMD keep making a superior value GPU, with superior longevity, if people buy less of them?

>>59966332
Mindshare. Historically NVIDIA had better marrketing.

>>59965620
I'm pretty sure you can't actually buy a MI25 yet, they announced it way in advance, like nVidia did with GP100.

>>59966199
They still suffer from low minimum's regardless.

What I want is base clock at around 1100 with 300+ of boost when needed to keep stable fps. Would underclocking/volting keep boost or would it remove all boost and set the knew clocks as maximum?

>>59966361
They did (back in december), but you can actually get one already.

>>59966355
Oh right. Yeah. AMD's marketing is fucking garbage.

Lmao I can still remember that "Nvidia" "the way it's meant to be played" plash logo shit playing in that sexy ass ASMR voice.

>>59966361
You can if you have millions of dollars. They've been getting sold in huge contracts. You'll see the orders on the financial report next month.
Here, AMD is actually doing amazing. They're gobbling up so much server market with Naples and Vega before they actually exist outside of engineering samples afaik.

>>59966374
>>59966380
A lot of the delay in Vega has to do with those millions of dollars of contracts to fill before selling them to consumers.
That, and that they need more mature drivers for consumers than just a few submissions to the Linux kernel.

It seems to be, by far, the best machine learning card unless Google's homebrew chip is actually better, but I'm not sure if Google sells those to others.

>>59966380
Well, it was garbage. It's pretty decent now, yet nothing special. And now we're at the point NVIDIA can sell polished shit with stickers plastered all over it and people will buy it. Because it's NVIDIA.

>>59966240
The 4870 was amazing value, it was close to 280 levels of performance for less than half the price, it absolutely killed the 260 as well. Whereas the 480 doesn't even come close to the 1080, let alone the 1080ti, on top of that the 1060 offers comparable performance to the 480 for the same price. They tried the same strategy, yes, but they failed pretty badly.

>>59966448
480 is smaller for though. Its still very competitive in its price segment.

File: Nvidia-AMD.png (289KB, 2236x527px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 2236x527px

>>59966448
Look at the picture.
The 4870 completely BTFO the 280 in many games.
It was the $200 4850 that was still close to matching it. rofl.

That was the height of AMD...
They were doing a new arch every year.
35%+ performance increase every year.
So cheap, too.
Yet... Nvidia still kept outselling them.

And the Radeon group was bleeding money for no gain. So AMD drastically cut back their resources and separated them from the CPU group.
That's why GCN 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 are all so similar to GCN 1. And why Fiji was basically just a beta-test for Vega.
If their marketing didn't suck and they actually outsold Nvidia, they may have kept doing a new arch every 18 months.

>>59966513

what's the Y axis

>>59966538
Marketshare?

>>59966547

yeah just noticed, didn't know nvdas market share was so low

>>59966371
>will lowering the clockspeed help with increasing the clockspeed?
This is what you are asking.

Undervolting will help however.

>>59966564
GPU market was smaller back then and people bought whatever had the best value. 8800 was very good, but so was 4870/5870. Now it's all marketing and fanboys.

>>59966573
No what I am asking is can I set a lower base clock (underclock/vol) with a larger boost potential for poorly optimised areas for more stable fps.

It's my understanding that boost only kicks in when it hits those sections and a higher boost potential would give more stable fps, or am I wrong?

>>59966493
Smaller than GP104 in the 1080/1070 (and some early 1060s) yes, but not the GP106 that's been used in the 1060 for some time now. Adding to that the 1060 only has a 192bit bus and uses less power, which means less traces on the PCB and fewer power phases needed. The 1060 is probably significantly cheaper to produce when you add up the smaller die size and cheaper boards.

>>59966513
Yup, those where the good days. Trying to chase the GP-GPU market was a mistake, they should have focused on gaming performance, by the time GCN launched nVidia had already taken over the market and CUDA was everywhere, from there it was an uphill battle.

I have to say though, their drivers have improved significantly. Crimson is way better than any version of CCC.

>>59959706
this curry nigger has squandered every single opportunity for a radeon win since becoming the head graphics guy

I'm just glad he has nothing to do with CPUs or he would have ruined Ryzen as well

>>59966666
I was going to help you because the other anon can't fucking read for shit, but you are literally 66.6% more Satan than Satan is.

>>59966666
>or am I wrong?
Yes, stable frequency generally means stable fps, if the game is at least a bit optimized.

>>59966745
I can read, his theory is just retarded so I refused to reply that part of his comment.

>>59966709

Look Ms. Su, I have a legion of fanboy supporters in my country and I'm part of the curry connection so let me put my low cost model in every developing world household and overtaxed countries and we'll make AMD great again it's a long term goal

>>59966745
I don't get what is wrong with what I want to do. Am I wrong in how the boost works on cards?

If it runs at the 480 base clock it will use less power than the 480 while it is at that clock and when it boosts to maintain the framerate it has a much larger ability to maintain the framerate having 300 boost as opposed to 100 to 150 boost that the cards normally have. It would also be able to sustain that boost throught the entire poorly optimised area as the 580's are able to sustain overclocks at 1400+.

File: jpr_q2_2016_amd_vs_nvda_SHARE_575px.png (31KB, 678x474px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 678x474px

>>59966810
RX400 series actually did boost AMD sales a lot. They were slumping hard after that R9 300 mess.

>>59966830
Yes. A top end RX580 underclocked to the stock RX480 1266mhz should use significantly less power for the same performance. Or really better, since no throttling.

>>59966845
>even fucking Fermi sold better than ayymd
What the fuck is wrong with people?

>>59966764
I don't mean stable frequency, and there are no games that are so well optimised that they are able to sustain a stable fps with stable clock.
>>59966764
>>59966784
How does boost work then? when does it kick in? when does it switch off?

>>59966845

Product availability, nvidia changed their model to inhouse reference sold which affected the distribution

Heavy taxes and exchange, even RX480 is priced around 50% higher than in the US

DX12 / Vulkan

Even if Vega outperformed everything, Nvidia still has a fanbase in the same league of Intel converts reluctant to switch because of compatibility and brand image. Nvidia also switched priority to machine learning on Pascal

>>59966830
>>59966855
You do realize boost and core frequency is part of the same thing right?
Why would you intentionally lower frequency only to have it 'sometimes' burst higher (this means more variable maximum performance which is shit)?

You yourself stated that the 580 could sustain 1400+, so why not lock it on there?
But do whatever you want dude, I'm just recommending undervolting, not underclocking (if the cooler is good).

>>59966853
Yep.
7970 was the most godly card, relative to its time.
Yet Fermi outsold it.

I was blown away by the 7970 when it came out. It forced Nvidia to drop prices 30% immediately, and yet it was still over 30% better performance-per-dollar after those price drops. I bought the best 7970 I could find after scouring comparisons.

Part of it was that there was availability issues on the 7970 and 7950. AMD couldn't make them fast enough.
By the time they were easier to get a hold of, the 680 was out... but the 7970 still seemed better value then but people bought up the 680 anyway.

>>59966874
RX480 is still cheaper than the 1060 in the UK and places that use the Euro.

>>59966890

Yeah same, also had a 6950. 6xxx/7xxx were the best

>>59963539
I am in the exact same predicament. I have my R9 290 for around 3.5 years now and I have yet to play a game that really pushed it to it's limits (probably because I shun most AAA titles today).

>>59965442
The 290x was 550$ at Launch. The 290 was 400$.

File: 1382663872113.png (497KB, 973x2259px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 973x2259px

>>59966987
Obligatory.

>>59966888
Yes I know they are the same thing, but isn't boost supposed only kick in when it is needed, ie when the framerate is dipping? Don't cards at least try to maintain a stable framerate and boost only when needed?

What is the purpose of the boost clock if it is not trying to maintain a more stable framerate when it hits a poorly optimised section?

>>59967007
So people were paying $900 for 290X's instead of $650 for the Titan. kek.
Nvidia just helping justify the 290X prices with the Titan having a $100 higher MSRP yet performing worse.

>>59967007
It's even more funny when I am from Israel and have a R9 290. Sieg HEIL.

>>59959706
poo in the gpu

>>59959706
I think all they need to to lower amount of cores and increase the clock, this will make their cards more efficient.

>>59964150
Nope. Intel cores are = 2 AMD cores. So 1 nvidia power = 2 AMD power, for short N = 2 A. Hence 1/2 ( 2 A) = N => A = N. However thats an old N when, N is now N/2 so A = 2 N. So when AMD says they use half they actually mean double.

>>59967011
Of course they created it to help a little bit, but a 1400+ OC is obviously better than a 1340MHz boost that only hit that frequency sometimes.

Same thing with Ryzen's XFR, nice and all that 1 core hits 4.0GHz, but all 8 cores on 4.0GHz would be better if that chip could actually run it.

It's a safe small factory overclock, nothing more. Manually overclocking is always better. Undervolting actually does help (if the chip can actually run on less voltage) because it decreases temperatures, which kill stability.

>>59967011
>>59967155
Maybe look up 'core parking' or 'smartphone benchmark cheating' for a better understanding.

>>59966666
fuckin checked

>>59967155
So if you set the base at around 1100MHz and allowed it to boost up to a maximum of 1400MHz when needed wouldn't that give a far more stable (but a bit lower) fps?

I don't want play with all settings maxed nor want to, I do however have a 1080 144hz monitor that I would like to get some use out of but I don't want a stuttering mess where the max fps is 140, avg 110 and the minimum 60 or something like that. I would happily settle for a stable 90fps in such a case.

I read that AMD have a targeted frame rate, would it be better to set that manually to a bit lower than what the card can deliver on average and let that handle it while leaving everything at stock settings?, or is it something that is poorly implemented and not work very well?

>>59967221
I know what core parking is but don't know how it relates to what I am trying to achieve, that smartphone benchmark cheating however is the opposite to what I want as I only want it to boost when the framerate starts dropping when it is struggling on the base clock and to not increase the framerate over what the base clock was giving but maintain it till the bad section is over.

>>59960396
> implying AMD has any foothold in mobile market

AMD was last seen in mobile like... 5-8 years ago.
They had these MHD Radeons, and they were fucking awful.
Performance wise they did OK, but driver wise? Typical "nodriver" situation.

They were also housefire hot.
Today they only have APUs and cheap shit.

Maybe with Vega/Ryzen they will be able to produce competent mobile chips again, I don't know.

>>59967599
>AMD was last seen in mobile like... 5-8 years ago.
I guess the newest Macbook Pro does'nt count.

>>59967613
> High performance
> Macbook Pro
No it does not.
Apple killed it's professional workstation years ago. Both desktop and mobile wise (good ole' MacBook Pro). Now you can get a trashcan, or a fatter and pricier MacBook air.

So what are the complaints? Power again? Who doesn't have a 400-650w PSU that's 80+ bronze or better and likely modular to some degree already? That's plenty fine for any of these GPU's with a couple SSD's and a couple HDD's. You can even throw in an AIO cooler and an overclock. Last time I had a PCP&C 1Kw PSU and massive power draw was over a decade ago. It's just not necessary unless you're doing some niche shit.

7950 still relevant. Paid 180 bucks for my 8GB 480. Paid another 180 for a R9 Fury (Sapphire) using a $50 GC to hit that sweet spot. AMD GPU's are the best you're going to get new or used for the money.