unofficial ones, but still. also, if those will be marketed as 480/480X, it leaves room for 490/490X and further improvement. heck, i suspect that 480/480X will overclock like crazy anyway.
unfortunately, looking at the CF result, drivers still suck. they really should improve their linux drivers as well, afaik even their vulkan driver for linux has worse performance than its windows counterpart. they really need to sort their shit out, so far in case of linux it's shitty architecture (nvidia) vs shitty drivers (amd), since intel doesn't count when it comes to performance.
but enough with the rant.
as for the different results for each card, here's comparison for the faster chip:
the difference is because of the driver version, so there's hope amd tries to improve on that front. if the pricing will be good, it'll be a killer.
7th May 2016
So ignoring the crossfire since thats basically two chips, It seems to be doing close to Fury? I guess the rumors were right about AMD only showing the mid-range this year and not their best yet.
Also given that their base clock speeds are even higher than Nvidia ones, i have seriuos doubts about how much further they can be overclocked.
first, vega is supposed to arrive in october.
second, higher clock speeds? HIGHER?
since when 1266 is a greater number than 1506 (gtx 1070) or 1607 (gtx 1080)?
also, nvidia's pascal is manufactured in 16nm process. polaris - 14nm. you can be sure it has quite a room for overclocking, and with proper cooling it should be able to reach much higher speeds than pascal overclocked, not even mentioning stock.
considering that none of those chips will be r490, there are two possibilities. either vega will be released as r490 or - which is a more likely scenario imho - polaris-based r490 will be released in october and it'll be a chip roughly double the size of r480x and with gddr5x instead of gddr5. vega will have hbm2 so it's reasonable to think they'll leave it for the next year, also because of the memory availability issues, and those same issues, just affecting gddr5x - and affecting nvidia already - are probably the reason why r490/r490x will arrive in october.
of course, that's assuming amd won't release r490 as a direct successor to r390 - rather as a successor to fury, but that's the only reasonable option they have. doubling the performance of r480 will mean that r490 will beat the crap out of gtx 1080 even before being overclocked, and since it'll have much greater potential for overclocking thanks to 14nm process - nvidia will be left in the dust.
btw, gtx 1080 founder's edition (crappy stock cooler edition) is so good at OC that it can't even maintain it's boost clock (1733) after half an hour or so.
Jeff is a mean boss
28th July 2002
Those are basically right where everyone thought they would be.
Better drivers will help but don't expect miracles.
We'll have to wait for Vega to see if AMD has anything to compete on the high end.
if those will be r480/r480x (and that's rather certain), we'll have to wait for r490/r490x.
which most likely won't be vega. won't have to be.
well, unless amd decides to unleash vega with hbm2 as r490 in october - doubtful, unless vega is basically polaris with hbm2 and nothing more.
seeing how polaris is supposed to support both gddr5 and gddr5x though, and the fact that r480/r480x will both have gddr5 memory, i doubt it.
also, before amd releases r490, it's all about the pricing. the performance is decent enough, but it's the price range in which nvidia has nothing decent to offer at this point - no async compute, no decent VR support - only old maxwell cards.
where i live, prices aren't the lowest, but i've checked current prices for both r390x and gtx 980 - which are comparable performance-wise.
r390x (8gb): 452-464 usd gtx 980 (4gb): 490-546 usd
minimum and maximum prices are from the same stores, both cards are gigabyte models and gtx 980 actually has even higher maximum price - but that store didn't have that r390x on sale.
the thing is, unless one wants to go full Stallman, at this price range - and at lower ranges too, actually - nvidia is a pretty crappy choice price-wise. and the truth is, far more people will buy something from this range than the top of the line. if the price of r480x will be lower than current price of r390x, forcing price drop - nvidia is basically guaranteed to loose a huge part of the market. the thing that's holding amd back in this segment so far, is i guess much higher tdp of r390/r390x than nvidia counterparts have. that, and the fact that gtx 980, with a bit of searching, can be bought for a marginally higher price as mentioned above.
but with clearly higher performance, lower tdp and lower prices, there will be absolutely nothing holding amd back in this price range. the elephant in the room is gtx 1070 though. it's supposed to be in the gtx 980 price range, perhaps even slightly cheaper (but those cheapest models most likely won't have any OC margin), and - that's a big IF - it's supposed to be comparable to gtx 980 ti performance-wise. assuming nvidia's benchmarks don't lie, the only thing amd can do is to release r480x at a price lower than that of r390x, perhaps even lower than gtx 970's price. r480 would be obviously even cheaper.
and i guess that's what amd is waiting for - gtx 1070 release. once the benchmarks are made public, they'll know what to do price-wise. because, lets face it - price wars are the only way they can win this before r490 release. if r480x would be marginally cheaper than gtx 1070, it just wouldn't sell - unless gtx 1070 isn't nearly half as fast as nvidia claims it is. time will tell.
looks like amd will have to beat the crap out of nvidia price-wise, or they're doomed. and since they're not idiots, well. LOWER PRICES INCOMING :D
Jeff is a mean boss
28th July 2002
Rumors of a GTX 1060 abound and that's going to be right smack in the middle of the price range AMD is probably shooting for.
the question is, what kind of performance will it deliver. if around gtx 970 then that's slower than r480 and amd has nothing to be afraid of. if higher, then it's all down to pricing. i don't expect it to beat r480 though. gtx 970 - probably, but by a small margin.
11th November 2006
While performance on the charts is nice, it's not going to change anything in practice if developers keep skimping out on AMD support. I have run with Nvidia for as long as I can remember. If AMD comes out with a hitter that's bigger, badder, and cheaper than what Nvidia can offer? Then I'll shoot for that.
But one very important factor is developer support. The people that are buying these cards are primarily gamers. As such, a significant chunk of influence lies with developers and publishers. AMD has been thoroughly and unjustifiably screwed over in the past. Nearly every time a new, AAA game comes out, we hear about how people with AMD cards are having issues. This isn't entirely on AMD's driver support, either. It's developers using kits like GameWorks, or simply not caring to take AMD's customers into mind.
I hope that changes. Competition is vital. Even if I were to sit with Nvidia for the next decade, I want AMD to be successful. It fosters competition, and if Nvidia fears they might lose out to AMD, they'll move some of the budget from R&D over to production and driver support(and maybe we won't have drivers that brick cards again, please?)
yyyyyyyyyeah. everyone optimizes for nvidia only. where have you been living for the past years? nvidia HQ?
check some titles using frostbite engine for example.