Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

lol what is going on with radeon

2»

Comments

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,455
    edited July 2016
    Rich84 said:
    Whats the point of this thread? are you trying to justify a recent fanboy edition purchase?

    The RX480 is on par or beats 390/x for $240 and uses alot less power.

    The 1060 is only 5-10% better and the FE edition is $300 don't see you complaining about it? 
    The point of this thread is to show how ignorant I am when it comes to chip design, die size and power consumption, along with how stupid it is to compare a new generation mid range card with previous generation high end cards.
    Fixed it for you.
    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    CPU: Intel Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER EVO 8GB DDR6 - RAM: 32GB Kingston HyperX Predator DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Samsung U32J590 32" 4K monitor - Second display: Philips 273v 27" monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset - Sound: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.


  • ShodanasShodanas Member RarePosts: 1,933
    I'm going to wait for some more reviews about the RX 480 as it is a product that interests me, although i have not owned an AMD card since 2009.

    AMD lost the cpu race to Intel by miles and miles. Let's hope they can stay on NVIDIA's tracks. I do not want to consider what will happen if the later becomes the only player in the gfx market.
  • makasouleater69makasouleater69 Member UncommonPosts: 1,096
    Rich84 said:
    Whats the point of this thread? are you trying to justify a recent fanboy edition purchase?

    The RX480 is on par or beats 390/x for $240 and uses alot less power.

    The 1060 is only 5-10% better and the FE edition is $300 don't see you complaining about it? 
    The point of this thread is to show how ignorant I am when it comes to chip design, die size and power consumption, along with how stupid it is to compare a new generation mid range card with previous generation high end cards.
    Fixed it for you.
    Your just still personally mad at me, from my other post, and just take anything I say and twist it, to try and personally attack me. O well, I don't hold it against you, you after all are a Social Justice Warrior, there is not much hope for reality to get into that ego filled head of yours. 
  • makasouleater69makasouleater69 Member UncommonPosts: 1,096
    Quizzical said:
    Xodic said:
    AMD has already made it clear that they after the low/mid market.
    They're not going to dump $1 billion in R&D to compete with Nvidia when they can instead focus on power efficiency and stability while keeping the price down. That's why they have a console deal now and that's why people buy AMD cards. Their market is affordable quality, not 10 tons of melt your face FPS.

    If I remember correctly, the new AMD cards are improved and better suited for VR games than the previous cards.
    Lol they don't comepete with low and mid range either, unless you just dont care, and just want to follow a name, like Apple, which sell obsolete junk for 8 times the price. 

    Low end lap tops, Amd sells a a10 with a chessy dedicated graphics card 500 bucks, intel sells a i3 6 gen lap top with no graphics card, that uses half the power, and only loses literally like 2 fps which is un noticeable and sells it for 300 bucks. 

    You say the 480 is mid range ha, it sells for around 300 bucks. Only a fool would waste 300 bucks, when if they saved 100 more, they could get a 980ti and get literally 40-80 fps more. I mean if we go with fps per dollar that is a really good deal considering the 1080 is 300 more and only gets like 10 fps more than a 980ti.

    Not to mention the fact that you could buy a 970 haha for 50 dollars less than a 480, and the 970 beats the 390x, which the 390x gets better fps than a 480. So I dono what your smoking but they sure as hell anit competing with any one, other then the people who buy it because they dont know whats going on. I also know 100 percent for a fact the 970 is better, then the 390x because I had both of them. I bought the 390x put it in, it shot out more heat then a small space heater got between 20-25 fps in ark, and 50-70 fps in dying light with the new update, then i took it back and traded it for the 970 since best buy lets you do that. The 970 used literally half the power, and I could barely feel the heat, or hear the fan, mind you the 390x was literally louder than my vacuum cleaner. It got 25-30 fps in ark, and the around the same fps in dying light. 

    So again, what are they competing with again? Maybe your referring to apple they are competing with haha, apple some how sells a phone that is like 3 to 4 years behind current android phones, example being a lg l3 which has a 2k screen more ram a expandable memory, and a better battery, which at the time of the i phone 6 which only had a 1080 screen which literally sold for like 1 grand, the lg g3 was 300 bucks.

    Maybe amd does have cult worshipers like apple, apparently it must, or it is milking the ps4 and xbox. Because if you take reality into account, amd doesnt have anything, but garbage that gets to hot, runs worse, and is more expensive than intel. 
    You seem really confused here.  That AMD's CPUs aren't very good at the moment is completely irrelevant to people looking to buy a discrete desktop video card.  It's also likely to change when Zen arrives.  The only way the PS4 and Xbox One are relevant is the likelihood of console ports being better optimized for AMD because they use basically the same GCN architecture.

    The MSRP on the Radeon RX 480 is $199 for a 4 GB version or $239 for an 8 GB version.  Supplies are still short at the moment, but it will hit those prices soon enough.  The GeForce GTX 970 typically costs more than that, in spite of being an inferior card.  You could argue for getting a GTX 970 if you absolutely need something today, simply because the RX 480 is so hard to find near MSRP, but that's about it.

    Maybe the reason your perception of prices is so far off is that you're going to Best Buy.
    True, best buy was my source for the information. If 199 is the MSRP, then your right everything I said would be wrong. The 480 is def the choice out of all them if it was 200 bucks. So I concede the point then, when the supply catches up and the card gets to the price it should be at, then your absolutely right, it would 100 percent be competing. 
  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,455
    edited July 2016
    Rich84 said:
    Whats the point of this thread? are you trying to justify a recent fanboy edition purchase?

    The RX480 is on par or beats 390/x for $240 and uses alot less power.

    The 1060 is only 5-10% better and the FE edition is $300 don't see you complaining about it? 
    The point of this thread is to show how ignorant I am when it comes to chip design, die size and power consumption, along with how stupid it is to compare a new generation mid range card with previous generation high end cards.
    Fixed it for you.
    Your just still personally mad at me, from my other post, and just take anything I say and twist it, to try and personally attack me. O well, I don't hold it against you, you after all are a Social Justice Warrior, there is not much hope for reality to get into that ego filled head of yours. 
    Errr, what other post?
    I don't remember you for more than the nonsense you posted in this thread.

    EDIT: ahhh yes, I think I remember now... is it you who posted that racist bullshit in the off topic forum? Well, if that was you (thread got deleted now) I'm definitely not "mad" at you. I pity you.
    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    CPU: Intel Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER EVO 8GB DDR6 - RAM: 32GB Kingston HyperX Predator DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Samsung U32J590 32" 4K monitor - Second display: Philips 273v 27" monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset - Sound: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.


  • Elevenb4Elevenb4 Member UncommonPosts: 361
    Just briefly stating my opinion and experience:

    The first gaming PC I had back in 1999 had an AMD processor in it. I was strictly an AMD advocate until 2008. I just got tired of all the little problems. None were big problems, just tiny, but they all added up and caused me to jump ship to Intel and Nvidia. I personally never had any glaring problems anymore. 

    Recently, my wife bought a new laptop for work, and I decided to go AMD again for old time's sake. That laptop has been nothing but trouble. 

    Again, keeping it brief, but I'm not buying AMD again. Every time I have it end up regretting it somehow. I know others have had great success with AMD, but that has never been my experience. 

    -Unconstitutional laws aren't laws.-

  • MikehaMikeha Member EpicPosts: 9,163
    Does anybody have the 480 in stock for $199?
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,624
    Recore said:
    Does anybody have the 480 in stock for $199?
    Here you go:  a GeForce GTX 480 for $200:

    https://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-GTX480-Graphics-015-P3-1480-KR/dp/B004EHWMP6

    More seriously, there are a bunch of Radeon RX 480s out of stock at $200, simply because supplies are so short at the moment.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007709 601203818

    Once AMD is able to ramp up production and has time for cards to hit the market, they'll be in stock at $200.  My best guess on that is a few weeks, but that's really just a guess.
  • SlyLoKSlyLoK Member RarePosts: 2,698
    I will be getting a custom 480 once they hit the market. The two tests I have seen from Powercolor and Sapphire show at least a 20% increase in performance over the reference version.
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,142
    Elevenb4 said:
    Just briefly stating my opinion and experience:

    The first gaming PC I had back in 1999 had an AMD processor in it. I was strictly an AMD advocate until 2008. I just got tired of all the little problems. None were big problems, just tiny, but they all added up and caused me to jump ship to Intel and Nvidia. I personally never had any glaring problems anymore. 

    Recently, my wife bought a new laptop for work, and I decided to go AMD again for old time's sake. That laptop has been nothing but trouble. 

    Again, keeping it brief, but I'm not buying AMD again. Every time I have it end up regretting it somehow. I know others have had great success with AMD, but that has never been my experience. 
    Not to discredit your own experience, but in all fairness, every computer had a lot of little tiny problems up until recently. It wasn't just an AMD thing.

    Shoot, it wasn't until about XP SP3 that you didn't have to reboot your computer on a daily basis just to clear everyday memory leaks, and reinstall the OS once a year because it would just creep to a halt.
  • MikehaMikeha Member EpicPosts: 9,163
    SlyLoK said:
    I will be getting a custom 480 once they hit the market. The two tests I have seen from Powercolor and Sapphire show at least a 20% increase in performance over the reference version.

  • Xeno.phonXeno.phon Member UncommonPosts: 350
    I have used both many times for many diff builds and Nvidia/Intel just have a lower fail rate and less problems overall in the longterm imo.

    Ever since AMD bought ATI they have been really missing the mark.
  • Panther2103Panther2103 Member EpicPosts: 5,604
    edited July 2016
    Recore said:
    SlyLoK said:
    I will be getting a custom 480 once they hit the market. The two tests I have seen from Powercolor and Sapphire show at least a 20% increase in performance over the reference version.


    Guys video is kind of annoying to watch. He over acts, bleeps out unneccesary swearing (half the time, other half he misses?) and just gives basic information. Wish he would just stop using cool sweary guy attitude and just talk normally.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,624
    Xeno.phon said:
    I have used both many times for many diff builds and Nvidia/Intel just have a lower fail rate and less problems overall in the longterm imo.

    Ever since AMD bought ATI they have been really missing the mark.
    Why do people compare Nvidia/Intel to AMD, as though Nvidia and Intel are interchangeable, and as though CPUs and GPUs are interchangeable?  It's actually pretty rare for CPUs to have reliability problems, whether Intel, AMD, or for that matter, ARM.

    Video cards can have problems more commonly, but some are the fault of the board partner, not AMD or Nvidia.  Do you really thing that having an Nvidia chip versus an AMD chip inside the card makes Asus, MSI, or Gigabyte systematically more or less likely to screw up a card?

    Video driver problems happen more commonly, but for video driver issues that don't affect the desktop, few consumers are sophisticated enough to tell the difference between a bug in a video driver and a bug in a game.
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,142
    Quizzical said:
    Xeno.phon said:
    I have used both many times for many diff builds and Nvidia/Intel just have a lower fail rate and less problems overall in the longterm imo.

    Ever since AMD bought ATI they have been really missing the mark.
    Why do people compare Nvidia/Intel to AMD, as though Nvidia and Intel are interchangeable, and as though CPUs and GPUs are interchangeable? 
    Just like people forget that Intel makes more GPUs than any other company, and that AMD used to be ATI and the two were completely seperate companies.

    It's a good smell test to find the people who just aren't being very reasonable.
  • Elevenb4Elevenb4 Member UncommonPosts: 361
    Ridelynn said:
    Elevenb4 said:
    Just briefly stating my opinion and experience:

    The first gaming PC I had back in 1999 had an AMD processor in it. I was strictly an AMD advocate until 2008. I just got tired of all the little problems. None were big problems, just tiny, but they all added up and caused me to jump ship to Intel and Nvidia. I personally never had any glaring problems anymore. 

    Recently, my wife bought a new laptop for work, and I decided to go AMD again for old time's sake. That laptop has been nothing but trouble. 

    Again, keeping it brief, but I'm not buying AMD again. Every time I have it end up regretting it somehow. I know others have had great success with AMD, but that has never been my experience. 
    Not to discredit your own experience, but in all fairness, every computer had a lot of little tiny problems up until recently. It wasn't just an AMD thing.

    Shoot, it wasn't until about XP SP3 that you didn't have to reboot your computer on a daily basis just to clear everyday memory leaks, and reinstall the OS once a year because it would just creep to a halt.
    That is true. In AMD's defense, the only PC problems I ever had were on AMD machines, mainly because I only had AMD machines for the first 6 or 7 years of having pc's. 

    But like  I said, it has been my experience. 

    -Unconstitutional laws aren't laws.-

  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,414
    Why are you guys feeding the trolls?

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • Xeno.phonXeno.phon Member UncommonPosts: 350
    edited August 2016
    Quizzical said:
    Xeno.phon said:
    I have used both many times for many diff builds and Nvidia/Intel just have a lower fail rate and less problems overall in the longterm imo.

    Ever since AMD bought ATI they have been really missing the mark.
    Why do people compare Nvidia/Intel to AMD, as though Nvidia and Intel are interchangeable, and as though CPUs and GPUs are interchangeable?  It's actually pretty rare for CPUs to have reliability problems, whether Intel, AMD, or for that matter, ARM.

    Video cards can have problems more commonly, but some are the fault of the board partner, not AMD or Nvidia.  Do you really thing that having an Nvidia chip versus an AMD chip inside the card makes Asus, MSI, or Gigabyte systematically more or less likely to screw up a card?

    Video driver problems happen more commonly, but for video driver issues that don't affect the desktop, few consumers are sophisticated enough to tell the difference between a bug in a video driver and a bug in a game.
    Why do people discredit others experiences by talking shit like it is only their own that matters?

    I have close to 100 builds and provide tech support after the build, in my experience AMD/ATI builds fail at the hardware level faster and more often than my Nvidia/Intel builds. Run your mouth all you like, that is MY experience and only the ignorant would think they hav any right to call foul based on such an obvious personal experience.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,624
    Xeno.phon said:
    Quizzical said:
    Xeno.phon said:
    I have used both many times for many diff builds and Nvidia/Intel just have a lower fail rate and less problems overall in the longterm imo.

    Ever since AMD bought ATI they have been really missing the mark.
    Why do people compare Nvidia/Intel to AMD, as though Nvidia and Intel are interchangeable, and as though CPUs and GPUs are interchangeable?  It's actually pretty rare for CPUs to have reliability problems, whether Intel, AMD, or for that matter, ARM.

    Video cards can have problems more commonly, but some are the fault of the board partner, not AMD or Nvidia.  Do you really thing that having an Nvidia chip versus an AMD chip inside the card makes Asus, MSI, or Gigabyte systematically more or less likely to screw up a card?

    Video driver problems happen more commonly, but for video driver issues that don't affect the desktop, few consumers are sophisticated enough to tell the difference between a bug in a video driver and a bug in a game.
    Why do people discredit others experiences by talking shit like it is only their own that matters?

    I have close to 100 builds and provide tech support after the build, in my experience AMD/ATI builds fail at the hardware level faster and more often than my Nvidia/Intel builds. Run your mouth all you like, that is MY experience and only the ignorant would think they hav any right to call foul based on such an obvious personal experience.
    If you genuinely are responsible for 100 builds, then you surely know that it's possible to use an AMD GPU with an Intel CPU (as I have in both my current desktop and my previous one) or an Nvidia GPU with an AMD CPU.  Unless you're getting integrated graphics, the choice of a CPU is independent of the choice of a GPU.

    It's kind of like asserting that Crucial memory with a Crucial SSD has tended to have problems more often than G.Skill memory with a Samsung SSD.  It tells you nothing about the actual source of the problems (which may have been that the Crucial builds tended to be paired with dodgy power supplies and have nothing to do with the memory or SSD), and even if it's true, it could easily be that Crucial was more reliable on one component and less on the other.  It's the sort of thing that a knowledgeable person trying to provide real data just wouldn't say, as it intentionally muddles the whole thing.

    CPU hardware failures are also rare enough that even 100 builds means you're suffering from a pretty severe small sample size problem.
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,142
    Xeno.phon said:
    Quizzical said:
    Xeno.phon said:
    I have used both many times for many diff builds and Nvidia/Intel just have a lower fail rate and less problems overall in the longterm imo.

    Ever since AMD bought ATI they have been really missing the mark.
    Why do people compare Nvidia/Intel to AMD, as though Nvidia and Intel are interchangeable, and as though CPUs and GPUs are interchangeable?  It's actually pretty rare for CPUs to have reliability problems, whether Intel, AMD, or for that matter, ARM.

    Video cards can have problems more commonly, but some are the fault of the board partner, not AMD or Nvidia.  Do you really thing that having an Nvidia chip versus an AMD chip inside the card makes Asus, MSI, or Gigabyte systematically more or less likely to screw up a card?

    Video driver problems happen more commonly, but for video driver issues that don't affect the desktop, few consumers are sophisticated enough to tell the difference between a bug in a video driver and a bug in a game.
    Why do people discredit others experiences by talking shit like it is only their own that matters?

    Because sometimes stupid people have experiences that are of their own making, and believe the fault lay with something other than themselves.

    Now, I'm not trying to call you stupid. There are some pretty common traits though, that don't really stand up to truth, and really really sound like nVidia paid a few people to run around to random forums and spew some unfounded trash talk.
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited August 2016
    Xeno.phon said:
    Quizzical said:
    Xeno.phon said:
    I have used both many times for many diff builds and Nvidia/Intel just have a lower fail rate and less problems overall in the longterm imo.

    Ever since AMD bought ATI they have been really missing the mark.
    Why do people compare Nvidia/Intel to AMD, as though Nvidia and Intel are interchangeable, and as though CPUs and GPUs are interchangeable?  It's actually pretty rare for CPUs to have reliability problems, whether Intel, AMD, or for that matter, ARM.

    Video cards can have problems more commonly, but some are the fault of the board partner, not AMD or Nvidia.  Do you really thing that having an Nvidia chip versus an AMD chip inside the card makes Asus, MSI, or Gigabyte systematically more or less likely to screw up a card?

    Video driver problems happen more commonly, but for video driver issues that don't affect the desktop, few consumers are sophisticated enough to tell the difference between a bug in a video driver and a bug in a game.
    Why do people discredit others experiences by talking shit like it is only their own that matters?

    I have close to 100 builds and provide tech support after the build, in my experience AMD/ATI builds fail at the hardware level faster and more often than my Nvidia/Intel builds. Run your mouth all you like, that is MY experience and only the ignorant would think they hav any right to call foul based on such an obvious personal experience.
    What a bunch of nonsense. So if you have a car accident, everyone has had a car accident, because, you know, "thats you experience" right?

    And, something that you seem oblivious about, same manufacturers make MOBOs AND GPUs.

    My family has bought bunch of AMD laptops back in 2008 (with a dedicated GPU) and i have few AMD builds from that time. All still work today without any issue. So AMD builds NEVER fail. My experience > than yours.
  • PsYcHoGBRPsYcHoGBR Member UncommonPosts: 480
    I bought an RX 480 8GB and glad that I did. I play at 1920x1080 and this card rocks. I intend to go 1440 at some point hence the 8GB card. Haven't had an AMD video card since it was ATI, I jumped ship because I didn't like the route Nvidia are taking.

    http://techarx.com/gtx-900-series-dropped-legacy/

  • psiicpsiic Member RarePosts: 1,635
    Has not stopped me from more than doubling my money on the AMD stock I purchased in March that I recommended on here, and with there contracts with both Sony and Microsoft to supply the core for the PS4 Neo and Xbox Scorpio, their VR set with built in graphics processor ( in development ), and the fact the stock is still trading below cash value, AMD is set to run to $20 -$25 by end of year. 
Sign In or Register to comment.