xorbeThe 8-pin connector simply adds 2 ground pins, which signals the other 6 can deliver 150W

Jesus Christ, I can't believe what we are SERIOUSLY discussing on a tech review site:



8 pin connector in addition to 6 pin has:
1) Pin 2 - 12v
2) Pin 4 - sense ("i'm 8 pin") (well, not really "in addition", "instead")
3) Pin 8 - ground

And last, but not least: there is NO card on the market that pulls more than allowed by spec, for more than apparent reason. UPDATE: apparently I'm wrong, 295x2 was labeled 500w, but had only 2 8 pins, which was 375w max according to spec. Bizarre.

arbiterYou posted link to a non-ref version.

Oh well. Let me cite Anand:

"
Speaking of power delivery, let’s talk about the 2 8pin PCIe power sockets that are found at the top right side of the card. For those of our readers who can quote PCIe specifications by heart, the standard limit for an 8pin PCIe socket is 150W, which in this configuration would mean that the R9 295X2 has a 375W (150+150+75) power delivery system. By PCIe standards this has the board coming up short, but as wefound out back in 2011 with the launch of the 6990, when it comes to these high end specialty cards PCIe compliance no longer matters. In the case of the 6990 and now the R9 295X2, AMD is essentially designing to the capabilities of the hardware rather than the PCIe specification, and the PCI-SIG for their part is not an enforcement body. Other than likely not being able to get their card validated as PCI-Express compliant and therefore included on the Systems Integrator List, AMD isn’t penalized for exceeding the PCIe power delivery standard.

So why does the 500W R9 295X2 only have 2 PCIe power sockets? As it turns out this is an intentional decision by AMD to improve the card’s compatibility. Dual dual-GPU (Quadfire) setups are especially popular with boutique builders and their customers, and very few PSUs offer more than 4 8pin PCIe power plugs. As a result, by using just 2 power sockets the R9 295X2 is compatible with a wider range of PSUs when being used in Quadfire setups. Meanwhile on the power delivery side of the equation, most (if not all) of the PSUs that can reliably push the necessary wattage to support one or two R9 295X2s have no problem delivering the roughly 220W per socket that the card requires. Which is why at the end of the day AMD can even do this, because the PSUs in the market today can handle it."

www.anandtech.com/show/7930/the-amd-radeon-r9-295x2-review

Back to the original quote, where a 6 pin connector would 'hurt' in OC'ing, it's not true. The 6 pin is able to deliver more then the advertised '75w'. And AMD has a track of cards that pull way more then the advertised, 75 or 150W / 300 / 375 Watts, esp when going overclocked.

Your OC is stated by the quality of the VRM that sits on the board. Even if it gets 2 wires instead of 6, it's still able to pull a 150W and even more from both 2 wires.

Good Oc'ing comes from the power delivery. Basicly adding more pins would only straighten the power delivery or 'load balance' the current VRM setup. It's not magic either.

To those from "buying ATI was a mistake" camp, well, or part of them, that is able to admit mistakes (note that this is very likely a controlled leak):

www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-amd-rx-480-costs-199-gtx-970-r9-390-beating-performance
Digital Foundry: Neo GPU are point-for-point a match for RX 480

[INDENT]It's also worth noting that - clock-speeds and resultant TFLOPs aside - the specs for RX 480 are point-for-point a match for the GPU in Sony's upcoming PlayStation Neo, all but confirming that the Sony mid-gen console refresh uses both Polaris technology and the new 14nm FinFET chip manufacturing process.[/INDENT]

It is exactly the same chip that Sony ordered en mass, partially if not mainly, that's why AMD is able to roll it out for 199$.
1.5 years ago 980 was the top chip (TX is BS, sorry) and 480 likely trades blows with it, at least if we trust leaked 3dmark.

PS
Terraflop math:

2306*2*0.911 = 4.2 Tflops. => PS4k (Neo) <= C4?
2306*2*1.2 = 5.5 Tflops. => 480 stock

On the other hand, this means chips is already OCed, as with nVidia's 1070/1080, so likely not a great OCer.

For comparison 7850-70 consumed 105-130w (Sony has something in between)
www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_hd_7850_and_7870_review,7.html

Embedded GPUS always run at lower frequencies to curb the power consumption and thermals.

RX 480 may not be running at the highest clock speed it can. Reason: AMD really wanted to keep it under 150w.

FordGT90ConceptEmbedded GPUS always run at lower frequencies to curb the power consumption and thermals.

RX 480 may not be running at the highest clock speed it can. Reason: AMD really wanted to keep it under 150w.

If you stuck around towards the end of the AMD Computex presentation. Lisa says, "Radeon RX GPUs. $100 to $300 price points. Enabling a new segment for VR. Premium gaming experiences. On shelf June 29."

@ 56:30+

We've only heard of the $199 price point.

There is something else coming.

XzibitWe've only heard of the $199 price point.

There is something else coming.

And that is something I have been saying.
I expect one low end, below the 480, and one higher end above it.

C4 is probably the $100 card with 2 GiB of VRAM. Not sure what would be priced closer to $300. Maybe there's a 40 CU card that hasn't been leaked? Or maybe there's a high-clocked version of the RX 480? Or, the most plausible explaination is the 8 GiB RX 480s are going for closer to $300.

Caring1And that is something I have been saying.
I expect one low end, below the 480, and one higher end above it.

Polaris 11 might be below $199 with 2 skus. $99 & another around $149/$159

FordGT90ConceptC4 is probably the $100 card with 2 GiB of VRAM. Not sure what would be priced closer to $300. Maybe there's a 40 CU card that hasn't been leaked? Or maybe there's a high-clocked version of the RX 480? Or, the most plausible explaination is the 8 GiB RX 480s are going for closer to $300.

Unless the extra 4gb helps in performance i doubt that much of a premium. There is room for at least 1 more sku. Full chip with 8GBs

There still the roumors
X-Box Scorpio GPU aiming at 6 TFLOPs due out in 2017 (E3 2016 June 14-16) Maybe make reference to it at the event
Apple AMD Polaris GPU for iMacs (WWDC 2016 June 13-17) Possibly showcase new products

medi01Confirmed.

WSJ (partially paywalled)

Where does it confirm the 8GB price?

Advanced Micro Devices Inc. is angling to lower the cost of virtual reality, targeting the field with a new line of graphics hardware priced at $199—half or less the cost of comparable products.

AMD said the first chips based on its new Polaris design are expected to arrive in graphics cards for personal computers at the end of June. The company aims to help push the starting cost of PCs that can deliver VR experiences as low as $799 from above $1,000.

Consumers also face the cost of the latest generation of VR headsets—$599 for the Oculus Rift from Facebook Inc. ’s Oculus VR unit, for example, or $799 for HTC Corp. ’s Vive.

ADVERTISEMENT

But the need for a PC with an add-in card that includes a beefy 3-D graphics chip is another barrier that stands in the way of widespread adoption of VR. An online survey conducted in April by the Advanced Imaging Society found that 68% of respondents said VR equipment was too expensive.

“Less than 1% of PC users have systems that are capable of doing VR,” said Raja Koduri, senior vice president and chief architect of AMD’s Radeon technologies group. “The entry point is very, very high.”

AMD said its new Radeon RX cards, certified for use in VR by HTC and Oculus VR, deliver performance equivalent to that of $500 graphics cards used for VR.

Patrick Moorhead, an analyst with Moor Insights & Strategy briefed on AMD’s strategy, estimated that the current minimum price on cards comparable to AMD’s new models is $399. He said the $199 pricing comes as a surprise.

“It’s great for getting more people into VR,” said Kelt Reeves, president of Falcon Northwest Computer Systems Inc., a boutique maker of gaming PCs that serves the market.

AMD competes with Nvidia Corp. in the chips known as graphics processing units, or GPUs. Mercury Research estimates that Nvidia had 70.6% of shipments in the first quarter of 2016 to 29.4% for AMD, though the latter’s share is up three percentage points from the fourth quarter.

Standard practice in the GPU business has been to start new product lines with high-end cards that command hefty prices and profit margins. Mr. Koduri said AMD hoped that breaking from tradition by starting with a lower-cost model could have a bigger impact. For one thing, he said, computer retailers prefer to stock machines for less than $999.

Nvidia on May 7 introduced a new flagship model called the GTX 1080 at a $599 price tag that is expected to succeed a $1,000 model called the Titan X. Nvidia also introduced a $379 model called the GTX 1070, which is likely to be seen as competition to the new AMD model.

“It’s up to Nvidia to come up with a lower-priced card,” Mr. Moorhead said.

An Nvidia spokesman had no immediate comment.

AMD, based in Sunnyvale, Calif., plans to formally announce the new chips early Wednesday at the Computex trade show in Taiwan.

Can you check the links or see what the question is about before posting?

AbsolutionCan you check the links or see what the question is about before posting?

Not always. E.g. paywalled.

AbsolutionWhere does it confirm the 8GB price?

240-250$ for it. was what was posted on a few sites.

Now for that price that is amazing, especially if it performs better or equal to a gtx980. But that also puts it like 40-50% behind gtx1080. So what im puzzled about is this, what chip will fill that gap next? Is there a polaris 12 or something? Because as far as I know vega 10 is a much more serious beast with hbm2, and possibly designed to tackle gp100/gp102, so no way they could afford selling such a card for anything less than 500usd

wccftech.com/radeon-rx-480-3d-mark-benchmarks/

www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11263084

One problem is today we have common resolutions from 1366x768 to 3840x2160, a whopping range of 8x in number of pixels.

TRWOV

wccftech.com/radeon-rx-480-3d-mark-benchmarks/

www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11263084

If that card performs that well and amd is giving it away for that price i have no more tears or sympathy for their finical situation. But as with all things we must wait for the actual physical product.

TRWOV

wccftech.com/radeon-rx-480-3d-mark-benchmarks/

www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11263084

ensabrenoirIf that card performs that well and amd is giving it away for that price i have no more tears or sympathy for their finical situation. But as with all things we must wait for the actual physical product.

Tell them to run that benchmark at something higher then 720p.

("cooler from another card" (and 90c))

ensabrenoirIf that card performs that well and amd is giving it away for that price i have no more tears or sympathy for their finical situation

Wah?
They desperately need to regain market share, even back in 4850/4870 days, people bought nVidia's inferior (on all fronts) product, how should they act, please?

[INDENT]

[/INDENTWah?
They desperately need to regain market share, even back in 4850/4870 days, people bought nVidia's inferior (on all fronts) product, how should they act, How please?

They should make some....no alot of money. Then continue putting out new and Improved product which will lead to greater market share. Intel and nvdia are consistent examples of how people are willing to pay for what they believe are the best. Extreme example: They are alteady 6950x cubs and even titian z clubs are still going strong. The only caviot is that it must deliver on the performance side. Condensed: charge a little more( in the absence of extremely high volume) think like a business($) to stay in business.[/INDENT]

arbiterTell them to run that benchmark at something higher then 720p.

www.3dmark.com/fs/8785273?_ga=1.117159170.507117041.1462523653
The (overclocked) clocks indicate it is an AMD card and pretty close to the 1070 on performance.

edit: It may well be a GTX1070 :oops:

Caring1www.3dmark.com/fs/8785273?_ga=1.117159170.507117041.1462523653
The (overclocked) clocks indicate it is an AMD card and pretty close to the 1070 on performance.

EVGA Corp, 2Ghz+ core, 368.39 driver... that IS a 1070.

Caring1www.3dmark.com/fs/8785273?_ga=1.117159170.507117041.1462523653
The (overclocked) clocks indicate it is an AMD card and pretty close to the 1070 on performance.

edit: It may well be a GTX1070 :oops:

FluffmeisterEVGA Corp, 2Ghz+ core, 368.39 driver... that IS a 1070.

that is an Nvidia card in that link, since eVGA ONLY makes nvidia cards.

medi01

I guess if you can't beat them, undercut them, how exciting.

arbiterthat is an Nvidia card in that link, since eVGA ONLY makes nvidia cards.

No shit, that was exactly my point.

I realised after I posted it and had a closer look.
Standard they run 4Gb of memory at 2,00MHz with a Core clock at 1,266MHz.

Link to the benches I've posted above, with 480 beating 980:
www.tweaktown.com/news/52553/leaked-benchmarks-see-radeon-rx-480-beating-geforce-gtx-980/index.html

There was also a "leak" about GP106 (1060): 192 bit, 6Gb.
www.tweaktown.com/news/52552/nvidias-geforce-gtx-1060-include-6gb-ram-192-bit-memory-bus/index.html

Earlier rumors advertised it "rocking" 256bit bus.

FluffmeisterI guess if you can't beat them.

Guess in gens when nVidia released smaller chip first, it was because "they can't beat AMD".
Sigh.

480 is a 199$ card, which is replacing 199$-ish card from the last gen.
1080 is 600$ card and 1070 is savaged 1080 chips with some units disabled.

And for the "can't beat" record: 290x trounced whatever was on the market at the time it was released.
Even Fury X beat 980Ti at stock.

PS
"Some dude on anandtech forum posted this"
(460)



PS
OCed 480 (same dubious source), close to stock 1070 (~10%-ish slower than OCed 1070):

Sigh.

I'm not the one hoping a $200 card will defeat the evil nVidians.