cdawallFor the price? No you can get a PS4/XBOX, which mops the floor with it.

Who mentioned price? Oh you did, because you couldn't answer the previous question. It's ok though, I can already imagine what your next reply would be lol.

thesmokingmanWho mentioned price? Oh you did, because you couldn't answer the previous question. It's ok though, I can already imagine what your next reply would be lol.

What would you classify the shield as? TV entertainment/gaming center? The PS4/XBOX easily fit that niche and work substantially better so they would be a better TV box thingy. The only argument that could be made is power consumption or freedom of the android OS.

cdawallWhat would you classify the shield as? TV entertainment/gaming center? The PS4/XBOX easily fit that niche and work substantially better so they would be a better TV box thingy. The only argument that could be made is power consumption or freedom of the android OS.

If we're talking about the Shield TV, I would agree. This is also like that over-sized phone that's supposed to be good at being a phone and a tablet but it ends up doing neither well. Putting your eggs in too many baskets is never a good idea.

cdawallWhat would you classify the shield as? TV entertainment/gaming center? The PS4/XBOX easily fit that niche and work substantially better so they would be a better TV box thingy. The only argument that could be made is power consumption or freedom of the android OS.

Its a tv appliance that is overbuilt. I never made the point that it was gods gift to tv's or something like that. What did you call it a stupid tv box thing? It is in fact as I wrote the best made stupid tv box thing and it is. I'll agree that yea it is more expensive than the other shitty alternatives it competes with pushing it closer to consoles in price. But again this isn't a comparo vs the consoles, the shield is an appliance, a damn good one as an appliance and albeit overpriced that happens to do decent light gaming which pushes it closer to the gaming consoles. I never fancied consoles as a tv appliance, they're too bulky, and their complicated gui's are annoying. Try teaching your inlaws how to navigate the ps4 crossbar gui for instance, right... lol.

thesmokingmanIts a tv appliance that is overbuilt. I never made the point that it was gods gift to tv's or something like that. What did you call it a stupid tv box thing? It is in fact as I wrote the best made stupid tv box thing and it is. I'll agree that yea it is more expensive than the other shitty alternatives it competes with pushing it closer to consoles in price. But again this isn't a comparo vs the consoles, the shield is an appliance, a damn good one as an appliance and albeit overpriced that happens to do decent light gaming which pushes it closer to the gaming consoles. I never fancied consoles as a tv appliance, they're too bulky, and their complicated gui's are annoying. Try teaching your inlaws how to navigate the ps4 crossbar gui for instance, right... lol.

I already did they can actually use the PS3 crossbar fine to watch movies through DLNA. The PS4 sells for $200-249.99 if you buy the cheap models that isn't any different that the $200 you drop on a shield. That is my issue with it that is ridiculously overpriced. I will give nvidia props they took a $75 tablet and put in a screenless cheaper box and somehow convinced people to pay the same as they would for an AMD APU with a discrete graphics card. I wish I could pull of their business model.

Dual Polaris or cut down VEGA :) Really ? That's what you think 490 will be if it shows up? Didn't you notice that there's a 3rd option? Maybe it will still be Polaris but stronger? IF AMD didn't release this new GPU 490 earlier it was for a reason. Rx 480 is relatively cheap they wanted to see how will it go with the sales of that GPU. They know it's very good atm so they want to release rx 490 at the end of the year a bit stronger. It will not compete with 1080 that's for sure but if AMD can kick the performance of that one a bit more that would be competing with 1070. VEGA is meant for 1080 and TI version probably. Besides its the end of the year and x-mas is coming, Releasing now is a great deal for people to buy those when crazy shopping begins. Which is soon :) When you plan something you plan ahead. AMD may have already had 490 ready but they didn't wanted to release it to early.

ratirtDual Polaris or cut down VEGA :) Really ? That's what you think 490 will be if it shows up? Didn't you notice that there's a 3rd option? Maybe it will still be Polaris but stronger? IF AMD didn't release this new GPU 490 earlier it was for a reason. Rx 480 is relatively cheap they wanted to see how will it go with the sales of that GPU. They know it's very good atm so they want to release rx 490 at the end of the year a bit stronger. It will not compete with 1080 that's for sure but if AMD can kick the performance of that one a bit more that would be competing with 1070. VEGA is meant for 1080 and TI version probably. Besides its the end of the year and x-mas is coming, Releasing now is a great deal for people to buy those when crazy shopping begins. Which is soon :) When you plan something you plan ahead. AMD may have already had 490 ready but they didn't wanted to release it to early.

How can AMD do that with Polaris 10 already maxed out? Cherry-pick and overclock it 15-20%?
They need >50% to compete with GTX 1070.

efikkanHow can AMD do that with Polaris 10 already maxed out? Cherry-pick and overclock it 15-20%?
They need >50% to compete with GTX 1070.

There does appear to have been improvements in the node in the last few months. Add on top it appears that Polaris dies for consumer cards have been bottom binned (with pretty well much every other segment getting better binned cards), it'd certainly be possible for the 490 to be a better binned Polaris.

That being said, I'm firmly of the opinion that even the 480 was stretching the performance\efficiency of Polaris, and that the next AMD cards will be a 490, almost certainly being Vega 11, and a Fury card for Vega 10.

cdawallI have never actually met someone who purchased a shield. Most people either use their smart TV or chrome cast.

Alright then I'll give you some insight into SHIELD because it seems all you guys think it is, is an overpriced Chromecast dongle...

- GameStream > 60 fps, low latency gaming while my PC is running upstairs. It works very, very well. Yes, Steam can do it too... on a separate PC. The SHIELD is that stand-in HTPC.
- Media server > granted, consoles do it too. But I'd much rather be on the Android TV platform than on a semi-closed console ecosystem where support relies entirely on one company, and their policy does tend to change. I haven't forgotten the PS3 media server woes either... none of those with SHIELD. Not to mention the power consumption difference - it is significant comparing SHIELD to console - five to eight times less power.
- Responsiveness > SHIELD is easily the most responsive Chromecast you can get. The machine boots up in 10 seconds, usually it's on before my TV is starting to give me an image.
- Voice search > with the Shield remote (I got one free with my shield, standalone its way overpriced I agree) you've got voice search at the touch of a button alongside 4-way navigation. The voice works, and it works flawlessly.

- Size > it's compact and very flat, fits almost anywhere, while the consoles are pretty bulky in comparison.

Is it too expensive for what it does? Purely on the hardware, yes it is. But it does offer some functionality and ease of use that is pretty unique.

BTW it's not more expensive than a console but cheaper than a console, and consoles only play console games, not PC streams.

Vayra86Alright then I'll give you some insight into SHIELD because it seems all you guys think it is, is an overpriced Chromecast dongle...

- GameStream > 60 fps, low latency gaming while my PC is running upstairs. It works very, very well. Yes, Steam can do it too... on a separate PC. The SHIELD is that stand-in HTPC.
- Media server > granted, consoles do it too. But I'd much rather be on the Android TV platform than on a semi-closed console ecosystem where support relies entirely on one company, and their policy does tend to change. I haven't forgotten the PS3 media server woes either... none of those with SHIELD. Not to mention the power consumption difference - it is significant comparing SHIELD to console.
- Responsiveness > SHIELD is easily the most responsive Chromecast you can get. The machine boots up in 10 seconds, usually it's on before my TV is starting to give me an image.
- Voice search > with the Shield remote (I got one free with my shield, standalone its way overpriced I agree) you've got voice search at the touch of a button alongside 4-way navigation. The voice works, and it works flawlessly.

So an overpriced Chromecast with some extra bells and whistles.

None of those are essentials (or even that useful) features by a long shot.

Its great it suits your needs in a highly specified niche, but all in all, PS4's & XB1's do what your asking much better at a same or cheaper price.

CammThere does appear to have been improvements in the node in the last few months. Add on top it appears that Polaris dies for consumer cards have been bottom binned (with pretty well much every other segment getting better binned cards), it'd certainly be possible for the 490 to be a better binned Polaris.

That being said, I'm firmly of the opinion that even the 480 was stretching the performance\efficiency of Polaris, and that the next AMD cards will be a 490, almost certainly being Vega 11, and a Fury card for Vega 10.

Then again, how much better can a cherry-picked(binned) chip perform? Probably 15-20% at max. It needs a >50% increase to compete with GTX 1070, which is impossible through binning.

efikkanThen again, how much better can a cherry-picked(binned) chip perform? Probably 15-20% at max. It needs a >50% increase to compete with GTX 1070, which is impossible through binning.

Well that would depend on the chip.

Vayra86Alright then I'll give you some insight into SHIELD because it seems all you guys think it is, is an overpriced Chromecast dongle...

- GameStream > 60 fps, low latency gaming while my PC is running upstairs. It works very, very well. Yes, Steam can do it too... on a separate PC. The SHIELD is that stand-in HTPC.
- Media server > granted, consoles do it too. But I'd much rather be on the Android TV platform than on a semi-closed console ecosystem where support relies entirely on one company, and their policy does tend to change. I haven't forgotten the PS3 media server woes either... none of those with SHIELD. Not to mention the power consumption difference - it is significant comparing SHIELD to console - five to eight times less power.
- Responsiveness > SHIELD is easily the most responsive Chromecast you can get. The machine boots up in 10 seconds, usually it's on before my TV is starting to give me an image.
- Voice search > with the Shield remote (I got one free with my shield, standalone its way overpriced I agree) you've got voice search at the touch of a button alongside 4-way navigation. The voice works, and it works flawlessly.

- Size > it's compact and very flat, fits almost anywhere, while the consoles are pretty bulky in comparison.

Is it too expensive for what it does? Purely on the hardware, yes it is. But it does offer some functionality and ease of use that is pretty unique.

BTW it's not more expensive than a console but cheaper than a console, and consoles only play console games, not PC streams.

Can't you stream to the Xbox from pc now or is that still a work in progress by Microsoft?

efikkanHow can AMD do that with Polaris 10 already maxed out? Cherry-pick and overclock it 15-20%?
They need >50% to compete with GTX 1070.

I believe it has already been mentioned in this thread, but I'll say it again. At 16xx Polaris 10 competes pretty evenly with the 1070. A swap to GDDR5X or HBM would make it even better. It is possible AMD is just going to let a clocked up 480 go as a 490. That's not a 50% clock just for reference that's roughly the difference between most gen one and gen two parts between both companies.

CammSo an overpriced Chromecast with some extra bells and whistles.

None of those are essentials (or even that useful) features by a long shot.

Thats because the Shield is like a jack of all trades. Its fine for everything, but in the end, not necessary, and there is always a device that does all those thing but better, for the same or slightly higher price.
The only nVidia apu worth mentioning is the "rumored" one in Nintendo Switch. And that one isn't that great either.

cdawallCan't you stream to the Xbox from pc now or is that still a work in progress by Microsoft?



I believe it has already been mentioned in this thread, but I'll say it again. At 16xx Polaris 10 competes pretty evenly with the 1070. A swap to GDDR5X or HBM would make it even better. It is possible AMD is just going to let a clocked up 480 go as a 490. That's not a 50% clock just for reference that's roughly the difference between most gen one and gen two parts between both companies.

Adored has said the same with regards to the highest binned Polaris reserved for commercial embedded solutions. See the commentary starting at the 12:00 mark in the video:

cdawallI believe it has already been mentioned in this thread, but I'll say it again. At 16xx Polaris 10 competes pretty evenly with the 1070. A swap to GDDR5X or HBM would make it even better. It is possible AMD is just going to let a clocked up 480 go as a 490. That's not a 50% clock just for reference that's roughly the difference between most gen one and gen two parts between both companies.

You are mistaken:
- At stock RX 480 performs lower than GTX 1060 while being much less energy efficient, this problem will grow exponentially when overclocked another >50%, even with cherry-picked chips.
- The clock speeds would have to be at least ~1800 MHz stock, ~2000 MHz average boost and probably ~2400 MHz max boost. And even then the throttling will make it worse than GTX 1070 in many games.
- This chip would consume ~230 W on a die size of 232 mm², this would require a very good cooler.
- Anything pushed this far would never be reliable over time.
- Polaris 10 doesn't and can't support HBM. A switch to HBM wouldn't help anything either, GDDR5(X) is more than enough.

efikkanYou are mistaken:
- At stock RX 480 performs lower than GTX 1060 while being much less energy efficient, this problem will grow exponentially when overclocked another >50%, even with cherry-picked chips.
- The clock speeds would have to be at least ~1800 MHz stock, ~2000 MHz average boost and probably ~2400 MHz max boost. And even then the throttling will make it worse than GTX 1070 in many games.
- This chip would consume ~230 W on a die size of 232 mm², this would require a very good cooler.
- Anything pushed this far would never be reliable over time.
- Polaris 10 doesn't and can't support HBM. A switch to HBM wouldn't help anything either, GDDR5(X) is more than enough.

So how do you know what wattage would be required and speed would be required? My numbers are based off of hwbot and checking benchmarks at those speeds. Around 16xx/2250 the 480 is mind you I said IS competing with the 1070 at stock. Wattage wise? There are already stock 480's consuming less than 85@stock speeds. 150-200w wouldn't surprise me and wouldn't be far off of the 1070, so I imagine a cooler roughly the size of a 1070 would probably work just fine.

cdawallSo how do you know what wattage would be required and speed would be required? My numbers are based off of hwbot and checking benchmarks at those speeds. Around 16xx/2250 the 480 is mind you I said IS competing with the 1070 at stock. Wattage wise? There are already stock 480's consuming less than 85@stock speeds. 150-200w wouldn't surprise me and wouldn't be far off of the 1070, so I imagine a cooler roughly the size of a 1070 would probably work just fine.

Significantly higher clocks will require higher voltage which will result in an exponential growth in power consumption, that's basic physics. GTX 1070 has already ~70% more performance per watt compared to RX 480, if you overclock Polaris 10 that gap is going to increase, thinking it would shrink is pure fiction. A Polaris 10 overclocked to match GTX 1070 performance-wise will consume a lot more energy than GTX 1070. Remember that RX 480 is consuming more than GTX 1070 under load (both at stock).

efikkanSignificantly higher clocks will require higher voltage which will result in an exponential growth in power consumption, that's basic physics. GTX 1070 has already ~70% more performance per watt compared to RX 480, if you overclock Polaris 10 that gap is going to increase, thinking it would shrink is pure fiction. A Polaris 10 overclocked to match GTX 1070 performance-wise will consume a lot more energy than GTX 1070. Remember that RX 480 is consuming more than GTX 1070 under load (both at stock).

If a 480 is using on 80w's at stock clocks the performance per watt is BETTER for the RX480 than a 1070. Please for the love of god actually read what I am saying and stop going off of reviews of junk OEM cards.

Yeah right, Polaris is significantly more energy efficient than Pascal, and AMD is also secretly winning.
Meanwhile in the real world…

efikkanYeah right, Polaris is significantly more energy efficient than Pascal, and AMD is also secretly winning.
Meanwhile in the real world…

Do some research and post back.

efikkanYeah right, Polaris is significantly more energy efficient than Pascal, and AMD is also secretly winning.
Meanwhile in the real world…

Whilst you are mostly right, outright lying above didn't help your argument.

A 1060 for example is demonstrably slower than a 480 in most AAA titles this year, and on occasion, rather significantly. The power consumption argument is a bit shit - whilst we know that Polaris can be rather energy efficient, AMD has been bottom binning all of its desktop GPU dies (with embedded and other markets getting better bins). So whilst one can't make sweeping statements that Polaris isn't as energy efficient as Pascal (as its an architectural comparison), in the consumer market, Pascal certainly is.

That being said, Pascal for oath should be more energy efficient, considering a good chunk of functionality is missing off the die, which has been the case going all the way back to Kepler.

efikkanYeah right, Polaris is significantly more energy efficient than Pascal, and AMD is also secretly winning.
Meanwhile in the real world…

AMD has gained a good bit of market share since last year


Market share shifts. The market shares for the desktop discrete GPU suppliers shifted in the quarter too.



www.jonpeddie.com/press-releases/details/add-in-board-market-increased-in-q316-amd-lost-market-share-while-nvidia-ga

I think Vega will need to compete with Pascal and when Volta drops next year I expect AMD discrete GPUs to take a hit since they plan Navi for 2018 which is a long time for Volta to sit unopposed in the market.



Off Topic: PC Gaming very healthy even though PC sales continue to decline

From the article: "If anyone doubted that the PC was the platform of choice for gaming, this quarter’s results will correct that misconception. The gaming market is lifting the entire PC market and has overwhelmed the console market."



jonpeddie.com/publications/market_watch/

It's sad to see how blinded people are thinking Polaris is more efficient than Pascal.

64KI think Vega will need to compete with Pascal and when Volta drops next year I expect AMD discrete GPUs to take a hit since they plan Navi for 2018 which is a long time for Volta to sit unopposed in the market.

Volta will arrive for Tesla in the end of 2017. The first consumer GPU might slip into 2018, and will most likely be the new mid-range GPU ("GV104").

64KOff Topic: PC Gaming very healthy even though PC sales continue to decline

From the article: "If anyone doubted that the PC was the platform of choice for gaming, this quarter’s results will correct that misconception. The gaming market is lifting the entire PC market and has overwhelmed the console market."
jonpeddie.com/publications/market_watch/

For non-power-users and non-gamers, if they have a working PC there is no reason to upgrade since the performance gains have flat-lined. For gaming though, there is still reasons to upgrade every x years…

efikkanIt's sad to see how blinded people are thinking Polaris is more efficient than Pascal.

Blinded by what? There are already a couple consumer bins in the 80w range for the RX480. Not every card is the 150-200W cards we saw at initial release. If you look closely at the cooler design you can tell the initial plan was for a GPU in the 80-100w power envelope. Same goes for the power delivery circuit that was on the cards. Literally every single thing points towards a much lower wattage card design. It has been assumed on multiple fronts that GloFo couldn't give AMD enough good dies and that led to what we saw. AMD bottom of the barrel grabbed dies to have a product on the market. We will continue to see lower and lower wattage polaris parts as time goes on and yields improve.

Another example of AMD's preferential binning. The macbook pro can get a full fledged RX460 that is sitting at a 30w TDP.

Hell my cards with a massive overclock are still only hitting the 150-200w range with a voltage bump and air cooling.