So AMD 480 is a dud, not nearly the amazing deal after all

[Slimebeast]

vivster said:

Slimebeast said:

Yeah I know but it still isn't true.

A 290/390 draws 275W and a 480 draws 160W at top speed, and if the 480 is 10% faster, the perf per Watt becomes only x1.9. Although I should use the Fury cards in this comparison, correct? Then it becomes even worse for AMD.

Well okay, it's not that far from what was advertized. But like you say, they had so much catching up to do versus Nvidia.

Still almost a whole generation behind. It's painful to be an AMD fan.

The Vega must beat a 1080 at least, because by then there'll be a 1080 Ti and I want my next PC to be top class.

You might have to go with Big Pascal then. Rumors say that Vega 10 will be around 60% above the Fury X which will be above the 1080(40% above Fury X) but will be safely below Big Pascal. Though I fear Nvidia will adapt to that by not releasing the full Big Pascal and instead a smaller version that's only slightly above Vega10.

But either way the same rules as always apply. If you're on a budget, go with AMD. If not, go with the strongest card you can find.

Oh, there's Vega rumours already?!

If it's 60% above Fury X I would accept that, although before the 14nm tech launched I was dreaming of a new AMD GPU being 2.0x Fury X.

60% above the Fury X is exactly twice the performance of a RX 480. Do you really think they can do that in 2016, considering the RX 480 already draws a hefty 160W? That would need serious architectual improvements.