If amd only tries to reach the 1070, would that be something bad? let nvidea have the high end, but with a mid range as good as this, it dosent seem like the worst idea to me. after all, vr is the future and this mid range more tan delivers.

It looks really blurry. Not recommended, at all.

It will always look blurry when it is a resolution that differs from the native resolution. The lower the resolution the worse it will look.

If you get a cheap card then I don't know why low VRAM would bother you. Those cards aren't made for anything higher than 1080p or AA. You will have enough other bottlenecks before you'll reach the memory cap. That's why the 3.5GB in the 970 are more than plenty for every real life scenario.

Penis measuring is a big part in marketing. Nvidia is already regarded as the highest quality manufacturer by the majority of gamers. Part of that is that they usually hold the performance crown.

What would the average consumer rather buy? A slimmed down version of the most powerful GPU on the market or some midrange card of that other manufacturer who hasn't really anything to show for concerning the potential of their new architecture? In a market where buyers still pay more attention to the amount of VRAM than actual benchmarks, having the most powerful GPU is worth a lot even if it's too expensive to buy for most people.

I mean how do you think Nvidia got by all these years? All of their cards lose against AMD in price/performance. It's all great marketing.

7nm is expensive because it can't be used for large complex chips, it's reserved for NAND untill they improve the situation.
Thus that "3 times better" can and will change.

However... nVidia and AMD constantly do well every year throwing out faster and faster GPU's.. Even on the same node, I.E. AMD Managed to more than double performance between the Radeon 7970 and Fury, both were 28nm, both were cosidered monolithic, low yield, expensive chips.

Thus... Even if we were to be using 16/14nm for the next 4 years, expect more than double the performance as AMD and nVidia are both entering this feature size conservatively with their initial batch of processors.

Steam doesn't account for systems that have integrated graphics as the primary adapter and switches to dedicated graphics on demand.

Steam doesn't account for multi-GPU systems either.

The % of PC's that are more powerfull than what Steam hints at is indeed higher.

You also need a high end card, not for sales... But as a Halo product, to draw people to your brand, your lineup and spur sales, nVidia will have that, nVidia will likely have the advertising edge, nVidia will likely outsell AMD and that is AMD's own fault.

Ironically... I find 1080P looks better on a 4k monitor than a 2k (Aka. 1440P) monitor... As the scaling isn't 1:1.

You are comparing Apples to Oranges. Polaris is a GPU not an APU.
AMD has mobile GPU's that are faster than the FX-8800P.

AMD's Mobile Polaris isn't even going to be the fastest AMD mobile GPU, that crown will continue to lay with the Mobility Radeon 395X untill probably Vega.

2k is often in reference to 2560x1440... Otherwise known as Quad-High Definition.

Mantle is impossible. AMD abandoned that project, chunks of that code has ended up in it's successor, Aka. Vulkan.... Non-Microsoft consoles will use Vulkan as the primary high-level API, with probably some other fork of OpenGL for ease-of-use and familiarity for some devs at the expense of performance.

Direct X 12 will not happen, for obvious reasons. Direct X 12 is also a high-level API, the Xbox One actually has another API with performance that exceeds Direct X 12.

AMD are targeting the mainstead with Polaris. They will be targeting the high-end with Vega and then Navi.

1080P is 1920x1080 which is 2,073,600 pixels.
2k is 2560x1440 which is 3,686,400.
That is roughly a 77% increase in total resolution.

Vega will launch with HBM 2 memory.

Navi however will launch with a next-generation memory, that is probably going to be the card that makes 4k on a single card super feasible!

Polaris is likely to fall short of the 1070. It's a mainstream product not a high-end or enthusiast grade product.

...You could also get a Radeon 7850 for like $50 second hand, overclock the crap out of it and play games better than the PS4. Like all the Frostbite powered games in ACTUAL 1080P rather than 900P!

Awesomeness overload! ^^ 11 quotes in one post, I've never seen that before!

But Vega won't come until next year, going against Nvidia's next Titan and Ti. And we'll have to see if there are other new cards and rebrands by then too.

AMD is mainstream now, maybe they'll go high end in the future.

Mummelmann said: Awesomeness overload! ^^ 11 quotes in one post, I've never seen that before!

It's the second time he does something like this. He's after some record .

JEMC said: Pemalite said:   AMD are targeting the mainstead with Polaris. They will be targeting the high-end with Vega and then Navi. But Vega won't come until next year, going against Nvidia's next Titan and Ti. And we'll have to see if there are other new cards and rebrands by then too. AMD is mainstream now, maybe they'll go high end in the future. Mummelmann said: Awesomeness overload! ^^ 11 quotes in one post, I've never seen that before! It's the second time he does something like this. He's after some record .

AMD's Fury is high-end. AMD will abandon the high-end (Or just keep Fury around.) untill Vega.

Vega also might drop late this year. Depends how the cards (Pun intended) drop.

Reason for the big posts is sometimes I don't log in for days as this site is garbage on mobile and I can't be bothered dealing with it untill I am on my Desktop.

Nope? You need to conform to increasingly complex set of rules when designing smaller chips, and more advanced tools, processes and IP. There is no way around the need for about 500 man-years to design a mid-range SoC on 7nm, no matter how cheap the foundries make these pieces of silicon out to be. I'm not making this up by the way, you can search for the sources of anything I'm saying. So it cannot and will not change, since we can mathematically predict were we wil end up on more advanced nodes. And those predictions are best-case scenarios on themselves, since the foundries don't want to look bad on their own roadmaps, do they?

Now, to considerations on architecture. AMD didn't quite manage to double the performance. The Fiji is about 50% more efficient than the Tahiti chips, and that's factoring in the HBM.  Maybe if you couple the worst-reviewed first bath of Tahiti chips with an R9 Nano (which itself was an effort of desperation to look good on power efficiency, selling an underclocked 8.9B transistor chip to take on mini GTX 970s) you can sort of claim the power efficiency has doubled.  The GCN 28nm were on themselves terrible on power efficiency, beating the 40nm Evergreen chips by less than 50% on most instances. In fact, 28nm only did what was supposed to do and doubled 40nm on efficiency with the more recent (GCN 1.2 and Maxwell) architectures, a statement on how early GCN and Kepler sort of sucked. Again, not making up anything, the search engines are your friend here.

I don't know how could AMD keep Fury as their high-end cards with only 4GB. That's why I think (or hope) that the 490X will be faster than Fury and around GTX 1070 levels of performance.

Also, I think that AMD has Vega up and running, but they are waiting on HBM2 prices to fall down to launch it. They expect it will happen early next year, but if it happens before, they could release Vega late this year.