980 ti costs 649 - 749$ on newegg.
Getting close to that performance for 199$ is a sweet deal.

Im guessing there will be higher clocked 480 versions too, thats why that leaked slide said 5.5 teraflops.
But AMD just wrote over 5, and didnt mention the gpu clock speeds.

That said... I just watched the presentation.

Man that was boreing.... AMD has cool tech, and good prices but... its marketing >_>'

Most people running 390's still play at 1080p, so the 480 4GB with a decent cooler and OC will probably cost ~$230. That's right in range with price for a 1060, which is rumored to perform between a 970 and 980...so i think there will be close direct competition there in no time.

Well thanks to the 1080/1070 hype i just won a bid on an open box new EVGA 980Ti FTW for $440 last night. I had sold mine for $550 just 2 weeks ago getting caught into the hype.

I game in 4K and 2K, and i was just terrible disappointed in several factors- availability and price gouging of Founders 1080 cards and the poor overclocking of the 1070 performance. With overclocking the 980Ti begins to walk the 1070 easily and every fps counts at those resolutions, and that's with the 1070 boosting past 2Ghz. Pascal overclocking just doesn't scale as well as the big Maxwell cards it seems and the nerfed 1070 appears to have limted overclocking potential.

Its clear Nvidia clocked Pascal these high in reference form just to clear the hurdles of the underclocked big Maxwell reference cards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMr7grvBljk


I'm not waiting half the summer to get my hands on a 1080FTW or other non reference board cards to pay $720+ for it. That makes zero sense.

My 980Ti FTW will ride me into 1080Ti launch just fine and wont lose much more value than the going rates for 1070 as they are that comparable in games performance.

It's been confirmed that $199 is only for the 4GB version of the card. I hope the 8GB version isn't going to be much more expensive. The more I think about it, I think I'm gonna go for a custom 8GB RX 480 that has better cooling and good OC capability. I probably won't need more than that on a 2560x1080 75Hz screen, even in ultra settings. Hopefully such a card will cost around $249.

It should be faster than a normal 980.
This card is between the 980 and the 980ti.
For 199$.

With overclocking it ll probably end up matching a stock 980ti.
Pretty good value for those of us that dont buy graphics cards that cost 600$+.

Now it's absolutly possible that Microsoft releases a 6TF Xbox in 2017 for 399 or less, and then microsoft will have the most powerful console which makes me happy :)

Let's not forget the Geforce 1080.
Polaris 10 is expected to chew on 150w of power. That's as much as the Geforce 1070 and only 30w~ less than the Geforce 1080... Both geforce chips should be faster.
AMD reclaiming performance/watt isn't happening with Polaris.

According to Anandtech and Linus, it's going to be $199 for the regular 480. (Which is 5.0 - 5.5 Teraflop.)
Pretty sure I saw an AMD interview where it was $199 as well.

The 7850 started at $250 if I recall, but then the prices quickly tumbled once yields increased.

With that said... Console manufacturers DONT buy GPU's like we buy GPU's. They buy the chips, there is a significant amount of materials and validation which isn't needed which drives their costs down lower. (Not to mention special deals due to buying in bulk etc'.)

I think that will happen next year, Polaris is pretty much a focus on performance per watt and will not regain the performance crown, nVidia typically has a more loyal following, better advertising and they will have a Halo product.

It will have less performance/watt though, that factors into allot of peoples buying decisions.

Polaris is set to be an overclocking monster, so I wouldn't be surprised by that.

I am excited for the true high-end card though, not this mainstream stuff.

AMD Has confirmed 36 CU's for Polaris 10.
Thus... If we assume AMD has gone with the same core layout of 64 Stream processors per CU, then we are looking at 2304 Stream processors.

The 480 GPU's themselves are likely die-harvested as well, probably a 40 CU/2560 SP which might make an appearance later as the Radeon 480X, once yields are sufficient. (14/16nm nodes are pretty new still.)

Mostly because price, power, performance.

Microsoft lost the first round of this generation and will likely try to reclaim some lost marketshare even if they pay extra.

Even if TV's are capped at 1080P, games are not like movies, there is a substantual benefit from running games higher than your native resolution and then downscaling them. PC gamers have been doing it for years.
And the more available processing, the more expensive and intricate your rendering can become, irrespective of resolution.

AMD would also be under Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA) so would not be legally allows to even HINT what the other company's plans are.

Crossfire comes with caveats, I would always propose a gamer goes with a faster single card over two slower cards for a multitude of reasons.

For instance most games, especially those using pretty obscure game engines sometimes may not have driver support weeks/months after release so you won't get any benefit from crossfire to begin with.

Vulkan is in a unique position at the moment...

The entire Linux, MacOSX, Android ecosystems main API of choice is going to be Vulkan going forward.
The Playstation 4 also uses Vulkan as well.

Direct X 12 is cornered in Windows and on the Xbox, but the PC is allot more fluid and has had historic swings between OpenGL and Direct X.

Eh. 40% more than what though? Excavator? Piledriver? Stars? Still not enough to match Intel unfortunately, might be sufficient to regain some Mainstream marketshare though.

I think the highlight was Polaris 10/Radeon 480 at $199.
As PC GPU's got bigger and bigger on 28nm, so did their respective prices, this seems to re-align things a bit.

Having seperate chips doesn't mean you break backwards compatability.
Do you honestly think a software progam being executed on a host machine cares if a GPU and CPU are not on the same die?

Microsoft and Sony, heck even Nintendo have historically combined once seperate chips into the same chip as a way to cost cut, with great success and never broke backwards compatability.

So thankfully your fears are without any kind of basis.

Flops isn't an accurate denominator for gauging performance.

You can have less Teraflops and still be faster.

That was true for APU's of old. However at 14nm and 16nm things are a little different if you haven't noticed.

Although the Xbox One's original case was ugly as you can get, it was effective, stupidly effective and did the job fantastically, I live in South Australia where it's not unusual to get a few summer days that hit 50'C/122'F and the Xbox One handles it effortlessly, which is impressive considering my watercooled PC struggles.

Do you have an evidence to backup that claim of Radeon 390 users mostly being 1080P gamers? That's a bold claim that I would be interested in reading.
Most enthusiast websites I hang around with where the users have relatively high-end hardware are running multi-monitors or 1440P or better.

The RX 480 is an "up to" 150W card, at least the 4GB card, with most leaks suggesting that it would use something more like 120-130W.

But that's not that important, is it? What's really important is that Polaris is a huge improvement over previous GCN chips, and that now even the reference cooler might be a valid option. 

It's 40% more than Bulldozer.

By the way, the clock speed of the RX 480 has been confirmed at 1,266 MHz by a screenshot captured by TechPowerUp

http://www.techpowerup.com/223043/amd-radeon-rx-480-clock-speeds-revealed-clocked-above-1-2-ghz

Also, for a thread about Polais, I find the lack of pictures of the card a bit disappointing.

http://www.techpowerup.com/223044/feast-your-eyes-on-these-official-amd-radeon-rx-480-renders

Notice how the reference board seems to be rather small. I'd say that some third party cards will come close to the size of the R9 Nano.

It is 2304SP @1266 Mhz. I think the choice I have to make is going to be between RX 480 and RX 480X with, like you're saying, 40 CUs. I hope AMD releases this card soon, this summer holiday preferably, they need a card that can take on the 1070 while being cheaper, even just to get better press. I think RX 480X will be more future-proof, but my choice will depend on the price.

BTW. 8GB RX 480 is going to be $229. Not bad, worth the extra $30 in my opinion.

I can't wait for gaming benchmarks and most importantly - custom cards! No way I'm buying the blower 6 pin version Sapphire, don't let me down!

The 5TF RX 480 is 150W TDP.  I suspect power & heat will prevent a 6TF GPU console in 2017.

AMD has always touted theoretical performance and compute. Those thinking the 480 is more powerful than a 980 are ill informed. 480 has been assimilated to the 390, which isn't worlds apart but its nowhere near between a 980Ti and 980.

AMD's theoretical TFLOP performance has never matched the competition's real game performance. Tflops is not a measure of games performance.

R9 290 2.5 yrs ago came with 4.84 TFLOPS...only to be routinely bested by the GTX 970 with 3.9 Tflops. Driver overhead and architecture speed plays a larger role, and now Pascal's IPC is faster in comparison due to the higher clocks.