AMD Confirms RX 480 At $199 USD, Other APU & Polaris Announcements

lowendlinux

macrumors 603
Original poster
Sep 24, 2014
5,238
6,484
Germany
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Computex-2016-AMD-Go

I read a lot of Phoronix 'cause...If this is true then that's probably the next top end MP card rebadged as FirePro

The Radeon RX 480 is being promoted as being competitive with $500 current generation cards like the GTX 980 and R9 390X. There's 4 or 8GB of GDDR5 memory, 150 Watt TDP, AMD FreeSync, premium VR support, 36 compute units, and 256GB/s of memory bandwidth. The RX 480 is said to have 1.7x performance/Watt improvement.
 

goMac

macrumors 604
Apr 15, 2004
7,079
1,096
As I mentioned in the other thread, the performance per watt is a serious problem. The only thing it's competitive on is price, which is totally unimportant for Apple on the Mac Pro.

Don't get me wrong. If you're upgrading an older Mac Pro or you're building a PC without breaking a budget it's a good card. But as a replacement for a very expensive workstation card, it's a huge letdown. Same TDP as a 1070 but slower.

At this point, you'd better hope Vega is going to be much more optimized, and coming to the next Mac Pro.

Going out and trying to sell these as a $1000 upgrade option would nearly be suicidal. So again, hope we see Vega on the Mac Pro...
 

lowendlinux

macrumors 603
Original poster
Sep 24, 2014
5,238
6,484
Germany
As I mentioned in the other thread, the performance per watt is a serious problem. The only thing it's competitive on is price, which is totally unimportant for Apple on the Mac Pro.

Don't get me wrong. If you're upgrading an older Mac Pro or you're building a PC without breaking a budget it's a good card. But as a replacement for a very expensive workstation card, it's a huge letdown. Same TDP as a 1070 but slower.

At this point, you'd better hope Vega is going to be much more optimized, and coming to the next Mac Pro.

Going out and trying to sell these as a $1000 upgrade option would nearly be suicidal. So again, hope we see Vega on the Mac Pro...
I don't know if it will be. Supposedly it's a single 6 pin down clock it a bit and use the 8 gig version and there's your mid range.
 

Fl0r!an

macrumors 6502a
Aug 14, 2007
906
526
As I mentioned in the other thread, the performance per watt is a serious problem. The only thing it's competitive on is price, which is totally unimportant for Apple on the Mac Pro.
Well, Apple has proven in the last years that they don't care about performance per watt as long as it's cheap... :D
Why else would they put GPUs in their tiny iMacs which easily reach 100°C?

Personally I don't care as long as they finally provide proper OS X drivers. GTX 980 performance for just $200? Would be a neat choice for my Hackintosh.... Guess it's finally time to track down those Hackintosh-related Radeon bugs...

Hopefully they'll provide the same value for money with Vega. Even if Vega wouldn't fit in any Mac (TDP-wise) it might force Nvidia to lower their insane Pascal prices, which would still be good for us. :)
 

netkas

macrumors 65816
Oct 2, 2007
1,132
311
HD4850 and 4870 times all over again.
number's magic:
hd 2900XT, R9 290x: hot, matches second best nvidia card, at best. amd market share drops a lot. 512 bit bus
hd 3000 series, Rx 3xx: similar to previous series, but cheaper launch prices, market share starts to recover.
hd 4000, RX 480: cheap 200/300 $ cards, released slightly later than nvidia cards, sells like hotcakes, makes nvidia drop prices and offer refunds.

amd should fear 512-bit memory bus, it's sign of their decline :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: duderman67

Stacc

macrumors 6502a
Jun 22, 2005
888
353
As I mentioned in the other thread, the performance per watt is a serious problem. The only thing it's competitive on is price, which is totally unimportant for Apple on the Mac Pro.

Don't get me wrong. If you're upgrading an older Mac Pro or you're building a PC without breaking a budget it's a good card. But as a replacement for a very expensive workstation card, it's a huge letdown. Same TDP as a 1070 but slower.

At this point, you'd better hope Vega is going to be much more optimized, and coming to the next Mac Pro.

Going out and trying to sell these as a $1000 upgrade option would nearly be suicidal. So again, hope we see Vega on the Mac Pro...
Its important to note that Nvidia and AMD report their power consumption differently. Nvidia's tends to be average power consumption and AMDs is more of a worst case scenario. You can't base efficiency just based on paper specs you need to test a task for specific performance and measure the power use during that task.

That's not good if there is going to be a launch in the next couple weeks whether it just paper or not.
Lack of drivers in a beta doesn't mean anything. Its common for Apple to put unique OS builds on new hardware then roll in the new drivers to the next point release of OS X.
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G3
Mar 10, 2009
8,783
1,645
As I mentioned in the other thread, the performance per watt is a serious problem. The only thing it's competitive on is price, which is totally unimportant for Apple on the Mac Pro.
Totally unimportant. Not really. Apple still has to slap their 30-40% markup on top without scaring off customers. The Mac Pro market is not perfectly elastic. Why did Apple gimp the D300 with less memory ( W7000 4GB RAM ... D300 2GB ) and only fill 3 of the 4 RAM DIMM slots? Primarily, that is to stay under the $3000 price point. There is a limit.

Given that Apple is buying in pairs. if the price is $200 higher per card, that is $400 higher in component costs. Slap the 32% on top.... now have a $528 more expensive entry baseline system. That is going to make a difference in units sold.

Price isn't the only factor (just like gamer benchmark 42 isn't the only factor), but it is in there. At the top end of the Mac Pro market ( folks who regularly buy full tricked out D700 and eye-popping 12 core BTO options)? Yeah that is pretty elastic. Another $500-800 won't do much damage. At the lower end though... even Apple's move suggest there is a difference.


At this point, you'd better hope Vega is going to be much more optimized, and coming to the next Mac Pro.
Is Vega/Greenland even aimed at the same class that these are trying to fill? Doesn't seem to be much evidence that Vega is a sweeping entire product line refresh. [ Frankly, both dGPU vendors have a substantive fraction of "rebadge" in their line up at all times. ]

Clocking , core count, RAM capacity , and GDDR5X vs GDDR5, there are enough variables on the Polairs to get a "Good" , "Better" , and "Best for right now" BTO line up out of the same basic infrastructure.


What the real root cause problem is that Apple doing system upgrade and then disappearing down the rabbit hole for another 3 years again. The core problem. Not that Apple couldn't drop a Vega update (if can fit the TDP constraints ) into a incremental config change in 6-9 months after ship a major update to Mac Pro. What is missing more than Vega hardware is Apple commitment to incrementally better service and support. That's the huge hole. Not the Nvidia vs. AMD fanboy cruft.
 

pastrychef

macrumors 601
Sep 15, 2006
4,520
1,026
New York City, NY
I just finished helping a friend revive a Mac mini with graphic glitches by baking the logic board half hour ago. It's going to be a long time before AMD restores my faith in their GPUs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Squuiid

goMac

macrumors 604
Apr 15, 2004
7,079
1,096
Given that Apple is buying in pairs. if the price is $200 higher per card, that is $400 higher in component costs.
A few things:
- Apple is buying in bulk so they're not paying $200.
- This is an upgrade cost we're talking about, so you have to remove the cost of the baseline card (unless this is both the baseline and max card, which would be a little strange.) Apple's upgrade cost would probably only be around $350, so $500 would be a reasonable upgrade price.
- I'm not really talking about Apple's pricing here, I'm talking about the end price to the consumer. The Mac Pro sells to a market that doesn't really care as much about price. Apple could sell a GeForce 1080 dual GPU upgrade for $2000 and people would probably buy it (although they'd complain a bit.) Price is totally the opposite optimization direction you'd want to go for the nMP. Performance per watt is where you'd want to go, which is where Polaris seems to be stumbling.

Price isn't the only factor (just like gamer benchmark 42 isn't the only factor), but it is in there. At the top end of the Mac Pro market ( folks who regularly buy full tricked out D700 and eye-popping 12 core BTO options)? Yeah that is pretty elastic. Another $500-800 won't do much damage. At the lower end though... even Apple's move suggest there is a difference.
Right, but remember that extra $500-$800 is putting it in direct competition with both the 1070 and possibly the 1080. The 1070 is reasonably faster (with the same wattage), and the 1080 is much faster. That's why taking a $200 card that doesn't perform that great, marking up the price to something ridiculous, and then shipping it would be suicidal.

If we were looking at a more efficient card the story would be different. But if they're going to charge 1070 level prices they need to deliver 1070 level performance. If Polaris was more efficient Apple could at least overclock to try to gain ground back.

Again, I think Vega is the only way out here on the AMD side. Polaris has really bad performance per watt compared to Nvidia which is critical to the Mac Pro. At the very least, you could hope that Polaris is just an early sample and that Vega will be much better. But if this is Apple's top end option, they're in trouble.

(It also worries me about the Macbook Pro. Hopefully Polaris 11 is a better binning or something. But at this point almost anything would be better in the Macbook Pro.)
[doublepost=1464806992][/doublepost]
Personally I don't care as long as they finally provide proper OS X drivers. GTX 980 performance for just $200? Would be a neat choice for my Hackintosh.... Guess it's finally time to track down those Hackintosh-related Radeon bugs...
GTX 980 level performance is a problem with the 1080 out now. Apple doesn't have to match the 1080 (especially in since we knew Polaris would not be going head to head with the 1080 in raw horsepower), but they at least have to be somewhere around the performance. I was much more expecting something in the 7 gigaflop range, not 5 to 5.5.

Apple isn't competing with the workstations that were out last year, they're competing with what is out this year.
 
Last edited:

AidenShaw

macrumors P6
Feb 8, 2003
18,599
4,607
The Peninsula
Sources which I can't reveal told me, that there's a chance that you could be right.
Oh, really. There's nothing like hearing "sources which I can't reveal" to get me to believe in a rumour.

hmm if that's the case there may be a chance of vega release
Ice cube's chance in Hell.

After the embarrassing "not even paper launch" of the 480, ATI will go into hiding and look for a buyer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tuxon86

goMac

macrumors 604
Apr 15, 2004
7,079
1,096
I'd expect a paper launch at WWDC. If anything else gets rev'd like the Thunderbolt Display with Thunderbolt 3, they're going to have to paper launch a Thunderbolt 3 Mac Pro. Probably ship dates in August or September.
 

pat500000

Suspended
Jun 3, 2015
8,523
7,511
Oh, really. There's nothing like hearing "sources which I can't reveal" to get me to believe in a rumour.


Ice cube's chance in Hell.

After the embarrassing "not even paper launch" of the 480, ATI will go into hiding and look for a buyer.
Lol I can't disagree with that. It was almost silent.....during that presentation.
 

jeanlain

macrumors 65816
Mar 14, 2009
1,336
300
It likely not going to be in an iMac or Mac Pro until autumn-winter season and I doubt you will see any drivers for Polaris until 10.12. The new MBP will probably have a rebadged card.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3070...eon-m400-laptop-gpus-arent-new-at-allyet.html
The next MacBook Pros are rumored for the 4th quarter. By then Polaris 11 will be available. But if Apple releases a display with an internal GPU, I expect that no future laptop will harbor a dedicated GPU. It will be intel all the way.
 

Fl0r!an

macrumors 6502a
Aug 14, 2007
906
526
GTX 980 level performance is a problem with the 1080 out now. Apple doesn't have to match the 1080 (especially in since we knew Polaris would not be going head to head with the 1080 in raw horsepower), but they at least have to be somewhere around the performance. I was much more expecting something in the 7 gigaflop range, not 5 to 5.5.

Apple isn't competing with the workstations that were out last year, they're competing with what is out this year.
Apple never had a problem with selling "last years tech", and I don't think that has changed.

I don't care if Polaris ends up in nnMP or in an iMac, I won't buy it anyway, I'm just interested in OS X drivers. :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.