Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ
If the $300 card offers 20-25% improvement, for 30% higher price why is that such a problem?
I just don't understand why AMD would intentionally underclock/underpower their cards to the point where they can only charge less for it.
I'll speculate for the sake of it..........
$199-$229 reference - Might top out at 1400-1450mhz with a 6 pin?
$229-$299 - Better power delivery, extra 6 pin - maybe top out at 1450-1550
$300-$350 480? - Supreme components and cooler - Might top out at 1550-1650mhz?
I just can't see where such an expensive card is going to fit in or be worth it to anyone.
Even if you got a terrible reference card (we already know they run cool enough not to throttle) there is no way you're going to get 20% performance gain out of an uber card.
My numbers are a pretty generous assumption of the kind of gains we'd see I reckon. It would be more like a 10% gain for $100 more. This is on a $200-$229 GPU.
I just can't fathom it sorry, and also I apologize for being argumentative and possibly rude
I think it was the comment about being willing to pay up to $350 that struck a nerve with me for some reason (think I have a chip on my shoulder about companies gouging) and I'm sorry about that
Originally Posted by Pyrotagonist
With NV, you have no cheap reference versions and the AIB versions don't overclock well They're barely any better than the awful FEs so far.. There will still be $230 RX 480s, and probably cheap AIB versions that are a substantial upgrade. We should just wait and see.
Yeah. I think in some way I'm expecting AMD to have pushed the speeds for this architecture pretty fast straight out of the box as they did with fury, and like Nvidia has with Pascal.
I hope it's got massive headroom but not counting on it that's for sure.Edited by Waitng4realGPU - 6/21/16 at 7:13pm