Kicking off at this moment is AMD’s Computex 2016 keynote. The company has multiple announcements scheduled this evening, but we’re going to jump right into an area that has been of extreme interest for many of our readers: GPUs.

Ahead of this evening’s event, AMD sent out an email to the press teasing the first of their discrete Polaris architecture based cards. Called the Radeon RX 480, AMD has unveiled much of the product’s specifications, but also its price and availability. When the card hits the streets on June 29th, it will be starting at the crucial mainstream battleground price point of $199.

AMD Radeon GPU Specification Comparison
  AMD Radeon RX 480 AMD Radeon R9 390X AMD Radeon R9 390 AMD Radeon R9 380
Stream Processors 2304
(36 CUs)
(44 CUs)
(40 CUs)
(28 CUs)
Texture Units (Many) 176 160 112
ROPs (A Positive Integer) 64 64 32
Boost Clock >1.08GHz 1050MHz 1000MHz 970MHz
Memory Clock 8Gbps GDDR5 5Gbps GDDR5 5Gbps GDDR5 5.5Gbps GDDR5
Memory Bus Width 256-bit 512-bit 512-bit 256-bit
Transistor Count ? 6.2B 6.2B 5.0B
Typical Board Power 150W 275W 275W 190W
Manufacturing Process GloFo 14nm FinFET TSMC 28nm TSMC 28nm TSMC 28nm
Architecture GCN 4 GCN 1.1 GCN 1.1 GCN 1.2
GPU Polaris 10? Hawaii Hawaii Tonga
Launch Date 06/29/16 06/18/15 06/18/15 06/18/15
Launch Price $199 $429 $329 $199

First off, the RX 480 will include 36 CUs. If we assume 64 stream processors to a CU – the GCN standard – then this brings us to 2304 SPs. AMD has not named the specific Polaris GPU being used here, but given the CU count I believe it’s reasonable to assume that this is a Polaris 10 SKU, as I’ve already seen Polaris 11 and it’s a very small chip better suited for notebooks.

AMD also revealed that the card would offer over 5 TFLOPs of compute performance. Given what we know about the CU count, this allows us to estimate the GPU clockspeed. This puts the lower bound of the GPU clockspeed at 1.08GHz and an upper bound (6 TFLOPs) at 1.3GHz, which would be in the range of 10-30% higher clocked than comparable Radeon 300 series cards.

In terms of raw numbers this puts the RX 480 just shy of the current Radeon R9 390. However it also doesn’t take into account the fact that one of the major focuses for Polaris will be in improving architectural efficiency. I would certainly expect that even at the lower end of clockspeed estimates, RX 480 could pull ahead of the R9 390, in which case we’re looking at a part that would deliver performance between the R9 390 and R9 390X, with final clockspeeds and architectural efficiency settling just how close to R9 390X the new card gets.

On the memory front the card is equipped with 8Gbps GDDR5, running along a 256-bit memory bus. This is the typical bus width for AMD x80-series cards, and the high clocked 8Gbps GDDR5 means that we’re looking at a total of 256GB/sec of memory bandwidth to feed the RX 480’s GPU. AMD’s partners will be offering both 4GB and 8GB cards, and for the purposes of this teaser I assume that pricing information will be for the 4GB card, with 8GB serving as a premium option.

Finally, AMD has also revealed the TDP for the RX 480, stating that it will be a 150W card. As Polaris is built on 14nm FinFET, we’re seeing first-hand the benefits of finally making the long-awaited jump off of 28nm, as this means we’re looking at Radeon R9 390 series performance in a card that, on paper, consumes only a bit more than half the power. This also puts the RX 480 right in the sweet spot for mainstream cards, as 150W has traditionally struck a good balance between performance and power consumption that allows for a fast card that doesn’t require aggressive cooling, and is more compatible with OEM computer vendor case & cooling designs.

Cementing its place as a mainstream card, the RX 480 pricing will start at $199. This is an aggressive and heavily fought over price point that has traditionally defined the mainstream segment, attracting buyers who want great 1080p gaming performance that sub-$150 value cards can’t offer, without moving up to more expensive (and power hungry) $300+ cards. In this sense the RX 480 is a direct replacement for the R9 380, AMD’s Tonga-based card that hit the market roughly a year ago at the same price. Going by the raw numbers alone, RX 480 would be 40% (or more) faster than the R9 380.

Meanwhile I won’t speculate too much on the competitive market from a teaser, but it’s worth noting that this is nearly half the price of NVIDIA’s currently cheapest Pascal card, the GeForce GTX 1070. Interestingly both cards have the same 150W TDP, but looking at the throughput figures it does not look like RX 480 is meant to offer quite as high performance as NVIDIA’s card.

Moving on, along with teasing the RX 480’s specifications, AMD’s teaser also laid out their marketing plans for the card. We’re previously talked about how both Oculus and Valve/HTC were encouraging developers to treat VR like a fixed platform, and setting minimum hardware specifications to go along with that. On the AMD side those specifications called for a Radeon R9 290, which the RX 480 should be able to beat.

As a result AMD is planning on heavily promoting the VR aspects of the RX 480, as it brings the necessary performance down from a 250W, $300+ card to a 150W, $200 card. In fact AMD is claiming that VR performance will be closer to $500 video cards, in which case we’d be looking at performance closer to the Radeon R9 Nano, a Fiji based card.

With all of that said, the video card is just one component in the total price of a VR system – you still need the headset – but on the PC side it has also been the most expensive component. Consequently, AMD sees cheaper video cards that offer good VR performance as being important to bringing down the total price of a VR-ready system, and will be promoting the RX 480 as the prescription for entry-level VR needs. From a business perspective, AMD is ultimately expecting VR to be a fast-growing market, so the company wants to make sure they don’t miss out and have more VR-capable cards on the market as quickly as they can.

Along those lines, AMD’s release also makes note that at least one model will be “both HTC Vive Ready and Oculus Rift certified,” though no further details are being offered at this time. Whether this is just a certification matter or if there’s going to be something special about this model (e.g. connectors) is open to speculation.

Finally, now that they’ve revealed the price and much of the specifications of their first Polaris card, AMD is also releasing more details on their overall development and market positioning strategy with Polaris. As AMD has hinted at in the past, Polaris is being specifically developed for and aimed at the mainstream market. AMD wants to recapture lost market share – especially in laptops – and the large mainstream market is seen as the best way to do that. AMD is calling this their “water drop” strategy, and I expect we’ll hear a bit more about it tonight, including the meaning behind the name.

And with all of that said, it looks like we’re going to have a lot of AMD to talk about on June 29th. So until they, stay tuned.

Above: AMD SVP & Chief Architect Raja Koduri, Who Is Very Happy That Polaris Is About To Launch

AMD's Full Teaser Text
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • bedscenez - Thursday, June 2, 2016 - link

    TDP is different from Power Consumption. RX 480 has a TDP of 150w but it doesn't mean that
    it consumes that amount of power. It consumes around 110-130w at peak but they rated it as 150W for as the maximum power it can get when overclocked. Check the reviews of GTX 1080 being rated at 180w but it spikes way up 200W+.
  • Valantar - Thursday, June 2, 2016 - link

    GTX 1080 spikes at more than 300W - but for a few milliseconds at a time. It averages (even over very short time spans like 1s) at or below TDP. Tom's Hardware has an excellent part on this in their review. AMD does the same thing - the Fury X (which is what lives i my PC) spikes around 400-450W, but only for a few ms - and makes up for it by dropping to 100-150W, averaging out around 275W - again, check out Tom's' review). On modern GPUs TDP is roughly equal to average power consumption. After all, the whole point of the TDP is as a guideline for cooler designers - it's the amount of heat that their designs need to dissipate effectively. Sure, overbuilt coolers are good for silence, but bad for costs, and board partners sure don't want to be forced to make overpowered coolers unless they want to.
  • Rampart19 - Wednesday, June 1, 2016 - link

    AMD got screwed when they were betting on the 20nm process to pan out. It didn't, and nVidia was able to out-engineer them on the 28nm process. Ultimately I think AMD has been just trying to get by and bide their time until they had access to 14nm.

    CPU wise? AMD finally came to their senses that the module design meant way lower IPC. While in a perfect world where every piece of software is 100% designed for multiple cores, the reality is much different. Games are just now getting to the point where having just 2 physical cores isn't enough.
  • D. Lister - Wednesday, June 1, 2016 - link

    "Nvidia's architecture is fat, inefficient and apparently went so far backwards that they needed 60% more clockspeed to achieve 10-30% more performance."

    Did you notice that there were also far fewer cores in Nvidia's new arch? No? Well there you go.
  • Kvaern1 - Wednesday, June 1, 2016 - link

    "yet they barely are beating their last generation"

    Stopped reading there.
  • HammerStrike - Wednesday, June 1, 2016 - link

    "Nvidia's architecture is fat, inefficient and apparently went so far backwards that they needed 60% more clockspeed to achieve 10-30% more performance."

    LoL! Since when is increasing the clock speed (particularly while lowering power consumption) a bad thing?

    "To increase performance they increased performance!" - Jimster480
  • JKay6969AT - Thursday, June 2, 2016 - link

    The facts are that currently nVidia have the best performing GPU's on the market for consumer level products. The 1080 is an incredible card that outperforms in actual gaming benchmarks any other card. This is impressive, no matter what side of the fence you sit.

    The RX 480 is also an impressive card, it redefines what is expected at this price point however until there are actual gaming benchmarks widely available using off the shelf RX 480's after launch then you can't say for sure how it will stack up in real world terms in VR to the R9 Fury(non X) or any other card. On paper the card looks efficient and likely to perform well but until I see real world gaming benchmarks I can't say for sure how good it actually is or will be.

    The 1070 looks set to perform well at it's price point too, but again until it's launched and I see actual gaming benchmarks I can't say anything for sure.

    The fact is that AMD has paper launched a new card that is creating buzz in it's target price point and nVidia has physically launched a card and paper launched another which are doing the same.
  • jjj - Wednesday, June 1, 2016 - link

    Clocks are irrelevant , we don't know what this thing is really.
    Anyway clocks seem to be 1266MHz.
    The real TDP is likely lower at stock and 150W is the upper limit you can feed into it.
  • TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, June 1, 2016 - link

    You are assuming that polaris doesn't have a huge OC ceiling. They remember the backlash over fury x, perhaps they intentionally didn't clock their chip as high as it could go this time around.

    We wont know until third parties can take a whack at polaris.
  • Yojimbo - Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - link

    Well the power of the card for the price seems nice. But the presentation of "You don't need faster GPUs any more, you just need them to be cheaper!" was a bit silly. But I guess that was their best attempt to positively spin their current lack of a high end GPU (something that we'll magically need again, apparently, in 6-9 months when Vega comes out).

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now