And how is that going to happen since GTX 1060 is shown to beat even a R9 Nano at 250$. I can only see their revenue going down. Unless they expect people to be buying RX480 over GTX 1060, I fail to see a reason why any one would want to do that!
Well when discussing reference models, a 4GB 480 is $200 and the 8GB model is around $240. So if you're on a 1080p budget, that 4GB model is pretty appealing. The 8GB model is slightly overpriced, though if you're aiming for that much VRAM you might just be looking to future proof.
The 6GB 1060 reference is more like $300, with some cheaper AIB designs coming in around $260 ish. From what I've seen so far, there isn't gobs of OC potential in these cards either. I'd like to see OC results for upgraded aftermarket designs of both the 1060 and 480.
the difference in my country between 1060 (cheapest version) vs 480 Reference 8GB (cheapest atm) is 100$ which is a lot (in my country)...so i will choose RX 480.
The 480 can have up to 8gb (2 more than the 1060) of ram, and is also superior in DX12 and even moreso in Vulkan.
AMD's driver updates also tend to increase their cards' performance (to where they often surpass their direct competitor in a year or two) because their drivers aren't as optimized out the gate, and also because AMD tends to support certain architectures longer.
The reviews for 1060 are already out. It is faster than 980 and beating r9 nano when overclocked. While 480 is competing against 970. All this while rx 480 draws more power and runs hotter(little over clocking headroom). Amd lost this round as far as architecture of their GPU is concerned. What makes it worse is, i doubt they will have anything faster than a 480any time soon, given how the thermals are for rx480. And even worse, gtx 1060 will have a sibling soon at 200$ that will be competing against rx 480. I fail to see how this is not a disaster for AMD.
The 1060 is about 5% faster than the RX480, while the RX480 has 2GB more VRAM than the 1060, crushes the 1060 in Vulkan and DX12 and is cheaper and available.
Yeah the 1060 vs 480 debate needs to be structured honestly, it's a $300 6GB card with a 5-10% performance increase in most games over the $250 8GB 480. Ignore the fanboys who say the 1060 is $249, it's not.
The RX 480s only run hot because of AMD's poor reference blower coolers. The AIB coolers, Strix, Nitro, etc, run much better. Techpowerup just reviewed the Strix 480, showing load temps around 68C and noise levels below most other cards in its class.
Remember, the 1060 only exists because of the 480. If there were no Polaris cards, you'd be waiting another 6 or 7 months for a 1060, which would have debuted at the 300 USB price point.
The benches I've seen have the 1060 in between 970 and 980. Certainly not besting the 980 on average. The 1060 is a good card but the 480s are competitive on a price/performance basis and they have an entry level variant at an appealing $200 price point.
Not sure we are looking at the same benchmarks. For this is what i am seeing. Gtx1060 vs rx480. 10% to 15% faster, 120watt vs 160watt, 15% vs 7% overclock headroom stock, 76C vs 82C thermals, Infact gtx1060 is starting to nip at r9 fury at lower resolution, and unlike most suggested in directx 12. So i am a bit baffled on which selective benchmarks folks are seeing here.
It really depends on what selection of benches a site uses in the review. The more Dx12 and Vulcan the smaller the gap. The future will probably see the RX480's performance age a bit better than the 1060, especially the 8gb model but the price/performance of the 4gb is unmatched.
Yes, nvidia could do a 3gb 1060 but where 4gb is close to the edge and probably the minimum many game developers will be targeting going forward, 3 gb is likely to be troublesome soon.
In the long run RX 480 likely to be a good performer over GTX 1060. The GTX 680 for example was a faster and more efficient card over HD 7970 when the two cards first appeared in 2012. Now HD 7970 (280x) often beats higher end GTX 780 and GTX 680/770 become an irrelevant card.
RX 480 already has its performance advantage in most of the Dx12 games and Doom running in Vulkan mode. The 480 had some additional 1.3 Billion transistors over GTX 1060, when drivers matures after sometime and when next generation games based on Dx12 become common 480 will have its obvious strengths.
I'm not sure if you're really interested, but in HardOCP's testing the 1060 and 480 trade blows. Generally speaking, the 480 takes the DX12 games and 1060 the DX11 games.
Unlikely, as Q3 increase is usually tied to the holiday season. In other words, higher console chip sales (Sony's PS/4, Microsoft's Xbox, etc). As for AMD's Radeon RX480 sales, that should be included in Q2 earnings already (chips sold to graphic card manufacturers earlier around Q1 & Q2 period in preparation for launch by end of Q2).
when said RX 480 selling like hot cakes, that is tremendous volume, they obviously not going to sell at a loss and apprently their yield on said 14nm is higher then Nv at their 16nm so performance aside, what costs the least and ships the most will more oft then not of course bring the margins up, which apprently by all intents and purposes, it will be doing, then there is everything else, semi-custom etc etc, and then comes Vega then not much longer Zen which has met all milestones right off the bat, which is unheard of for first run in the oven sort of speak.
@Dragonstongue: "apprently their yield on said 14nm is higher then Nv at their 16nm"
Apparently? According to who? Not saying you're wrong, but I TSMC has a better track record than Global Foundries. That said, GP106 chips haven't been on market long enough to get a feel for their yields and GP104 is larger than Polaris 10, so all else equal, yields are expected to be a little worse. Still, it would be nice to have a source.
@Dragonstongue: "Zen which has met all milestones right off the bat, which is unheard of for first run in the oven sort of speak."
That sounds great. A description of what milestones they have met to date would sound even better. A source to substantiate it all would take the cake.
Sounds like you've got a few deleted records in your memory banks. :D As old techie I can tell you TSMC has such a terrible track record with new nodes that your comment literally made me laugh aloud. 40nm in particular was a HUGE fustercluck, and took them a substantial amount of time and effort to rectify even partially.
Also, GF is using Samsung's proven 14nm process. So I wouldn't be shocked in the slightest to find out that TSMC's 16nm had worse yields than GF's 14nm production.
So, excluding those $150 things would look pretty bad. On the other hand that +15% for the next quarter looks nice, but probably expected for a quarter where the "back to school" period is included.
This is huge news. I can't recall when was the last time AMD didn't lose money in a quarter. Its a tough market right now, which makes this quarters profit even more surprising.
Who bought all this stuff? I cant see anyone buying AMD HW recently...
Lol @ tough market. AMD lives in a duopoly CPU market and duopoly GPU market. Imagine if they had to compete with all the ARM vendors. They'd have gone bankrupt long ago.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
42 Comments
Back to Article
nandnandnand - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Anything the company needs to do to live long enough to release Zen.Stochastic - Saturday, July 23, 2016 - link
Let's hope it comes at least somewhat close to living up to expectations.Small Bison - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
"Looking ahead to next quarter, AMD is expecting revenues to increase 18% from this quarter"That would be $1.21 billion, up 14% from Q3 2015's revenue of $1.06 billion, and probably entirely due to the release of the RX 480.
sharath.naik - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
And how is that going to happen since GTX 1060 is shown to beat even a R9 Nano at 250$. I can only see their revenue going down. Unless they expect people to be buying RX480 over GTX 1060, I fail to see a reason why any one would want to do that!GodHatesFAQs - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
480 is cheaper than 1060.sharath.naik - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
By 13$?Alexvrb - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
Well when discussing reference models, a 4GB 480 is $200 and the 8GB model is around $240. So if you're on a 1080p budget, that 4GB model is pretty appealing. The 8GB model is slightly overpriced, though if you're aiming for that much VRAM you might just be looking to future proof.The 6GB 1060 reference is more like $300, with some cheaper AIB designs coming in around $260 ish. From what I've seen so far, there isn't gobs of OC potential in these cards either. I'd like to see OC results for upgraded aftermarket designs of both the 1060 and 480.
gundamnoid - Thursday, July 28, 2016 - link
the difference in my country between 1060 (cheapest version) vs 480 Reference 8GB (cheapest atm) is 100$ which is a lot (in my country)...so i will choose RX 480.gundamnoid - Thursday, July 28, 2016 - link
where and how do you even get those numbers ? "By 13$" ????? is it a typo ? did you mean 103 $ ???Wreckage - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
The 480 kills motherboardsfanofanand - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
trollAS118 - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
The 480 can have up to 8gb (2 more than the 1060) of ram, and is also superior in DX12 and even moreso in Vulkan.AMD's driver updates also tend to increase their cards' performance (to where they often surpass their direct competitor in a year or two) because their drivers aren't as optimized out the gate, and also because AMD tends to support certain architectures longer.
sharath.naik - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
The reviews for 1060 are already out. It is faster than 980 and beating r9 nano when overclocked. While 480 is competing against 970. All this while rx 480 draws more power and runs hotter(little over clocking headroom).Amd lost this round as far as architecture of their GPU is concerned. What makes it worse is, i doubt they will have anything faster than a 480any time soon, given how the thermals are for rx480. And even worse, gtx 1060 will have a sibling soon at 200$ that will be competing against rx 480. I fail to see how this is not a disaster for AMD.
atlantico - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
The 1060 is about 5% faster than the RX480, while the RX480 has 2GB more VRAM than the 1060, crushes the 1060 in Vulkan and DX12 and is cheaper and available.fanofanand - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
Yeah the 1060 vs 480 debate needs to be structured honestly, it's a $300 6GB card with a 5-10% performance increase in most games over the $250 8GB 480. Ignore the fanboys who say the 1060 is $249, it's not.Bateluer - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
The RX 480s only run hot because of AMD's poor reference blower coolers. The AIB coolers, Strix, Nitro, etc, run much better. Techpowerup just reviewed the Strix 480, showing load temps around 68C and noise levels below most other cards in its class.Remember, the 1060 only exists because of the 480. If there were no Polaris cards, you'd be waiting another 6 or 7 months for a 1060, which would have debuted at the 300 USB price point.
Alexvrb - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
The benches I've seen have the 1060 in between 970 and 980. Certainly not besting the 980 on average. The 1060 is a good card but the 480s are competitive on a price/performance basis and they have an entry level variant at an appealing $200 price point.sharath.naik - Saturday, July 23, 2016 - link
Not sure we are looking at the same benchmarks. For this is what i am seeing.Gtx1060 vs rx480. 10% to 15% faster, 120watt vs 160watt, 15% vs 7% overclock headroom stock, 76C vs 82C thermals,
Infact gtx1060 is starting to nip at r9 fury at lower resolution, and unlike most suggested in directx 12. So i am a bit baffled on which selective benchmarks folks are seeing here.
pashhtk27 - Sunday, July 24, 2016 - link
And I'm a bit baffled what benchmarks are you referring to.cknobman - Monday, July 25, 2016 - link
Obviously you have not been looking at good benchmarks.1060 is overpriced for its performance. Not good enough fore more than 1080p and too much money for it.
480 is less than 10% slower, and in the newer API's does even better, while considerably cheaper than the 1060.
jospoortvliet - Monday, July 25, 2016 - link
It really depends on what selection of benches a site uses in the review. The more Dx12 and Vulcan the smaller the gap. The future will probably see the RX480's performance age a bit better than the 1060, especially the 8gb model but the price/performance of the 4gb is unmatched.Yes, nvidia could do a 3gb 1060 but where 4gb is close to the edge and probably the minimum many game developers will be targeting going forward, 3 gb is likely to be troublesome soon.
kuttan - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
In the long run RX 480 likely to be a good performer over GTX 1060. The GTX 680 for example was a faster and more efficient card over HD 7970 when the two cards first appeared in 2012. Now HD 7970 (280x) often beats higher end GTX 780 and GTX 680/770 become an irrelevant card.RX 480 already has its performance advantage in most of the Dx12 games and Doom running in Vulkan mode. The 480 had some additional 1.3 Billion transistors over GTX 1060, when drivers matures after sometime and when next generation games based on Dx12 become common 480 will have its obvious strengths.
benedict - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
Unless you're only going to play old games and don't play to buy any new one 480 is much better than 1060.sharath.naik - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
I have not seen one game benchmark where 480 matches 1060,benedict - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
Then I would say you need your eyes checked, but reading your other comments I think you need your brain checked. Go home, fanboy.Mr Perfect - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
I'm not sure if you're really interested, but in HardOCP's testing the 1060 and 480 trade blows. Generally speaking, the 480 takes the DX12 games and 1060 the DX11 games.http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/07/19/nvidia_g...
MarkieGcolor - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
R9 Nano is faster.... plus it can crossfireBlueBlazer - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
Unlikely, as Q3 increase is usually tied to the holiday season. In other words, higher console chip sales (Sony's PS/4, Microsoft's Xbox, etc). As for AMD's Radeon RX480 sales, that should be included in Q2 earnings already (chips sold to graphic card manufacturers earlier around Q1 & Q2 period in preparation for launch by end of Q2).poohbear - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
well good for them. Finally turning things around and they're looking at future growth!Dragonstongue - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
when said RX 480 selling like hot cakes, that is tremendous volume, they obviously not going to sell at a loss and apprently their yield on said 14nm is higher then Nv at their 16nm so performance aside, what costs the least and ships the most will more oft then not of course bring the margins up, which apprently by all intents and purposes, it will be doing, then there is everything else, semi-custom etc etc, and then comes Vega then not much longer Zen which has met all milestones right off the bat, which is unheard of for first run in the oven sort of speak.BurntMyBacon - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
@Dragonstongue: "apprently their yield on said 14nm is higher then Nv at their 16nm"Apparently? According to who? Not saying you're wrong, but I TSMC has a better track record than Global Foundries. That said, GP106 chips haven't been on market long enough to get a feel for their yields and GP104 is larger than Polaris 10, so all else equal, yields are expected to be a little worse. Still, it would be nice to have a source.
@Dragonstongue: "Zen which has met all milestones right off the bat, which is unheard of for first run in the oven sort of speak."
That sounds great. A description of what milestones they have met to date would sound even better. A source to substantiate it all would take the cake.
fanofanand - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
Well they already met the pre-production hype milestone. :)tamalero - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
TSCM is not flawless, I still remember their huge troubles when changing to the 90nm and 60nm nodes.JonnyDough - Wednesday, July 27, 2016 - link
I also think you mean 65nm, not 60. Small correction 4 U.Alexvrb - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
Sounds like you've got a few deleted records in your memory banks. :D As old techie I can tell you TSMC has such a terrible track record with new nodes that your comment literally made me laugh aloud. 40nm in particular was a HUGE fustercluck, and took them a substantial amount of time and effort to rectify even partially.Also, GF is using Samsung's proven 14nm process. So I wouldn't be shocked in the slightest to find out that TSMC's 16nm had worse yields than GF's 14nm production.
yannigr2 - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
So, excluding those $150 things would look pretty bad. On the other hand that +15% for the next quarter looks nice, but probably expected for a quarter where the "back to school" period is included.yannigr2 - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
$150 MILLIONS. damn...fanofanand - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
Go Go AMD!webdoctors - Monday, July 25, 2016 - link
This is huge news. I can't recall when was the last time AMD didn't lose money in a quarter. Its a tough market right now, which makes this quarters profit even more surprising.Who bought all this stuff? I cant see anyone buying AMD HW recently...
C.C. - Tuesday, July 26, 2016 - link
most likely OEM contracts?Laxaa - Wednesday, July 27, 2016 - link
Two upcomming console design wins might be a contributing factor(PS Neo and Xbox Scorpio)sonicmerlin - Thursday, July 28, 2016 - link
Lol @ tough market. AMD lives in a duopoly CPU market and duopoly GPU market. Imagine if they had to compete with all the ARM vendors. They'd have gone bankrupt long ago.