Home / Tech News / Featured Tech News / Report claims AMD’s RX 500 series will arrive in April as a Polaris refresh

Report claims AMD’s RX 500 series will arrive in April as a Polaris refresh

Update: A couple of weeks ago, we first began hearing rumours of an RX 500 series coming in April. At the time, the source claimed that the RX 580 and RX 570 would be arriving in the first week of April, with the lower end RX 560 and RX 550 arriving a week later. This now appears to have changed, with the report now claiming that the RX 500 series will launch closer to the 18th of April mark.

We still don’t have much solid information pointing towards this rumour being true and with the launch coming so soon, some more concrete evidence should have leaked out by now. Still, assuming this is all still accurate, then it is likely that the RX 500 series will be a Polaris refresh, as explained in the original story below.

Original Story: Back in October, we first heard whispers that AMD had managed to improve on its Polaris architecture further, leading to higher performance per watt across the board. Since then, we have seen references to Polaris 10 XT2 and Polaris 12 in drivers and now this week, new reports are claiming that the RX 500 series will be a Polaris refresh as rumoured, with a rollout apparently set for April.

According to a report from Heise.de, AMD may be announcing the RX 580 and RX 570 on the 4th of April with an RX 560 and RX 550 apparently set to appear a week later on the 11th of April. April does seem a bit too soon for such a sudden GPU launch but if this is a Polaris refresh, then it is likely AMD can get to the rollout quicker than with brand new architecture.

These will once again be mid-range GPUs, with the RX 580, 570 and 560 said to be improved revisions of the RX 480, 470 and 460. Perhaps increased performance per watt will play a factor but there may also be clock speed bumps.

This will tide AMD over until the launch of the recently announced RX Vega, which is slated to release in the first half of this year, meaning we should have it in our hands before the end of June.

KitGuru Says: This RX 500 series information is all based on rumour for the time being so the rollout may not happen exactly as claimed here. However, given past reports of revised Polaris chips, alongside early driver references, the potential for the RX 500 series being a Polaris refresh seems fairly high. Are any of you currently waiting on new GPUs before upgrading? 

Check Also

AMD RX 500 series leaks continue as new details and images land on the web

Over the last few weeks, we have been hearing more and more about AMD’s upcoming …

  • Edward Kinsella

    They are suppose to be 10% faster. If it was an nvidia card there wouldn’t such complaining.
    Its was nvidia who invented rebranding.

  • David Macdonald Ajang

    This brings me back to the time when I bought a 9800GT only to find out later it was just renamed 8800GT.

  • Maurice Fortin

    with all of the exact same problems of poor solder used etc. sorry but at least AMD “rebrands” are very very rarely true rebrands, the ones that are 100% rebrands with no changes besides name are used for OEM parts, for example, the Radeon 8000 series, they were true 100% rebrands to only be used for OEM builds at lower cost for consumer to purchase, they also were more or less factory cooled and clocked nothing fancy.

    In Nv case, they rebrand stuff they know is not the best part in first place, upsell/resell what had major problems, and unsuspecting consumers buy it without doing homework first.

    AMD case IMO, at least they do have the quality of components, and generally the “rebrand” is optimized a wee bit as well usually in the range of ~5% better performance at the same clocks and around the same for power used. so “optimized rebrand” would be a far more proper way of wording this.

    Rumored they are a revision of Polaris so better performance, lower power, more efficient i.e less heat given off, as well the 560 is supposedly the full fat version using 1024+ shader and more TMU/ROP then the “old” RX 460 that we currently have in use..

  • goldenboy77

    my 2 cents the 480 is already a rebrand now another one

  • Sadiedroesch

    Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj251d:
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    !mj251d:
    ➽➽
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash251TopStoreGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!mj251d:….,……

  • Fleming 007

    Its not. Polaris is different from Hawaii besides still using GCN.

  • [email protected]

    I was paid 104 thousand dollars in last 12 months by freelancing from home a­n­d I manage that by work­ing part time f­o­r several h /day. I followed an earning opportunity I came across from this website i found online and I am thrilled that i earned so much money on the side. It’s so user friendly and I’m so happy that I found out about it. This is what i do… http://www.wzurl­.­me/tEXzrw

  • Tyrann

    480 isnt a rebrand, its just a low end card.

  • Kingtastic

    How is the 480 a low end card? Running 1080p at ultra with good fps is low end?

  • Medion

    He means relatively speaking. Look at the Nvidia consumer (not counting Titan) product stack.

    • 1080ti
    • 1080
    • 1070
    • 1060
    • 1050ti
    • 1050

    That’s 6 cards in the stack. That makes the 1080ti/1080 high-end, the 1070/1060 mid-range and the 1050/1050ti low-end. Add in the Titan and you may draw these lines differently. So, some would call the 1060 upper-low-end, and others would call it lower-mid-range. The RX 480 lines up with the 1060, so it would fall into whatever category you lump the 1060.

    He’s not wrong, but the location is a bit subjective.

  • RedRaider

    Your claim is not correct. The RX 480 not below the 1060 in performance but performs better than the 1050 and the 1060 which means is not a low end card. In fact, it competes with the 1070 by being slightly lower in performance in DirectX 11 and in fact beats the 1070 in DirectX 12 by at least the same margin that the 480 falls short of the 1070 in DirectX 11. So it actually lumps with the 1070, not the 1050 or the 1060.

  • Medion

    Oh, you poor misguided soul.

    You actually think that the RX 480 is on par with the GTX 1070? Do you have ANY benchmarks to back up that wild claim? Here, let me help you.

    https://www.computerbase.de/thema/grafikkarte/rangliste/

    Shows the 480 5% slower than the 1060, and 43% slower than the 1070 at 1080p. These numbers only slightly move at different resolutions.

    Don’t like to click the translate button? Try this one:

    https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Armor/30.html

    Numbers are very similar. These are COMPOSITE benchmarks, meaning they each bench roughly 20 games (Across DX11, DX12, and Vulkan APIs), and average the results to get a clear picture where the cards stack up. And the results are that the RX 480 and GTX 1060 are in the same class, with the 1060 being marginally faster.

    No sane person would claim the RX 480 was on par with the GTX 1070.

  • RedRaider

    You insecure snob, what’s this? You said the RX 480 was below the 1060. If that is the case, why is the RX 480 beating the 1060 here in “Graphics”?

    http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-RX-480-vs-GeForce-GTX-1060

    And here where the RX 480 beats the 1050 and is the SAME as the 1060?

    http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-RX-480-vs-GeForce-GTX-1050-Ti

    And you claimed the RX 480 is a “low end” card. Then why does this site say this?:

    AMD’s first Polaris graphics card is an impressive mid-range GPU, easily besting the GTX 970. And with the full 8GB version there’s a measure of future-proofing too.

    https://www.pcgamesn.com/AMD-RX-480-review-benchmarks

    Sorry to have to blow up your arrogant smirk, but YOU LOSE! You are wrong about it being less than a 1050 and a 1060 and you are wrong about it being a low end card.

    But I am sure you will arrogantly ignore those things, as insufferably arrogant snobs like you commonly do.

  • Medion

    Aww, this is cute 🙂

    > You said the RX 480 was below the 1060.

    Nope, I said, and this is a direct quote from my prior post, “The RX 480 lines up with the 1060, so it would fall into whatever category you lump the 1060.” However, after your epic rant, I showed legitimate benchmarks that put the 1060 about 5% ahead of the RX 480, which is marginal.

    > If that is the case, why is the RX 480 beating the 1060 here in “Graphics”?

    Because GPUBoss isn’t a legitimate benchmark website and only the ill-informed go there. They cite no legitimate benchmark data to back up their claims, whereas the respectable websites that I showed actually show you the full methodology.

    > And here where the RX 480 beats the 1050 and is the SAME as the 1060?

    So? I never said the 480 was slower than the 1050.

    > And you claimed the RX 480 is a “low end” card. Then why does this site say this?:

    Nope. I never said that.

    > Sorry to have to blow up your arrogant smirk, but YOU LOSE! You are wrong about it being less than a 1050 and a 1060 and you are wrong about it being a low end card.

  • RedRaider

    Remember, you were replying to the person who disagreed with the RX 480 as low end. And you said:

    He means relatively speaking. Look at the Nvidia consumer (not counting Titan) product stack.

    • 1080ti
    • 1080
    • 1070
    • 1060
    • 1050ti
    • 1050

    That’s 6 cards in the stack.

    So when you say “relatively speaking”, that is saying “relatively speaking, YES, it IS low end” which is agreeing with the person who said the RX 480 was low end and disagreeing with the person who objected to the RX 480 being called low end. So you are first saying it IS low end, but then change your position by the end of the comment to that it is not low end, but mid-range.

    And as far as beating the 1070, I was mistaken and that is because I was thinking of the article about RX 480s in crossfire where they beat the GTX 1080 for less money in what you would call “real benchmarks”.

    http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/7770/amd-radeon-rx-480-crossfire-beating-geforce-gtx-1080-4k/index7.html

  • Medion

    > So when you say “relatively speaking”, that is saying “relatively speaking, YES, it IS low end” which is agreeing with the person who said the RX 480 was low end and disagreeing with the person who objected to the RX 480 being called low end.

    Not at all. I said that I could see where he was coming from, but I disagreed. I find it amusing that you left out this quote from my post, “That makes the 1080ti/1080 high-end, the 1070/1060 mid-range and the 1050/1050ti low-end.”

    I called the 1060 mid-range and lumped the 480 in with it. Also, I NEVER said that the 480 was below the 1050, which you keep saying. You are deliberately taking words out of context and twisting what I said to suit your agenda.

    > And as far as beating the 1070, I was mistaken (not misguided as you claim) and that is because I was thinking of the article about RX 480s in crossfire where they beat the GTX 1080 for less money in what you would call “real benchmarks”.

    Kudos to you on admitting that.

  • RedRaider

    I give up. Never mind. Forget it. There’s no point in continuing. I’m sure you will think that is cute also, sweety.

  • Medion

    Now that RedRaider has given up, I’m going to do a summary for those who just want to skip to the bottom.

    ————————————————–

    RedRaider originally accused me of a few things that were not correct. From his first response at me he claimed:

    > Your claim is not correct. The RX 480 is not a low end card because it is not below the 1060 in performance, and certainly not below the 1050, but performs better than the 1050 and the 1060 which means it is not a low end card and is not on the bottom of that “stack”.

    This is interesting, because he’s refuting claims that I never made. In fact, my original statement was:

    > That’s 6 cards in the stack. That makes the 1080ti/1080 high-end, the 1070/1060 mid-range and the 1050/1050ti low-end.

    Additionally, I stated:

    > The RX 480 lines up with the 1060, so it would fall into whatever category you lump the 1060.

    So basically, I called the 1060 and 480 mid-range. I never called them low-end (as he claims), and I never said that the 480 was slower than the 1050 (as he claims). Rather than admit his blunder here, he decided to give up.

    He then goes on to say:

    > In fact, it competes with the 1070 by being slightly lower in performance in DirectX 11 and in fact beats the 1070 in DirectX 12 in some games by at least the same margin that the 480 falls short of the 1070 in DirectX 11. No low end card should be able to perform better than a 1070 in any game at all, but it does perform better. So the RX 480 is not a low end card unless you want to say the 1070 is a low end card because the 480 beats it in DirectX 12 in about the equal number of games that it performs worse. It is actually the case that the RX 480 lumps with the 1070, not the 1050 or the 1060 and is a midrange card at the minimum.

    Yea, he actually stated that the RX 480 was on par with the GTX 1070 in performance. He later admitted he was wrong here, mistakenly taking a 480 CROSSIFRE vs. 1070 single-GPU comparison as being single vs. single GPU. It happens.

    After that, he argued the first points with me, repeatedly claiming that I said the 480 was low-end (I didn’t), and that the 480 was slower than the 1050 (I didn’t).

    Conclusion: RedRaider made claims he couldn’t back up, and being unable to swallow his pride and admit to being wrong, he’d rather just post about giving up.

  • RedRaider

    Wrong, I didn’t give up my point, I only gave up on reasoning with you because you are too arrogant to see your error, among them being arrogant and condescending to begin with, rather than sincere and objective, thinking you are all you are not.

  • Medion

    Then show me where I’m wrong. You have two claims against me. Show me.

    1) You stated that I claimed that the GTX 1050 was faster than the RX 480. Show me where I said this, otherwise, you are wrong.

    2) You stated that I called the 1060/480 low-end. Show me where I said this, otherwise, you are wrong.

    Copy paste what I actually said. Don’t twist the words into something to support your narrative. Show me exactly where I said what you claimed. Otherwise, again, you are wrong.

  • RedRaider

    Your attitude is wrong. There is one. And you are wrong that what you said can’t be misunderstood. Relatively speaking must mean that they are correct it is low end when it can’t be low end, even relatively so.

  • Medion

    > Your attitude is wrong.

    No, you don’t get to change the topic. I’m sorry that you disagree with my attitude, but I don’t agree with yours either, so let’s agree to disagree there and focus on the topic at hand.

    I asked for specifics. You stated:

    > RX 480 is not a low end card because it is not below the 1060 in performance, and certainly not below the 1050, but performs better than the 1050 and the 1060 which means it is not a low end card and is not on the bottom of that “stack”.

    And…

    > And here where the RX 480 beats the 1050

    So, back it up or admit you were wrong. Where did I ever say that the 1050 was better than the 480? Since you’re refusing to answer this now, one can only assume that you were wrong and just can’t admit it. Fair enough, you were wrong until you prove otherwise.

    Second issue was the product positioning of the GTX 1060 and the RX 480. This isn’t hard. I was clear on this, again:

    > That makes the 1080ti/1080 high-end, the 1070/1060 mid-range and the 1050/1050ti low-end. Add in the Titan and you may draw these lines differently. So, some would call the 1060 upper-low-end, and others would call it lower-mid-range. The RX 480 lines up with the 1060, so it would fall into whatever category you lump the 1060.

    You can’t be more clear than that. I called the 1060 and 480 mid-range. I said there’s some subjectivity for others, but I made MY stance clear. And this from you:

    > “Relatively speaking” must mean that they are correct it is low end when it can’t be low end, even relatively so.

    You are misunderstanding this. That is your problem, not mine. You’re clinging to this because it’s your only hope of proving your point.

    I said that the 1060 (and 480) are mid-range. I said that I understood where he was coming from (using the word relatively, showing full product stack). When the 1060 came out, and shortly after, it was in the middle of 5 products (1080, 1070, 1060, 1050ti, and 1050). It was decidedly mid-range. Now that Titan X and 1080ti have been added to the top, which lower’s the relative positioning of the 1060. I personally still consider the 1060 mid-range (my statement), but I understand why someone might not. I just wouldn’t agree with such a person.

    So there you go. There’s no longer any room for you to be confused. You made false statements. You were proven wrong. And I’m taking your inability to prove those statements as an admission from you that you were wrong, since you’re not adult enough to admit it yourself.

    Have a good one. And this isn’t me “quitting” like you. I reserve the right to reply if you continue to lie about me.

  • RedRaider

    “You are misunderstanding this. That is your problem, not mine.”

    Wrong, I can make your pompous attitude part of the discussion if I want to. You can’t dictate the subject matter. Just like you tried to make discredit my opinion from the start with your pompous “misguided” comment. So don’t be a hypocrite. If you can say I’m misguided, I can say you are pompous. You are the one who opened that door.

    And no, your being unable to make yourself clear is your fault. Your “relatively” comment does not exclude that it is low end. You ought to work on making yourself more clear from the start instead of opening your comment by trying to cater to both sides. That’s your problem, you tried to justify that guy’s comment to they guy who protested the other guy’s claim that it is low end rather than refuting it from the start. But like I said, you are ignorant about the basics of communication. If someone misunderstands what you say, it NEVER is only one person’s fault and the onus lies more on the one trying to communicate rather than the one receiving the communication. But like I said, you don’t think you capable of miscommunicating.

    You violated ALL of these rules and need to learn them:

    The 5 rules of good listening

    1. Be warm and attentive.

    People have an instinctive feel for who wants to listen and who doesn’t. Unfortunately, most people don’t really talk to but at each other. Their conversations can be paraphrased as ‘Me, me, me,’ with the inevitable reply of ‘No, me, me, me.’ To actually listen to someone is a rare and precious gift. Do not underestimate its power.

    2. Show that you are listening.

    Communication is a dynamic, interactive process. Unless you show that you are listening, people will lose confidence in whatever it is they are saying, think you’re not interested, and grind to a halt. You’ll miss out on all the really interesting, juicy bits that people only reveal once they are in their comfort zone. So how do you show that you are listening? Some common and useful strategies include adopting an open body posture, making reactive eye contact, nodding, prodding, echoing or reflecting back, and checking. “Treated you badly? In what way?”

    3. Check understanding.

    Show that you are on the same wavelength, that you are really ‘getting’ what is being said and even, often, what is not being said but trying to be said. Engage with the material, ask questions, provide feedback, empathise with emotions. If you can’t empathise with an emotion (feel the same emotion), then at least sympathise with it.

    4. Be slow to pass judgement.

    The best way to stop someone from self-disclosing is to be or even just appear to be passing judgement over them. Sometimes it’s important to disagree with something or other, and some people might appreciate you for doing so. But even then, there are ways of doing so.

    5. Use silence appropriately.

    Conversations that don’t use silence are hard work, and endless drivel is not always the best response. For example, some things are so subtle or important or shocking that the most appropriate response can only be an appreciative or understanding silence. Silence also shows acceptance and creates intimacy. As the writer Aldous Huxley once put it, ‘After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music’.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201207/the-10-golden-rules-communication

    But somehow, I don’t think you will learn. You are too pompous to learn from your mistakes.

  • Medion

    You are doing two things.

    Strawman – changing the topic because you cannot refute the topic that I am discussing.

    Ad hominem – Launching attacks on my character because you cannot attack my argument.

    I’ll gladly address your concerns on my “behavior” after you’ve addressed my concerns over the original topic, which were:

    GTX 1050: You claimed that I said the 1050 was faster than the 480. I never said that. Copy/paste where I said this, or admit that you were wrong.

    Low-end vs. Mid-range: You claimed that I called the 480/1060 low-end cards. I definitively stated that they are mid-range. The exact quote, in context was, “That makes the 1080ti/1080 high-end, the 1070/1060 mid-range and the 1050/1050ti low-end.” As with the above, copy/paste where I said otherwise, or admit that you were wrong.

    If you’re going to continue to resort to strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks, I will continue to point this out to you.

  • RedRaider

    Ad hominem – Launching attacks on my character because you cannot attack my argument.

    And calling someone a “misguided soul” isn’t an ad hominem attack?

    No, you think you get to make ad hominem pompous attacks and no one is allowed to say anything about it.

    Low-end vs. Mid-range: You claimed that I called the 480/1060 low-end cards. I definitively stated that they are mid-range. The exact quote, in context was, “That makes the 1080ti/1080 high-end, the 1070/1060 mid-range and the 1050/1050ti low-end.” As with the above, copy/paste where I said otherwise, or admit that you were wrong.

    Wrong, you said that AFTER you tried to justify his claiming it’s low end with your “relatively” comment, rather than refuting it straight out and it’s irrelevant whether you really think it is or not at that point because people can’t read your mind to see what you really think.

    Look, I know what I read and you are not going to convince me that you were not trying rationalize that it could be called low end. You are just going to have to live with that fact. Your comment at the end does not change the fact that you were trying to rationalize how that guys claim it is low end is correct, because that is what you were trying to do, whether you actually think otherwise or not. It’s done, that’s what you said. Own it.

  • Medion

    > And calling someone a “misguided soul” isn’t an ad hominem attack?

    Never said I didn’t, just pointed out that you are as well 🙂

    > No, you think you get to make ad hominem pompous attacks and no one is allowed to say anything about it.

    Difference is, after I did it, I stayed on topic. You, however, are not capable of that.

    > Wrong, you said that AFTER you tried to justify his claiming it’s low end with your “relatively” comment, rather than refuting it straight out and it’s irrelevant whether you really think it is or not at that point because people can’t read your mind to see what you really think.

    Nope, you’re still wrong, Once again, you claimed that I called the 480 slower than the 1050. Nope, never happened. If it did, copy/paste it. Also, you claimed that I called the 480/1060 low-end. Also never happened. If it did, copy/paste it.

    > Look, I know what I read

    You also claimed to have read that the RX 480 was as fast as a GTX 1070. Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your thing.

    > and you are not going to convince me that you were not trying rationalize that it could be called low end

    Then you’re an idiot, plain and simple. There was nothing confusing in my statement. You’re making an argument out of nothing. And you are lying (accusing me of saying things that I didn’t) to prove your “point.”

    Again, copy/paste what I said, or you’re wrong.

    I’ll make it simple. You’re wrong.

  • RedRaider

    No, you are in denial. So is “upper low end” low end or is it not? That’s the point, regardless of how it fits in with the 1050. Did you say “upper low end” or did you not?

    So, some would call the 1060 upper-low-end, and others would call it lower-mid-range. The RX 480 lines up with the 1060, so it would fall into whatever category you lump the 1060.

    So the RX 480 lines up with the upper low end, which is LOW END, per you. Are those who would call the 1060 upper low end wrong?

  • Medion

    Nope. You are misunderstanding, though I think this is a deliberate reach on your part.

    Let’s look at the entire quote:

    “That makes the 1080ti/1080 high-end, the 1070/1060 mid-range and the 1050/1050ti low-end. Add in the Titan and you may draw these lines differently. So, some would call the 1060 upper-low-end, and others would call it lower-mid-range. The RX 480 lines up with the 1060, so it would fall into whatever category you lump the 1060.”

    The first sentence is my view – “That makes the 1080ti/1080 high-end, the 1070/1060 mid-range and the 1050/1050ti low-end.” This is pretty easy to deduce. I flat out called the 1060 mid-range. Not hard to figure out.

    Next section – ” So, some would call the 1060 upper-low-end, and others would call it lower-mid-range.” Some and others, IE, not me, because I already called it mid-range.

    Last sentence – “The RX 480 lines up with the 1060, so it would fall into whatever category you lump the 1060.” This is easy as well. I lump the 1060 and 480 together, and since I called the 1060 mid-range, therefore, I’m also calling the 480 mid-range.

    This isn’t hard, you’re just stupid. Also, I never called the 480 slower than the 1050. Still waiting on your justification for that 🙂

  • RedRaider

    Sorry, name calling doesn’t disprove anything. But I see how it is, people that disagree with you are stupid.

    Just say so and I’ll be happy. It’s a yes or no question. Are people who say the RX 480 or the 1060 is low end wrong and therefore “misguided souls”?

  • Medion

    > Sorry, name calling doesn’t disprove anything.

    Quit acting like a triggered liberal. Insults are part of this conversation from both sides. Roll with it.

    > But I see how it is, people that disagree with you are stupid.

    Nope. People who deliberately twist my words and aren’t man enough to admit they’re wrong are stupid. So far, you fit the bill. Only way to prove me wrong is to either back up your claims (you can’t, because I never said those things), or admit you are wrong (when pigs fly).

    > Just say so and I’ll be happy. It’s a yes or no question. Are people who say the RX 480 or the 1060 is low end wrong and therefore “misguided souls”?

    I will address this and any other question/concern that you have once you address the original topic. Again, your claims:

    • I claimed the GTX 1050 was faster than the RX 480
    • I claimed that 1060/480 were low-end

    You keeps saying it, but can’t quote me because I actually never said those things. So, copy/paste where I said it, or admit that you were wrong. Until then, I’ll just keep calling you out 🙂

  • RedRaider

    I’m not the one acting like a liberal, you are. Liberals have disdain for those who disagree with them, as you are showing, conservatives don’t.

    First one:
    • I claimed the GTX 1050 was faster than the RX 480

    I already said I was mistaken. But at least what I said was actually based on something, my memory of seeing graphs where the RX 480 was as fast as a 1070. That is what my comment was about, those ACTUAL graphs from TweakTown. I just had forgotten where I saw it or the circumstances. But that guy’s claim that it is low end is not based on anything, yet I am the “misguided soul” while he isn’t. No, you only reserve your name-calling for those who say something positive about AMD and fudge the false claims of Nvidia supporters as being possibly true and therefore what you claim is ad hominem attacks is not ad hominem attacks but is actually based on how you are, which means it can’t be a ad hominem attack since it is based on how you actually act.

    • I claimed that 1060/480 were low-end

    You didn’t reject the idea straight out but allowed for someone to say that which is false is true, that it is low end, based on nothing, which is more than you allowed for what I said. I am right that it is faster, faster than a 1070, as I said in my comment that you chose to be pompous about, if you use crossfire RX 480s, which I have ALREADY said I was mistaken, which you have refused to do. But you didn’t even try to consider that. So, your allowing the possibility that they are right makes you in agreement with them. You can see how they might be right, but showed none of the same courtesy to me. Until you say they can’t be right in any way, shape or form, even relatively, that they are necessarily wrong, (with the same derision would be nice), you are in agreement that it is low end. Your saying you can see how they could be right is the same as my saying I can see how someone could say that the earth is flat, or the moon is made of cheese. All are irrefutably false and is not supported by anything.

    Ok, so you claim you never said that, so what is the answer to this question?

    So since “SOME would say”, heck, if ANYONE says, and that guy said, that the RX 480 is low end, are they wrong and therefore a “cute”, “misguided souls”?

  • Medion

    > I’m not the one acting like a liberal

    I knew it! This was what would trigger the precious snowflaw!

    > you are

    Ah yes, the ol, “I know you are but what am I” comeback. Good one. Let me guess, you’re rubber and I’m glue? Sorry kid, these ploys didn’t work in elementary school and they won’t work now.

    And good lord, you cannot read, can you?

    > First one:
    • I claimed the GTX 1050 was faster than the RX 480

    I already said I was mistaken. But at least what I said was actually based on something, my memory of seeing graphs where the RX 480 was as fast as a 1070.

    Dear God, you are dense. Read, THEN response. You didn’t answer the issue.

    Once again, I’m not addressing any of your concerns until you correct the follow accusations you lobbed at me:

    • I claimed the GTX 1050 was faster than the RX 480
    • I claimed that 1060/480 were low-end

    > Ok, so you claim you never said that, so what is the answer to this question?

    Saying the above is not the same as admitting you’re wrong. You’re deflecting.

    No answers until you acknowledge that you are wrong on those two issues. I’m not budging. You are way wrong, and until you are man enough to admit it, no rewards for you.

  • RedRaider

    • I claimed the GTX 1050 was faster than the RX 480

    Why should I when the Sapphire Nitro+ RX 480 beats a GTX 1060?

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/3098825/components-graphics/sapphire-nitro-rx-480-review-polaris-rethought-and-refined.html?page=3

    But you are going to dismiss that review aren’t you. ONLY reviews that show a RX 480 is worse than a 1050 or a 1060 are valid right?